Where was Co. C?

[elisabeth]

Current theory (based on Fox) revolves around Co. C being part of the right wing's deployment -- the rush on Calhoun Coulee and all that.

Yet some early maps (such as the one on p. 64 of The Custer Myth, for example) place them with E, near LSH.

Is the current theory unassailable, or should we question it?

[AZ Ranger]

The 1891 USGS map places COs C and F together adjacent to E.

[elisabeth]

And I think that was the general opinion for many years. That's what concerns me a bit; all the current thinking revolves around the Fox hypothesis. It makes a lot of sense, given the locations of the Co. C NCOs' bodies; but it's hard to feel entirely comfortable with the notion that all 19th-century opinion can safely be scrapped ...

[d o harris]

Michno wrote the mystery of E troop. What is really needed is a book on the mystery of C troop. Today, we are able to point to positions and say here I , or L, or F, or E, died, but we cannot so locate C. Even Benteen could not. In his July 4 letter to his wife he mentions there is no idea of what happened to C. There simply was no evidence.
Elisabeth, I believe we should not so quickly dismiss the pre-Fox ideas of how "C" was handled that day. Frankly, despite artifacts, etc., Custer cannot be traced beyond Weir Pt. Anything, and everything, beyond that point is opinion, or interpretation of opinion. We can make of it what we wish. Pretensions of "science" not withstanding.

[George Mabry]

Elizsabeth, Fox placed C, L, and I in one wing and E and F in the other wing because "the manuel" called for the division of a Regiment into Battalions be made according to seniority of the respective Company Commanders. That is a pretty strong argument. Do you know what justification was used in earlier times to place C Co. with the left wing?

George

[elisabeth]

Off hand, I'm not at all sure. Whether there was an alternative "by the book" justification, or whether it was simply the presence of sorrel horses and Tom Custer at LSH that led to it, I really don't know. It seems to have taken root quite early, though; the Custer Myth map I referred to above is dated 1877.

Might it be a factor that until Curley started to be taken seriously, no-one set much store by the idea that Custer's battalion was deployed by wings at all? And I think it's only once the Indian accounts become available that we start to hear about E troop and one other going closer to the river, thus suggesting E & F, and thus suggesting the left wing operating as a distinct unit. The survivors' memories, unfortunately, are pretty hazy about the wing divisions. Keogh's battalion, strictly speaking, was I, L, and B; it was thanks to McDougall oversleeping that he was deprived of B, when they were demoted to packtrain duty. Giving him C might in one way have been a by-the-book move to fulfil the demands of seniority, but in another way it would surely have been a bit disruptive; so either division is somewhat anomalous. It's a puzzle.

[greenpheon]

I believe that Company C played a major role in the ending chapter of the battle, one that is mostly still unknown. That's why it's bothering all of you.

Company C is a mystery because the man who led Company C was a mystery and of course you know I am speaking of Harrington. I address these issues in my book "Custer's Lost Officer".

Company C displayed something the other units of the right wing failed to display, tactical unity. I am not a believer in the theory that Company C split into two platoons, Harrington's company was too small for a platoon to be tactically significant. It was also not disrupted by Indian fire as Fox asserts.

No, Company C remained together throughout the fight and in the words of the warriors was seen "making five stands" on its retreat to LSH. The warriors also speak of one officer remaining on his horse riding up and down, shooting and issuing commands to his soldiers. This officer made it to LSH with the remaining soldiers of his command. This officer was Harrington.

Greenpheon

[elisabeth]

So you definitely put C with the right wing initially, then? That does explain Finley, Finckle and Bobo ... And you'd say that the early maps putting C alongside E & F would be reflecting only their final position?

I'm going to have to get your book, I can see that ...!

(Is it available anywhere other than from you, by the way? Your LBHA offer says just "check or money order", which is difficult for us foreigners to do; in my experience, US banks aren't keen on UK cheques, and an International Money Order costs almost as much as the book itself. Anywhere I can buy it by PayPal or credit card?)

