|
Post by Jas. Watson on Feb 26, 2008 14:52:47 GMT -6
I brought this up on another thread and it seemed a little out of topic so I thought I'd re-post it here as a seperate topic. So here goes....
What exactly is the evidence--the real primary source, first person credible evidence--that implies that GAC was wounded or killed at the ford? I know of an Indian account of a buckskin clad figure taking a hit. But is there any more corroborating evidence or reports? (Besides what I've heard the Realbirds say.) In other words does this really have to be considered or is it another piece of LBH 'lore' like so many other things. Where did this come from? Fred, you're a good 'source' man, what do you have? Elisabeth, you can maybe shed light too? Anyone? Or is it another part of the myth?
Jas~
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Feb 26, 2008 15:03:27 GMT -6
If Custer was shot early in the battle at Ford B or MTF, Keogh would have taken over command. The likelihood is that a dead or mortally wounded Custer would have been found two days later beside Keogh at Calhoun Hill. I can't imagine Tom bringing his wounded and dying brother further along the ridges and over bluffs - it would not have been his call. It's too stereotypical to suggest that the Custer 'mafia' overruled the next in command, Keogh, and pressed on with the attack.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Feb 26, 2008 15:06:41 GMT -6
Lore 100%. The Indians didn't know who GAC was until later and as many as 25 men and over had on buckskins. Then you have the fables...Mitch Bouyer shot the general, another Crow scout etc. and as Hutton said White Bull never claimed he killed GAC...that was the work of journalists. And 'Indian Oral Tradition' is generally unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 26, 2008 15:11:09 GMT -6
Doyle The state of the command post MTC leads one to belive he was either dead or in a state of mental collaspe. After seeing the size of the village and the number of the opposition there's nothing absolutely nothing to justify his progress North.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Feb 26, 2008 15:15:10 GMT -6
That would be a "wild" judgment call, I think. Clair
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Feb 26, 2008 15:59:38 GMT -6
Doyle The state of the command post MTC leads one to believe he was either dead or in a state of mental collapse. After seeing the size of the village and the number of the opposition there's nothing absolutely nothing to justify his progress North. Custer could have pushed north for two reasons - 1. To spread the warriors field of battle as much as he could, making Benteen's passage less hindered; 2. To capture some of the non-combatants (In times of immense pressure, the mind seeks a comfort zone - this tactic worked before) Had Custer died, why was Keogh's body not found with Custer. I can't see the 'breaking out from LSH towards Benteen' theory as the most organised part of the battle, away from Reno Hill, stretched from the A-B skirmish line to Calhoun Hill. This appeared to be the area where the onslaught began not ended. Your theory is not very complimentary of Custer's chain of command.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Feb 26, 2008 20:07:06 GMT -6
Maybe somebody was shot at MTF, but I don't think it was Custer or Keogh. Could have been Yates, or someone else in buckskin who would have been leading a charge. In the account I read, I believe Mitch Bouyer is mentioned by name as having been there. If I'm not mistaken, his skull was found during the 1984 dig way down from Custer Hill, but I'm not at home now and can't check stuff.
I think Custer was shot on Custer Hill, and Keogh at about the spot where he was found.
|
|
kenny
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by kenny on Feb 26, 2008 21:02:48 GMT -6
I believe it was Lt. Smith that was shot at the ford. Reason he was found among HQ. dead. But his own company died elsewhere on the battlefield.
GAC was shot later. Which most likely cause his brother Captain Tom Custer to suddenly leave C.troop without telling Lt. Harrington to take over command of C.troop and informing them that he was heading over to HQ. When C. troop saw commander heading toward HQ. They follow suit. Which allow the Indians to break threw Custer's lines. And allowing them to get between Keogh and Yates command. Allowing them to run off the horses. That was being held by the horse holders.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 27, 2008 6:51:24 GMT -6
Jas.--
I believe "Doyle" and "Scout" are right on the money.
That is a fine compliment you paid me: "source" man, but don't be fooled. Most of the people who post here have read a lot more than I have. The only thing I do differently is that when I read, I take copious notes. Plus, I have something of a knack for organization. What that allows me to do is to put things in places where I can easily access them.
