|
Post by bigpond on Apr 30, 2005 20:40:25 GMT -6
Gibbon's command being the anvil,the more mobile 7th the sledge.It was a good plan,but it depended on cooperation.This was to be effected by Custer's scouting ahead,and when near the headwaters of Tullocks Creek to examine the district carefully,and send a scout down that stream to meet men from Gibbon with information of all discovered.For this purpose,George Herendeen a very competant scout with Gibbon,was sent with Custer,who was also given 6 of Gibbon's best Crow scouts,with Bouyer,undoubtedly the best and keenest in that whole region
|
|
Nomad
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by Nomad on Jun 24, 2005 12:43:12 GMT -6
On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:38 am, Custerstillstands (Hereafter CSS) claims that Terry cancelled Gibbon's scout of the lower portion of Tullock’s Creek, because doing so would have prevented the Gibbon's Column from being in position to seal the northern escape route on June 26th. Furthermore, CSS claims that he gathered the evidence to support his argument from the testimony of Lieutenant Bradley, and an unnamed aide of General Terry. CSS, please cite your reference. Also, can you tell me where and when was this testimony given?
Best regards,
Nomad
|
|
|
Post by Sturgis on Jun 27, 2005 7:39:12 GMT -6
This past weekend Col Keogh, Custer and myself went and talked to a farmer near the north ford who in the 1950's claimed to have dug up the skeletal remains of a horse and a rider surrounded by army shells.
He then called the battlefield and they came and cleaned everything up.
This was on the WEST side of the river.
|
|
|
Post by weir on Jun 27, 2005 10:57:25 GMT -6
This past weekend Col Keogh, Custer and myself went and talked to a farmer near the north ford who in the 1950's claimed to have dug up the skeletal remains of a horse and a rider surrounded by army shells. He then called the battlefield and they came and cleaned everything up. This was on the WEST side of the river. This is not surprising. If we accept the Michno's thoery of Deep Ravine, we can guess that reporter Kellogg would have left the HQ retreating to Custer Hill and fled to the North Ford, tried to cross but failed. He would have been followed by any soldiers.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jun 28, 2005 8:49:13 GMT -6
There was sufficient oral history from Chy. warriors that places soldiers on a scout to a ford north of LSH. There were even accounts that someone of importance (a leader) was shot off his horse in the river, along with the flag barrier. I can't recall now, but I think it was Gray who in his book alludes to a 20 minute delay in getting E and F troops back to LSH from the northern ford. If in fact there was a 20 minute delay, it could only have been to care for someone of importance who was wounded--thus Custer wounded at the northern ford as recounted by warriors. I would really like to know if there is more evidence for a northern ford scout. I was always against that theory, but now am starting to believe it could have happened!!
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jun 29, 2005 14:55:49 GMT -6
I feel that there is strong evidence to support this. There are others who claim otherwise of course, which is their right. White Cow Bull [egad.. I know Jimbo, once again ] was the one who claimed that he shot the soldier in "buckskins" who then fell into the river. The guidon bearer and another soldier were also shot, and one soldiers horse bolted on through the ford, taking the rider with him. Contentious minded readers will argue that this didn't happen and there is some confusion over the ford that this was supposed to happen at. The facts seem fairly clear on this subject that an important individual did get shot, whether critical or not cannot be ascertained, but that it did knock this soldier from his mount indicates that is was a serious situation. Also the fact that the indian observers claim that other soldiers dismounted into the river and helped or put the soldier in buckskins on a horse. This fact alone tells one thing, that this soldier was important enough to resque, and no mention is made that any of the other fallen soldiers were resqued in like manner. Gray and other authors have asserted that after this event the troopers then fell back to the flats and waited, before going on to LSH. Waiting? Waiting for what? The answer, I feel is that they were attending to the soldier's wounds or in the event that it was Custer, and perhaps he was even dead at this time a discussion about what to do next! That's what the wait was for. One way or another a change in plans was made at that point, whether this decision was Custer's or not we may never know. The other factor in this is that most claim that this officer or person of great importance could not have been Custer because he was not wearing his buckskins, are mistaken. The Crows and other indian scouts said before departing from the lone tepee area that Custer did change into his buckskins. While most soldier accounts claim that Custer was not in his buckskins that day, this was evidence before the fact. Benteen and Reno's men were these sources, and they weren't there when Custer changed clothes, the Crows and Rees were! Soooo.... Could this fallen soldier have been Custer? The answer is, yes, and it very likely was.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jun 29, 2005 15:53:49 GMT -6
