Just what did Wier see?

[George Armstrong Custer]

This is what the reference from Connell actually says (p.284):

That night, said Lt. E. A. Garlington, a number of officers were invited to supper at the fort [Ft. Stevenson], so they went, and stayed a long time. Not until early morning did Weir break up the party. He got into a wagon with a surgeon and some lieutenant identified only as "I". they were going to the regimental camp, but Weir disliked this lieutenant and not long after the wagon left Fort Stevenson he ordered the driver to stop, saying he would not ride with Lt. I. the surgeon objected to Weir's behaviour, and the embarrassed lieutenant offered to walk to camp, but it did no good. Weir climbed out, saying he himself would walk. The night was dark and they quickly lost sight of him. They expected him to come back in a few minutes, but he did not, so they went looking for him. The lieutenant found him a nearby stream. He had jumped in or had fallen in and had lost his hat and was swimming around. The lieutenant extended a hand but Weir refused it, saying he would drown before he would accept any favors. Only when the surgeon arrived would he permit himself to be helped out.........'

There is nothing here, in my view, to sustain the assertion that this was a suicide attempt by Weir: Serious potential drowning suicides tend not to 'swim around'! Further, Weir is not quoted as saying anything remotely suggestive of suicide being his purpose. Rather, he is obviously humiliated at being discovered in such an undignified quandary, and offered help by a man whom he himself had snubbed and evinced dislike for shortly earlier.

Weir's behaviour in this passage may well be taken to indicate the possibility that he was undergoing some kind of breakdown, possibly - and understandably - related to post-traumatic-stress. But a suicide attempt in a fit of remorse? I think not.

Ciao,
GAC

[Walt Cross]

I agree with your conclusion. No doubt there was alcohol imbibed during this supper. That's probably what effected Weir and caused him to fall into the creek.

Walt

[Son of A Cavalryman]

I'm back, did you miss me? I agree with Walt and GAC, Weir and the others saw little to nothing. Too much dust and smoke don't you know, not to mention distance away.

SOACM

[Diane Merkel]

Son of a Cavalryman - I missed you.

Walter de la Croix - I love your humor. ;D

CrzHrs - I almost deleted your response to save room, but it dawned on me that you provided the perfect answer:

Q: Just what did WEIR see?
A: Nothing.

[michigander]

I think what history tell about is just what everybody saw, and, in substance, not so much. Circling indians shooting to something on the ground. That's all. And it's not much at all..

[Walt Cross]

Diane;
Thank you for your kind words, perhaps you would allow me to wear your favor when I face that terrible swordsman "Xavier of Corsica". -De La Croix

[weir]

Walt said:

Diane;
Thank you for your kind words, perhaps you would allow me to wear your favor when I face that terrible swordsman "Xavier of Corsica". -De La Croix

We don't care what they really saw. We care if they could determine if a fight was going on.
With glasses they could. And did.
The reason that you cannot admit that is because you don't want to see LBH the way it happened but a mythical way. You just want to be sure that this loser of Benteen never abandonned his brothers while they were fighting.
It is just unthinkable.
Why do you continue to study LBH if you don't want to seek the truth but your opinion of it ?

Fox already did, and gave a perfect account and use of the Indians testimonies that can be considered as honest as the Warren Commission - well, maybe you think Kennedy was killed by Oswald, why not with things you wrote before we can expect anyting...

I really wonder why Custer fought for a so ungrateful country.


PS : not Corsica, sorry. Try again.

[Son of a Cavalryman]

Xav;
No one ever said they couldn't determine a fight was going on, or ending. Obviously they did. The perception was that Custer had been engaged but yielded the field and was retreating toward Terry, leaving Reno's men to fend for themselves. They were actually angry at him, thinking he had abondoned them.

I wonder why my father fought for so ungrateful a country? He fought in Northern France against the Nazis.

SOACM

[Hunkpapa]

Xav,
I see the needles stuck again

I take it benteen is not on your christmas card list ;D

Tell Walt,he will need to Yodel if he wants his "duel" or will "William Tell" him

As far as Weir goes,did he see anything,doubtful,if he did, it was probarbly the indians mopping up and letting of steam.
If the Sioux and Cheyenne had trouble seeing through the dust etc around LSH how was it possible for anyone at Weir point to make it out.
If he did see fighting why didn't he go in ?

PS please dont mention the B word when you reply

[bigpond]

sorry guys,that was really me that posted the above,its late here time for bed.

[Son of A Cavalryman]

So, escargot, Xav is Swiss, not French at all! Shame on you for hiding in a neutral country Xav. Anything stuck in neutral can't go forward or back right. Maybe that's why you're stuck on this question. Bigpond/Hunkpapa is right you know, if the Indians had a hard time seeing anything close up, How could Benteen, Weir, Reno, or anyone else see anything from miles away? I think we have put this question to an end. Weir saw nothing, drop it.

SOACM

[twomoons]

Perhaps this one is best left to history. Personally I think there was something to it. Edgerly's statements and Weir's own statements to Libby indicate more. Xav did bring up the field glasses, and who knows what Weir or Edgerely may have seen between glimpses of fading dust. We probably will never know for sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------

[George Armstrong Custer]

Hi all,
Look, there is a possible compromise here, which ought to satisfy all but the most polemic partisans. That is the concept of the benefit of hindsight.

Think about it: having seen indeterminate activity in the vicinity of Custer Hill from Weir Point, Weir subsequently, following the arrival of Terry's column, saw at first hand the aftermath of what had actually ocurred in that vicinity. In the days and weeks that followed isn't it understandable that the issues of what Weir actually thought he saw, and what he subsequently knew had happened became blurred and merged into one?

