|
Post by Tony on Sept 5, 2006 8:39:22 GMT -6
didn't have time to read all the post on this subject, but it seems to me that the "bravest man" story occurred during the "baffalo hunt" sequence ( run from Calhoun and Keogh sectors to LSH). Wasn't Custer already on LSH when Calhoun Hill and Keogh sector were over run? If so, then he could not have been the man that stoped several times to protect fleeing soldiers in retreat.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 5, 2006 22:20:28 GMT -6
Did anyone but Burkman ever mention a note in Cooke's hand? I find it real hard to imagine that he took time out to write it while fighting for his life--but, who knows? I have also heard that is was Keogh holding Comanche's reins that kept the Indians from taking him, as well as that Comanche was too badly wounded for them to want him. John Doerner, in that stupendous Friday evening address, told us that he thought Custer fell pretty much right on top of the hill, but was buried farther down the slope where the marker is. Clearly there are several different opinions here!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 6, 2006 0:24:02 GMT -6
Foley also mentions the note, and claims to have read it -- he quotes it. I'm not sure there isn't another trooper who talks about it, too.
There are quite a few note stories! Another is: a Brule named Charging Hawk told Camp (Camp, Custer, and the Little Bighorn, p. 93) that "after the fight on Custer Ridge, one of the cavalry dogs was seen with a note tied to its neck, going back on the trail. The Indians shot at him, but the dog escaped". Hardorff's footnote says that Two Moons mentioned the dog as well, and that it was yellow; and that Burkman said it belonged to Co. I. Yet more confusion here, however, as others (again in this footnote) say it was a black and white bulldog named Joe Bush, also belonging to Co. I, and that he was recovered from the Indians some years later. Minus any note, alas.
Yes, I've heard the Keogh/reins story too -- Little Soldier, isn't it? -- but have never heard the same thing atributed to Custer ...
|
|
|
Post by sonofacavalryman on Sept 7, 2006 9:04:41 GMT -6
Here's a few words on Vic from the History Channel Forum posted by General76 and Jimbo. Thought ya'll might find them educational.
Son of a Cavalryman
Vic was a gelding. The name is short for Victory and not Victoria.
Vic was killed on the battlefield. There are some conflicting locations on the horse. Some say he was seen east of Battle Ridge in the Keogh Sector. Others firmly state he was found on the top of Last Stand Hill with his master. I lean toward the Last Stand Hill location since Custer died there. I find it hard to believe he was unhorsed while going through the Keogh Sector. If so going down to Ford D and then back to Cemetery Ridge, the flats, Deep Ravine, the basin, and then Last Stand Hill is a long walk for the commander. I think the horse and Custer made it to the hill in fine shape only to meet their demise there.
John Burkman, the private that took care of Vic stated he heard that Custer's horse was killed on the hill.
There are some Indian reports that certain warriors might have captured Custer's horse. After the battle one warrior asked another if he had a good horse and the warrior apparently stated I know it is a good horse, it was Custer's. Now testimony like this is completely false and comes after the fact. The warriors had no idea they were even fighting Custer at the time. And even if Ambrose wants to say Custer was recognized on the field by certain warriors, that just simply isn't the case. Most thought it was Crook attacking again. So the whole thing about the Indians knowing it was Custer and recognizing him and then taking his horse is incorrect.
Add to it the soldier testimony on the horse being killed on the field and the Indian claims really seem to be mistaken.
As for Vic himself before the Little Bighorn. He was foaled in 1864 by Uncle Vic out of Magnolia. Lexington and Glencoe were grand sires. Vic was originally owned by J. G. Bethune. Vic was considered a chestnut, which is more of a reddish color, but back in those days chestnut and sorrel were placed in the same category. It is very possible that Vic was more of a tan or blood colored sorrel than a reddish chestnut. Remember that some survivors stated thay found sorrels up on top of the hill where Custer was. No doubt Vic was one of these horses. Vic was a racing horse and his list of races reads like this...