As far as "sources," however, I have been very weak and the stuff I get has been dug out of others' works. I only read the RCOI last summer and I am reading Graham's book now-- for the first time.
What I have recognized, however, is that even with the best intentions, much of the stuff you read that is quoted from "source" work, loses a tremendous amount of its impact when it is yanked out of the contextual framework where it originally appeared. That is particularly true of the RCOI. I'll give you an example: an author can quote Fred Benteen to prove a point he wants to make, but you never really know how Benteen will mean a remark or how important that remark is until you discover Benteen's "personality," and you can only do that by reading the entire Benteen testimony. To me, it wasn't so much what was said at the RCOI, as it was how it was said. Facts are facts, but you could read the disdain for Reno when you read the commentary. You could also read some sympathy, but by and large, whether you thought they were protecting the man or not, I came away with the feeling that Reno was not liked at all. Reading that "transcript" gave me a far better understanding of personalities than I could have ever gotten from reading "history" books.
As far as the "Custer shot" theory is concerned, the very first time I heard of it was when I read Pennington's book. If I remember correctly, the only sources for the theory are White Cow Bull and a female whose name escapes me. Some how I want to say the woman was the wife of one of the Crow scouts, but I cannot be certain. If so, it's hearsay and dubious hearsay at that, because I don't believe the Crows got beyond Weir Peaks and even at Weir, you cannot see Ford B. Pennington just loves the idea and it fits his hair-brained theories. To me, it is nothing more than him using what's there to weave his own web, to fit his own prejudices. Greg Michno once told me that theory has caused more trouble in trying to find the truth than any other.
I also do not believe "wild"'s theory at all, but he is certainly entitled to it. I also do not think "Kenny" is correct, though he could be. In the HQ/Keogh/Yates units, this is what the officers wore:
• James Calhoun: buckskin blouse; blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers.
• William Cooke: buckskin blouse; blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers; white felt hat. DeRudio claimed he was wearing his blue shirt and buckskin pants.
• Jack Crittenden:
• George Custer: buckskin suit; blue “fireman’s” shirt, piped in white; wide-brimmed, low-crowned, whitish-gray felt hat; red scarf. Probably had the buckskin jacket stowed on his horse because of the heat. ◊ According to PVT Martini, Custer wore a “blue-gray flannel shirt, buckskin trousers, and long boots… a regular company hat.” [Stewart, Custer’s Luck, p. 274] ◊ PVT Peter Thompson (C): Custer “was in shirt sleeves; his buckskin pants were tucked into his boots; his buckskin shirt fastened to the rear of his saddle; and a broad-brimmed, cream colored hat… the brim of which was turned up on the right side and fastened by a small hook and eye to the crown.” [Willert, LBH Diary, p. 254] ◊ LT DeRudio claimed Custer and Cooke, “‘were the only ones who had blue shirts and no jackets and buckskin pants….’” [Nichols, RCOI, p. 332]
• Tom Custer: buckskin suit; blue “fireman’s” shirt; white felt hat. Also known to wear a buckskin shirt.
• Henry Harrington: blue regulation blouse; white canvas trousers with fringe on the outer seam.
• Myles Keogh: buckskin blouse; blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers; wearing shoes rather than boots on 25Jun76. [Elisabeth Kimber: “SGT Caddle , quoted in Conquest of the Missouri. He found one of Keogh’s shoes when he went with the reburial party in 1877.” LBHA boards PM, 6Feb08]
• Dr. George Lord: blue regulation shirt (“fireman’s” shirt?); blue regulation trousers.
• James Porter: buckskin blouse; blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers. The buckskin jacket was found in the Indian village.
• William VanWyke Reily: blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers.
• Algernon Smith: buckskin blouse; blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers; white felt hat. Often preferred shoes with white gaiters to boots.
• Jack Sturgis: blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers. LTs DeRudio and McClernand claimed to have seen a buckskin shirt with Sturgis’ name on it in the Indian village. Godfrey remembered him wearing his blue army coat. From this, it seems he wore the regulation coat over his “fireman’s” shirt, then removed the jacket in the heat. The buckskin shirt could easily have been tied to his saddle or with his gear.