I feel that there is strong evidence to support this. There are others who claim otherwise of course, which is their right. White Cow Bull [egad.. I know Jimbo, once again ] was the one who claimed that he shot the soldier in "buckskins" who then fell into the river. The guidon bearer and another soldier were also shot, and one soldiers horse bolted on through the ford, taking the rider with him. The ford White Cow Bull claimed to do this was MTC. Not Ford D. Anyway, most historians really don't buy WCB's statements, as they're outrageous and he seems to have been EVERYWHERE. Check out Michno's discussion in Lakota Noon for more on this. Contentious minded readers will argue that this didn't happen and there is some confusion over the ford that this was supposed to happen at. The facts seem fairly clear on this subject that an important individual did get shot, whether critical or not cannot be ascertained, but that it did knock this soldier from his mount indicates that is was a serious situation. Also the fact that the indian observers claim that other soldiers dismounted into the river and helped or put the soldier in buckskins on a horse. This fact alone tells one thing, that this soldier was important enough to resque, and no mention is made that any of the other fallen soldiers were resqued in like manner. There isn't any confusion over which ford WCB claimed to have shot this person. There really aren't any facts, just one warrior's suspect testimony that is not backed up by those he claimed were there to witness it. Gray and other authors have asserted that after this event the troopers then fell back to the flats and waited, before going on to LSH. Waiting? Waiting for what? The answer, I feel is that they were attending to the soldier's wounds or in the event that it was Custer, and perhaps he was even dead at this time a discussion about what to do next! That's what the wait was for. One way or another a change in plans was made at that point, whether this decision was Custer's or not we may never know. Who knows why they waited. But if Custer was wounded or killed, explain the rest of the fight? The left wing was basically going whereever they wanted to, yet they didn't try withdrawing? Or effecting a junction with the right wing, which was the closest help and larger of the two wings? And Keogh was now commanding officer of Custer's battalion, yet they don't even try to join them? The other factor in this is that most claim that this officer or person of great importance could not have been Custer because he was not wearing his buckskins, are mistaken. The Crows and other indian scouts said before departing from the lone tepee area that Custer did change into his buckskins. While most soldier accounts claim that Custer was not in his buckskins that day, this was evidence before the fact. Benteen and Reno's men were these sources, and they weren't there when Custer changed clothes, the Crows and Rees were! Soooo.... Could this fallen soldier have been Custer? The answer is, yes, and it very likely was. Custer changed into his buckskins? Soldiers didn't think he could have been the one downed at the ford because he wasn't wearing buckskins? Where do you read this? Custer wore buckskins the whole campaign. The only change was his removing his buckskin coat and fixing it to his saddle because of the heat. Most of the accounts from soldiers as to Custer's apparel did say he wore buckskins. I've never read otherwise. Seriously, you probably need to open your eyes a little more. Sure, Custer could have been shot at Ford D. Anything's possible. But White Cow Bull very likely didn't do it (at least not at Ford D and not likely at MTC, either). As Michno stated in so many words, if WCB really shot Custer down and subsequently stopped a 5 company battalion dead in its tracks at the ford, the others defending the ford would have remembered. But no one did.
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jun 29, 2005 16:43:13 GMT -6
I'm sorry, but Michno's work is pure fiction! That battle was over in less than an hour. His contentions that it lasted longer is pure hogwash. One author doesn't make a right, get a grip on reality open your mind and find the truth. And it isn't 'solely' in Michno's work!
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jun 29, 2005 17:13:44 GMT -6
Nice response. I responded with something other than "you're wrong, Michno's wrong". Well thought out rebuttal.
Care to actually back up your claims about Custer's apparel and White Cow Bull's rather fantastic claims throughout the battle? No? Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jun 29, 2005 17:24:34 GMT -6
El Crab... Sure. The indian accounts of this change of shirts occurs in Graham's Custer myth book. I don't presently have a copy of it, but give me a few days, and I will try to get a page number for you.
