White Bull killed Boston?

[harpskiddie]

Runs After the Clouds, or Light, was one of the sources for the Tom Custer's body story - see Walter Camp interview notes.

Boston and Harry might have been buried as marked by markers 55 and 56. These markers were a bit farther apart when originally placed [it says here in my notes].

Gordie,
now that we've touched the hand of truth, we gotta hold on.......................................

[kenny]

There were NCO wearing buckskin coats beside the officers. So it could either be Gen. Custer, Capt. Custer, Yates, Keogh, Lt. Cooke, Smith, Calhoun, Porter and Dr. Lord or one of the NCO. There may had been other wearing buckskin.

[Scout]

brock...funny they would recognize Tom when they had no idea who GAC even was. There may have been a handful of Indians in the village who ever saw him before the battle and he probably looked like every other white soldier to them. Almost all the warriors who fought Custer didn't know who he was at all, they said so. Vivid imaginations run amuck.

strange...there are no answers!

[brock]

The family oral history has also said they recognized who was leading the soldiers by the actions and reactions of the soldiers (Not like identifying someone specifically or anything but just recognizing who the leaders were).

Having been a grunt combat vet and been present several times when meeting an enemy in an open area, I would agree that it is not that hard to figure who the opposing leaders are in an open area, although you try not to focus on their faces because it's easier to kill a man if you de-humanize him. The Indians knew that Custer was well known for wearing buckskin prior to the battle but they weren't so dumb as to confuse a leader with a scout or trooper.

At first I was reluctant to buy into the oral histories of the Natives but my experience has proven that is a mistake. I used to think all the research was already done and it's just a matter of putting your own personal spin on it. But what I've found is the more sensitive information on their restistence was passed along to their Native children with the understanding that the information was not to leave the family.

Case in point: Just recently Ernie LaPointe, Sitting Bull's great grandson, told me the story of how his Mother would close the doors, pull the shades and light a kereosene lamp in preparation to tell him and his two cousins the Sitting Bull family oral history. This was in the late 1950s. Ernie told me later he thought his Mother lied to him because it didn't match the books. However he has been blessed to live long enough to go back and check out the oral history he was told and has found documents in the National Archives that bear out what his Mother told him as true. The most poignant point being Vestal's main source for his info on Sitting Bull, One Bull. One Bull was the informant that reported to McLaughlin and was the one most responsible for the Indian police showing up at Sitting Bull's cabin the day he was killed.

The Crazy Horse family as represented by the Clown family also was told not to tell their oral history to outsiders, the same as Ernie LaPointe. But because Crazy Horse spent so little time at the rez most of the verification takes place out in the field, much of it in the remote, have you're hiking shoes on, it ain't easy to get to areas. In those too I've found verification either in land formations described accurately without ever having been visited (some witnessed by the farmers that owned the land we visited) or carvings that flew directly in the face of 'conventional wisdom'.

One of the larger problems with Native interviews as I see it, is that many of the interviews both past and present were done in a day or two. To understand the impact on the content, all you have to do is imagine a stranger shows up or calls you and wants you tell him all you can about your life or your family and only has a short time they can be there. I think most people, if they agreed to it, would give a very defensive interview. Trust only comes time.

I think it would make more sense if I finish my DVD 'Part 3: The Battle of the Little Bighorn' and make it available rather then write about it in piece meal. That way everyone can have at it and I can take all the enquiries at once, otherwise I'm afraid I'll get hooked on answering 'yeah buts' until the sun burns out and never get anything else done. Alas, life is too short to do everything you want. Later.

[harpskiddie]

Well said, Brock.

Gordie,
sometimes people like to take their time talking, leading up to the point or the answer to your question, and it is a mistake to rush them [ask my daughter].................................

[strange]

brock said:

The family oral history has also said they recognized who was leading the soldiers by the actions and reactions of the soldiers (Not like identifying someone specifically or anything but just recognizing who the leaders were).

Having been a grunt combat vet and been present several times when meeting an enemy in an open area, I would agree that it is not that hard to figure who the opposing leaders are in an open area, although you try not to focus on their faces because it's easier to kill a man if you de-humanize him. The Indians knew that Custer was well known for wearing buckskin prior to the battle but they weren't so dumb as to confuse a leader with a scout or trooper.

At first I was reluctant to buy into the oral histories of the Natives but my experience has proven that is a mistake. I used to think all the research was already done and it's just a matter of putting your own personal spin on it. But what I've found is the more sensitive information on their restistence was passed along to their Native children with the understanding that the information was not to leave the family.

Case in point: Just recently Ernie LaPointe, Sitting Bull's great grandson, told me the story of how his Mother would close the doors, pull the shades and light a kereosene lamp in preparation to tell him and his two cousins the Sitting Bull family oral history. This was in the late 1950s. Ernie told me later he thought his Mother lied to him because it didn't match the books. However he has been blessed to live long enough to go back and check out the oral history he was told and has found documents in the National Archives that bear out what his Mother told him as true. The most poignant point being Vestal's main source for his info on Sitting Bull, One Bull. One Bull was the informant that reported to McLaughlin and was the one most responsible for the Indian police showing up at Sitting Bull's cabin the day he was killed.

The Crazy Horse family as represented by the Clown family also was told not to tell their oral history to outsiders, the same as Ernie LaPointe. But because Crazy Horse spent so little time at the rez most of the verification takes place out in the field, much of it in the remote, have you're hiking shoes on, it ain't easy to get to areas. In those too I've found verification either in land formations described accurately without ever having been visited (some witnessed by the farmers that owned the land we visited) or carvings that flew directly in the face of 'conventional wisdom'.

One of the larger problems with Native interviews as I see it, is that many of the interviews both past and present were done in a day or two. To understand the impact on the content, all you have to do is imagine a stranger shows up or calls you and wants you tell him all you can about your life or your family and only has a short time they can be there. I think most people, if they agreed to it, would give a very defensive interview. Trust only comes time.

I think it would make more sense if I finish my DVD 'Part 3: The Battle of the Little Bighorn' and make it available rather then write about it in piece meal. That way everyone can have at it and I can take all the enquiries at once, otherwise I'm afraid I'll get hooked on answering 'yeah buts' until the sun burns out and never get anything else done. Alas, life is too short to do everything you want. Later.

Definitely it seems the Indians could spot many the leaders, but GAC himself is still under question. From what I know he was dressing down real casual unlike the other officers who were in full Buckskin pants and jackets. I am curious if Custer behaves like other military people or if he's "grunt" like in appearance. I would imagine that Tom, being quite rough around the edges, may indeed be a typical army shouter , but I see Custer as a little smoother and maybe not so quick to snap and bark a big fuss. Not saying he's not loud, but I see him as more of a motivator who would be cheering on his boys as opposed to chewing them out. I'm sure the Indians may have expected more meaner shouting leaders from the white men.

Once again, maybe some of you are tired with Curly's thoughts of the battle but just for some measure I wanted to mention Curly claimed to have seen the GAC "in good spirits through-out, shouting words of encouragement to rally the faith in his men up until the hour to which a shot came from the left..............................." or something in that measure.

Are there any Indian accounts of "happy" soldiers or ones in good spirits? If one such as that turns up, it could add to Curly's credibility.

[strange]

Please forgive me if I went off subject, I keep having big brother George in mind and forgot all about Boston.