In other words, once Weir had seen at close quarters ('oh, how pale they look') the carnage on Custer Hill, he may have begun to believe that the clouds of dust and smoke and heat tremors which he saw from Weir Point were actually the death throes in combat of those whose bodies he surveyed on June 26. Whereas, in fact, he saw no detail whatsoever, and at the time he was on Weir Point, could not tell whether he was watching the closing stages of a battle or the triumph of the victors over a field already won. I don't know, of course, whether this scenario is valid - no-one ever will now - but at least it is one interpretation which manages to include all the facts that we do know............

Ciao,
GAC

[shan]

I keep meaning to get involved in various debates, but then something comes up and gets in the way, and when I come back, you have all moved on like Weir and Edgerly leaving me trailing in your wake. Anyhow, here goes.
I'm guessing here, but I assume most of the contributors to the discussion are American, and that a good number of you have been to the battlefield a number of times, but for those that haven't, and instead, have to rely on descriptions of various aspects of the landscape from books, the reality, when you come face to face with it, can be starteling different to the one you had imagined. Four years ago I spent twelve consecutive days on the battlefield doing some research, in the course of which I walked the battlefield every day, and came to know many of its salient features very well. I was on Weir Point at various times of day, and I could see cars { for the sake of augument, lets say they are roughly the same size as a horse,} on Calhoun Hill, whatsmore, when people got out to look around, I could see them to, no detail but I could make out the general shapes. Now I have good eyes and am used to looking hard at things being an artist, so I will allow that some people may have had trouble seeing anything at all. And yes, there was a lot of dust and smoke in the air that day, but dust and smoke is not a static thing, it swirls and lifts, sometimes being a deal thicker than others. Be that as it may, we know they saw certain things because they have left us a few spare sentances telling us so.
We know that from Cpl, Wylie, that Weir thought he saw many horsemen over on a the distant ridge with guidons flying, but when Sgt Flannagan saw that he meant to mount up and go towards them, he handed him the glasses and told him that he had better take a look before doing so as they were Indians. Even if it was hard to make out what was happening because of the distance, and the smoke and dust, there must have been several people present who had field glasses, men who could see a great deal more, and pass on their observations to those around them. Edgerly seems to have no problem seeing a good many Indians riding up and down firing at objects on the ground, and reports elsewhere that the hill on Custer field was black with Indians and squaws standing there.
I am of the opininion that what they were seeing was the looting and mangeling of the dead on Calhoun hill, { Edgerly timed this sighting at 5.25 ] and that as a consequence of the fighting having finnished in that area some time before these observations, squaws and other non combatents had not only had time to arrive on the scene, but that the dust and smoke of battle had abated enough to give the observers intermittent views of what was going on.
There was probably some fighting still going on on last stand hill, and in deep ravine, they may even have been aware of that by the dust and smoke hanging over those further flung parts of the field, Edgerly says that the firing was loud enough to be heard by the command, firing that may have been coming predominatly from those areas beyond their vision.
I would agree that most probably thought that Custer had been driven from the field just as Reno had, not that he and the command had been wiped out. That realisation only hit home a few days later when they viewed the bodies and the full horror of what they had been witnessing finally dawned on them.
Two last points. If they did indeed think that Custer had been routed and had fled North towards Terry, think just how terrified they must have felt, knowing that the Indians would now turn their full attention on them and that there would be no help coming from Custer himself.
My last point concerns some of those the Indians reported as fleeing the field. John Stands in Timber recounts how Low Dog and Little Sun chased a soldier who was trying to escape back in the direction of Weir Point. He goes on to say that Low Dog brought him down somewhere in the vicinity of upper M.T.C. There is also a depiction by Standing Bear, of four men fleeing back in the same direction pursued by a number of Indians. Now off the top of my head, Jerome Greene says in his Evidence and the Custer enigma, that at least 3/4 human skeletons, and 3 horse skeletons were found in the Luce area, are these the bones of the fleeing men, and if so, why didn't the men on Weir point see both of these events which happened relatively close to their position. They certainly didn't report anything, in which case, the only conclusion one can come to is that these things happened before they got there, which in turn indicates that most of the fighting was over before they got there.
Shan.

[pgb3]

In Hammer’s Custer in ’76, on page 130 he is discussing the statements of George Wylie in Camp’s notes about the Weir movement. There is a tantalizing tidbit where he says that Wylie did NOT know of the sighting of Foley being ridden down and killed by Indians. Then there is the cryptic remark by Camp about this idea of Foley being seen chased by Indians coming from Flanagan. Does Camp mean Flanagan told him he saw someone he presumed to be Foley, being chased at the end of the fight? If that is so it could help put some time perspective on the Weir advance. Unfortunately, there seems to be little else in the Camp notes that bear upon this.

With regards to Weir himself, one must remember that he was far along on the road to his own destruction long before the battle, and most of what he says should be taken in that context. He left us no real mystery, he was an alcoholic who would be dead from this disease within the next few months. His odd behavior on the march back to Ft. A.L. and even his bizarre letter to Libbie are all colored by his condition. And modern writers who favor a touch of melodrama in their tales.

Did members of the advance see activity on the Custer field? Of course they did. There was activity on that field until the sun went down. There were killings and mutilations and looting taking place long after the fight had ended. Could they tell much about who was doing what to whom? Who knows? Some probably knew and some did not. The only absolute statement we have is a side note by Camp concerning the death of Foley, although Flanagan also correctly pointed out that they were watching Indians approach, so maybe he did see Foley die.
PGB3