• George Yates: buckskin blouse; blue “fireman’s” shirt; blue regulation trousers.
(I notice one of my sources up there is our very own Elisabeth. Unfortunately, my seemingly rash decision to temporarily leave these boards has cost me her original PM. Now I am going to have to get her to write me a letter with that same information. Boy oh boy! You talk about information! Elisabeth is a treasure!)
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 27, 2008 7:53:23 GMT -6
Bizarrely, I can't find the original PM either! And now I can't for the life of me remember where I found the info. Bear with me while I retrace my footsteps ...
OK, found it: see Google Books, Conquest of the Missouri, p. 379. (By the way, if you try doing a search for "Caddle" in this Google Books version, you'll come up empty; for some reason, the search engine has him spelled as "Caddie".)
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 27, 2008 9:38:10 GMT -6
One book that alleged Custer was shot at a ford was the book, "Custer Fell First", that was edited and compiled by J. C. Ryan, the nephew of John (Jack) C. Lockwood who dictated a manuscript on the story of his life in 1922 about his "dubius" adventures. He claimed to be a packer with Custer but no records support that. He then claimed Custer sent him with a message to Reno and he looked back as they charged the ford and saw Custer and his staff at the front were the fisrt to fall when the Indians opened fire.
There is another thread regarding this book and Lockwood and so far there is nothing to support his story and particularly the part where he delivered this message to Reno and others on Reno Hill. He did join Co. M of the 7th Cav on Aug 31, 1876 which was after the battle.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 27, 2008 10:24:09 GMT -6
Fred I also do not believe "wild"'s theory at all Always nice to get a mention in dispatches even if it is negative. I don't believe Wild's theory either.I don't believe any theories because none of them can be proven.But I do recognise a good theory and I really think we should have a hall of fame where we can deposit board accepted theories.
As you have not debated my theory I shall not defend it but I do think I can make a very good case for a Custer suffering mental collapse.It was not uncommon for commanders under enormous stress to stop functioning.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Feb 27, 2008 10:29:10 GMT -6
It was not uncommon for commanders under enormous stress to stop functioning. It is very uncommon, though, for such to happen to an experienced commander who is not suffering from combat fatigue. I can't think of a single example of where an experienced commander, who had suffered multiple highly stressful situations in his past, "broke" in any way under pressure unless he was suffering from many weeks of continuous combat. THAT happens quite often even to the very best, but it doesn't apply here, I think. Clair
|
|
|
Post by wild on Feb 27, 2008 10:35:18 GMT -6
Conz It was not combat fatigue which led to Custer's "collapse " but social fatigue followed by an enormous military blunder.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 27, 2008 10:42:32 GMT -6
Wild--
What I said was not negative. It is simply an opinion. As for your theories, I am somewhat like "Harpskiddie." I prefer not to debate them; those debates generally lead nowhere. I have put up a number of my ideas, but since I have not yet joined them into a continuous and coherent scenario, I do not even consider them a "theory," as yet. I lean very strongly to the Richard Fox theory, for, with all the "evidence" and testimony I have read and heard, to date, his makes the most sense to me. I also base much of my thinking on my own personal experiences as a U. S. Army officer with 10 years experience, including combat in Vietnam, paratrooper, ranger, and special forces psychological operations training. Nothing more complicated than that.
I do, however, think you have a valid argument regarding Custer's mental condition; certainly as valid as anything I have put forth and a hell of a lot more valid than him being shot at Ford B. The Ford B business is based on the testimony of a "proven" liar and some ephemeral claptrap from a woman who I don't believe was even there (though I may be wrong about that). The whole thing smacks of Curley's "viewing" the battle from some eastern ridge, when witnesses have him digging up hardtack 25 miles from the battle site.
The "new" Fred would like all the acrimony ditched and will only address civil arguments brought forth by civil gentlemen. I would dearly like to keep things on that kind of level. If we agree, we can become the best of friends.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|