|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 4, 2006 20:07:16 GMT -6
This has been covered in part on other threads, but I'd appreciate it if you would help this website visitor, especially with the third question: I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO WERE THE FIRST SOLDIERS TO ARRIVE AT THE CUSTER BATTLEFIELD? WHAT DID THEY SEE? MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT DID THEY THINK?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Oct 5, 2006 10:01:47 GMT -6
Diane:
The first soldiers to arrive were Lieutenant James H. Bradley and his scouting party, of Gibbonse command [on 27 June]. Bradley wrote a lengthy letter to the Helena Herald 25 July 1876, in which he characterized the sight as "appalling" although he minimized the mutilation of the dead.
Most of the other soldiers who were on the field on the 27th or 28th of June, described the scene as "sickening" "gruesome" "ghastly" and etc. Some could simply not find words, or didn't want to remember what the bodies looked like.
There are sources too numerous to mention all, but Taunton's "Scene of Ghastly, Sickening Horror" is a good basic reference.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 6, 2006 13:19:32 GMT -6
Harps:
I have the booklet A SCENE OF GHASTLY SICKENING HORROR and it is as vivid as the title. Many statements about the condition of Custer's dead and the definition of "mutilation" by the author is quite good.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 10, 2006 3:45:30 GMT -6
Diane,
The combination of mutilations, decomposition, and sheer numbers of dead must of course have made this a horrendous sight even for hardened CW veterans. And the stripping, too. Clothed corpses are still identifiably human -- and identifiable by name -- whereas here people saw their friends and comrades reduced to so much butcher's meat. (Bradley's first impression was that he was looking at a mass of slaughtered buffalo.) Godfrey's "sickening ghastly horror" must have seemed an inadequate phrase at the time ...
I wonder, though: is the questioner asking not so much about the emotional reactions as about what they deduced from what they saw?
I understand the first reaction was that Custer had simply been met by overwhelming force. It was assumed that he'd charged, as was his habit, and smashed against a brick wall of Indians. Then, as people started to go over the feld in more detail, other readings emerged. As we know, Benteen's first impression was that some, if not all, of Custer's command had crossed into the village; had been swiftly repulsed; had re-crossed the river in disarray; after which it was "a rout, a panic, till the last man was killed", and "a regular buffalo hunt" for the Indians. (He later revised his opinion re getting into the village, but not the rest.) On the basis of the evidence of Porter's jacket, Sturgis' shirt and drawers, and Bustard's dead horse in the village, others also believed at first that an attack had been made there, though that opinion seems to have quietly dwindled away over time.
The main concern, understandably, seems to have been to try to find some pattern in the positions of the dead. Most agreed that there was evidence of skirmish lines in Calhoun's area. In Keogh's, opinions differed. Edgerly said scrupulously that he could not see lines, but could see indications that there had been lines; Goldin said Keogh's men had formed a hollow square around him; Nowlan implied something similar, saying he'd died "surrounded almost to a man by his brave troopers"; but Benteen poured scorn on any notion of lines anywhere, saying you could throw a handful of corn in the air and create such lines.
In the Custer area, the consensus was that horses had been deliberately killed to form a barricade -- though there were dissenting voices even then that saw it as more random than that, with troopers using dead horses as cover simply where they fell.
There was some debate about the 28 (or so) bodies found piled into a ravine. Some thought they were wounded who'd gone there for protection; others, that they'd fought from the lip of the ravine before being rushed by Indians and pushed back into it; yet others, that they'd been running for the cover of the timber along the river when stopped.
No-one seemed to have a clue as to what had happened to Co. C; Benteen remarked on the absence of dead Co. C horses. Three sergeants from C (Finley, Finckle, Bobo) were found dead in or around the Calhoun/Keogh area; yet battlefield maps, for decades after, persisted in placing Co. C at LSH. Whether this was simply because of Tom Custer's presence there, or for some stronger reason, it's hard to know.
Overall, the early impressions (I think I'm correct in saying?) boiled down to three distinct interpretations: (1) the rout-and-panic scenario, with or without an attack on the village; (2) mostly chaos, but with several brave stands being made; or (3) that the battalion was killed "in line of march", strung out from south to north.
With so wide a divergence of views among those first on the scene, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that we're still baffled today ...!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 10, 2006 6:45:11 GMT -6
That is an excellent synopsis of the first impressions, Elisabeth. I think that is, in fact, what he is looking for in answer to his third question.
He is now interested in finding Francis Taunton's booklet. If anyone knows of a source, please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 10, 2006 7:28:23 GMT -6
Thanks, Diane!
I think the Taunton booklet might still be available from English Westerners' ... But if not, there may well be copies available at next month's (November 11th) CAGB gathering; there certainly were last year. I'm not sure yet if I'm going to be able to get there myself, or I'd offer to get him a copy; maybe other LBHA members are going?
P.S. Have just looked on Amazon (where there's one copy for over $72!!!) -- and on Alibris, where there's one for $24.95. Much more reasonable. So I'd suggest the questioner should rush to Alibris right away!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 10, 2006 9:19:23 GMT -6
I bought the Taunton book way back in the late 80s at a very low price. I now believe the price has gone up, but I may have one of the earlier versions so its value is higher. It's not a large booklet . . . but is filled with very informative statements and other info on the Custer dead, etc. Some good photos too.
Highly recommended!
PS: It was not Godfrey who made the "sickening ghastly horror" statement but I believe a Lt. with Terry's command.
The Lt's description of what he experienced is quite "vivid"
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 10, 2006 9:45:10 GMT -6
Was it not Godfrey? Apologies. (I'll have to look it up. Ooops.)
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Oct 10, 2006 10:38:07 GMT -6
There is a copy up for auction on EBay, ending 20 October, starting bid is $2.50 USD.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 10, 2006 19:22:13 GMT -6
Thanks, all!
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 12, 2006 21:11:03 GMT -6
Was it not Godfrey? Apologies. (I'll have to look it up. Ooops.) It was Godfrey. "Occasionally there was a body with a bloody undershirt or trousers or socks, but the name was invariably cut out. The naked, mutilated bodies, with their bloody, fatal wounds, were nearly unrecognizable, and presented a scene of sickening and ghastly horror!" The Custer Myth, pg. 365, Graham quoting Godfrey's Jan 16, 1896 letter to E.S. Paxson.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 12, 2006 22:20:58 GMT -6
Hallelujah, the Crab is back!
I have missed you. I hope you are loving Reno.
Diane
|
|