[greenpheon]

Elisabeth, paypal works, see my personal message to you. Yes, I believe that Company C beside E and F is their final position. I believe the last men to make a breakout on horseback after the death of Custer was Harrington and men of Co C with perhaps Sgt Maj Sharrow. Look for warriors narrative describing a leader on a horse with four white legs and a white (blaze) face. Those are references to Harrington.

Greenpheon

[AZ Ranger]

greenpheon-- Is it possible that more than one officer acted brave? Two Moons describes and officer riding a horse with only two white legs as being the bravest.

[Jas. Watson]

A comment on Custer doing things 'by the book' that was brought up here.
No, that is not Custer. If he had been more by the book he would have kept his second in command, Reno, more apprised of what his plans were (as per the book), given him (and Benteen and the pack train officers too) what the army today calls 'contingency orders'. In otherwords a clear overall plan of action, a concept of execution and 'commander's intent' so these subordinate commanders could carry through when effective communication ceased--which it generally does during any engagement.
All of Custer's subordinate commanders had no real idea of what they were supposed to do when things didn't go just right--and that has been the biggest bone of contention ever since...even with historians.
This is the single biggest reason I myself don't think Custer was a good battle leader--but that's beside the point.
The point here is that there is no real way of telling where C company was assigned because it would have been at the whim of Custer at that moment--he was obviously not influenced greatly by the book.
The mystery of C company is one of my favorite aspects of the battle and I agree whole heartedly with D O Harris that we need a book on 'the mystery of C troop'.
I too would like to find a copy of "Custer's Lost Officer". Sounds like a very interesting work.

Jas~

[harpskiddie]

What if C had initially been along battle ridge to the left of I, as you look from the river, and to the right of F; and what if C had been moved forward [after the Indians had got around to the north and east of battle ridge] to try to drive the warriors back so that I could get out of the swale and onto the ridge proper, so that it could face the warriors mentioned? And what if Lame White Man's attack split C in two with part going toward Calhoun/Finley and part toward LSH?

I don't have any conclusions yet as to the fighting on Custer field, except that they all got killed, but this is one of the mini scenarios I've been considering.

Ranger: how dare you suggest that there might have been more than one brave man!!! Everyone knows that it was a panic rout, that you could take a handful of corn and throw it over the field and make lines such as were displayed there, that the only reason anybody wound up on LSH is because they wre so scared that they thought running uphill was better than running downhill.................

PS if you ever happen to go by Littlefield, wave to the folks for me.

[elisabeth]

harpskiddie: hmmm, yes, that could work.

Are you going on the assumption that Co. I was in the swale all along?

[harpskiddie]

On the military crest of the ridge, which is the slope leading from the ridge to the swale, with C in the same line stretching toward. That would be the natural positioning to face an enemy coming up from the river. I'm imagining [this is all at the stage before you get to conjecture] that the line at Calhoun was along that ridge with the flanks slightly refused, covering from Finley to Crittenden. The spacing would have to have been beyond normal skirmish order.

Then I see Keogh and Tom Custer along Battle Ridge, F on the north and east of LSH, contacting C, and E down the slope toward the cemetery, contacting F. When the warriors got around and behind the ridges east of Battle Ridge, the LSH and Battle Ridge dispositions would have to be altered, with F taking positon on top of the knoll, around where the Custer marker now is, and a little along the top of Bsttle Ridge toward C. C and I would have to move up onto the ridge to avoid being sitting ducks, and when the warriors got too close in front, I can see one of the companies moving down to try to disperse them. I picked C because that would explain how they came to be in two places, and also the bodies that were found between Greasy Grass Hill and Deep Ravine, and there are not many I men strewn about, except along the swale. One must remember that the markers are not necessarily where they should be. They might have been, and probably were, moved when the ridge was levelled and the road built.

If one assumes that C actually moved from Finley toward LSH, one must wonder how they actually managed to do it and have anybody live to get there. I'm just trying to get where the evidence leads. As I said this ain't even a theory yet, let alone a conclusion

"Soon the stranger started talkin' - made it plain to folks around - ne was an Arizona Ranger, wouldn't be too long in town. Said he'd come to take an outlaw back alive, or maybe dead. And he said it didn't matter. He was after Texas Red."

[greenpheon]

With a big iron on his hip!