17 races 7 wins 5 second place finishes 1 third place finishes
Once the horses racing career was over it looked as if his stud career would be next. But it never happened. The winning horse was bought by General Custer in 1873 through the assistance of a friend named Daniel Swigert. Hardorff suggests that the price paid for the horse was under 500.00. How he came up with that number is a mystery.
jimbo117 Posts: 1,812 Registered: 8/19/00 Ignore Member Re: Vic Was He Killed at LBH or Taken by Indians? Posted: Sep 5, 2006 12:41 AM (3 of 8) Report There is a great deal of confusion when it comes to Vic. The gelding/mare controversy seems to stem from John Burkman. In Wagners "Old Neutriment" Burkman refers to Vic as a mare yet other authorities seem pretty certain that the horse was a gelding. As to what ultimately happened to Vic no one can be certain. Burkman claimed that he did not visit LSH and had no idea what happened to Vic. McClernand claimed that Vic was found 100-150 feet from LSH in the direction of the Keough Sector. McClernand seemed to think that Custer had become unhorsed at this point and that led to LSH becoming the rally point for the command. Bourke claims that Vic was found on LSH. Indian stories recall the horses bolting from LSH and if Vic were still alive he could have been one of these horses. There are several stories that place the horse with Gray Earth Track yet there are just as many that indicate that the horse that GET (aka Noisy Walking) secured was that of Lt. Harrington. Among one of the more interesting Indian recollections was that of Respects Nothing. He claims to have seen a horse that fit the description as well as Custers buckskin clothing. One must keep in mind that most of these Indian accounts were collected after the fact and by then all the warrior participants were well aware that they had fought Custer. There is also the fact that Vic was not the only blaze faced sorrel with white fetlocks on the field. Vic could have died in any one of these aforementioned places or he could have been captured by the Indians and accompanied Sitting Bull to Canada. There is an interesting statement by Burkman in which he claimed Custers other horse (Dandy) was killed in the valley fight.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 7, 2006 9:58:54 GMT -6
There would have been much more solid evidence for everything, except trainloads of children came out to the battlefield for picnics and moved the evidence from one place to another, or else carted it away entirely, or else planted new evidence.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 7, 2006 14:33:50 GMT -6
SOACM-- I think the best quote that came out of your History Channel pals was, "As to what ultimately happened to Vic no one can be certain." I might be a bit different than several others on this board; I can easily accept uncertainty when it comes to a lot of the Custer battle. I do think DC--for all of his "confirmed grumbler" status--might be on to something when a search for closure--even with a horse--might have come out of the psychological needs of a country and time period. BTW ... didn't GP ask to use this information? Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by sonofacavalryman on Sept 8, 2006 14:48:29 GMT -6
Who is GP? And what does he know anyway? If he asked I guess he was a day late. Son of a Cavalryman
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 8, 2006 20:51:24 GMT -6
There are three main colors of horses chestnut(red points-mane ,tail, legs), bay(black points- mane ,tail, legs) and black( black points- mane ,tail, legs). Sorrel is on the lighter end of chestnut colors with liver chestnut and dark chestnut at the other end.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 9, 2006 3:42:05 GMT -6
Thanks for that clarification, AZ. That's especially helpful for us Brits, as we don't have the "sorrel" classification at all -- just light chestnut, dark chestnut, and liver chestnut. Or plain "chestnut" to cover all variations within the spectrum.
Do we know whether Indians made the same distinctions? It might be useful to know whether what was translated as "sorrel" meant a specific shade of chestnut or not. My guess would be that with horses being so central to the culture, they probably had a far greater and more precise range of adjectives than the whites did/do (just as, proverbially, the Eskimos have 40 different words for snow) -- but of course I could be wrong. Only a fluent speaker or sign-language expert could tell us for sure, I suppose ...
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Sept 9, 2006 10:32:28 GMT -6
Interesting points about a true Sorrel (which my parents used to call Red Chestnut when they were raising quarter horses) is that true sorrels often have amber eyes, red blond manes and pinkish striated hooves.
when the light hits their coats and mane, there is a very faint pinkish glow to it.
to split hairs - the palimino is the "lightest" of the sorrels.
i like the sorrel of the Belgian draft horses, myself
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 10, 2006 18:30:43 GMT -6
You are correct that a palomino comes from a chestnut or sorrel But it must have a gene that turns the red to yellow. A liver chestnut with the gene would be a sooty palomino and the sorrel with the gene a palomino.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Sept 10, 2006 20:32:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 12, 2006 11:52:33 GMT -6
Thanks George. That sure cleared it up for me. I'm not certain I can even tell a horse from a tree anymore after trying to sort through all of that info. Thank God for UC Davis.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 12, 2006 15:01:09 GMT -6
They're all brown....so much easier.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 21, 2006 8:29:33 GMT -6
I wonder what the Indian words are before translation for four legs and forelegs. After translation is the person who wrote the translated account the same person (the translator). Since the bravest man is described by different Indian accounts as having a horse with two white front legs, forelegs, or with four white legs either one is wrong, the translation is wrong, or there is more than one brave man. (or he had two horses)
Bravery is is in the of the beholder and no Indian could have seen the whole battlefield and every act of bravery. They certainly didn't have a meeting after the battle to vote on the bravest white man to die that day did they?
|
|