Also:
Misperceptions abound when it comes to the indian testimony. The fact that for years after the battle concerted and concentrated efforts to identify only one ford, MTF, as the only ford Custer's men tried to cross, has led to these misconsturations. If White Cow Bull was to make any effort to participate in the battle by any and all means he would have to do so at MTF! Why, because that is where all the action was! No mention of ford D was ever put forth, with the exception of one instance, that I am aware of, and it too was glossed over and lost to history until recently. White Cow Bull's statements then must make him suspect because no other indians saw him there at ford B, right? Yet if he was at "a" ford, surely his action must be accounted for. His story was twisted to fit the stories that was being written, whether by him ~ out of bravado and wanting his story told, or by others [authors with mental block] we may never know for sure. That it happened, I have little doubt. This action was at ford D and not at ford B, thus and therefore White Cow Bull had to have been at Ford D, especially if no other indians saw him at ford B!
Sometimes we as buffs and researchers must take a bold step forward. I feel that this is one of those times. The indian accounts are so convoluted that little if any of their statements jive with anothers. The person who discovers, by some miracle, the truth by their statements, will truely be a great historian. But seriously, I doubt that will ever happen. There are just too many set in their ways and thoughts to find the truth. And too many that cannot accept the truth of what was. Personally, I feel that much of what has been written has been so distorted by those who "first" tried to find the truth, that we as buffs, will ever be rewarded with discussion boards such as this. Sadly, it is those who try to make a fast buck off of this subject that keeps the truth from being found. If only they would realize thier error(s), and publish a recanted verson of their works, will we ever know for sure, and that, is unlikely to occur. There is only one author that I know that ever did this, and that was John Gray with his work, Centennial Campaign, that was later reworked into Custer's Last Campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Danny on Jun 29, 2005 19:14:06 GMT -6
In my humble opinion, Michno's work is excellent. To refer to it as hogwash and fiction is way off. He obviously spent a great deal of time piecing together testimony from the only eyewitness survivors, the native americans that were present at the battle. I think that most authors now believe the battle lasted longer than the hour the earlier poster says. The only problem I have with Lakota Noon is Michno's casualty count for the Indians of 16. I have to believe 210 troopers would have inflicted more damage. Only 1 casualty at Calhoun Hill? That is low in my opinion.
I am an amateur historian like a lot of people on this board. Although I disagree with some author's theories, Dr. Fox is definitely one I can think of. I do not criticize their books because they have spent countless hours and poured their effort into their books. The key is to keep an open mind, as I have said on here before, none of us knows what truly happened.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jun 29, 2005 19:44:58 GMT -6
On the Indian Memorial, I count 54 names of the killed warriors. Michno's count was the documented deaths. There were undoubtedly more, but he only listed those mentioned in Indian accounts as killed on Custer's field.
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jun 30, 2005 6:25:02 GMT -6
Just so that you all know, Michno delayed coming out with his next book because of certain allegations that were previously made on one of the bulletin boards. Word had it at the time, that he did so because those allegations evidently were true, and 'evidently' in his follow up book he wanted to correct certain parts of it to conform to those allegations. Sadly, I seriously doubt, if ever, Mr. Michno will ever recant what was wrong with Lakota Noon, one of them being his timing of that battle.
I would caution everyone to rethink your stand upon any issue of this battle, especially if it is based solely upon one author. And especially if it is based upon Lakota Noon.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 30, 2005 8:32:10 GMT -6
First of all any, all accounts of the battle on Custer's end are speculation...we have Indian accounts only, but they do follow a common thread....there was a last stand. Michno has done an excellent job trying to put the pieces together in a minute by minute account. His book is certainly not for new comers to the battle and I really don't think any serious student of the battle relies on it solely as ''the book.'' You may not agree with it, it is not a definite in its account. We must listen to the Indian accounts and try to piece what happen from them...I think he has done a very good job of this.
And as far as Fox and an ''open mind'' goes, I can't find anything in his theory to have an open mind about. NONE of the Indian accounts speak of his drop dead theory....he disregards all Indian statements because they don't fit his no last stand theory...don't know how he rationalizes this, an historian who discounts all eyewitness testimonies. strange...hard for this old mule skinner to figure out.
Scout
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jun 30, 2005 9:46:47 GMT -6
The last stand theory has persisted throughout history because of the way the story was told. Was this because it was true, or because it was the way those who percieved what the indians were trying to convey ~ misinterpreted what they were saying, or for that matter biased because of the Custer Myth, and then warped it into what they wanted it to be?
Everyone wants their hero to be gloriously standing until the very end. Did it happen? I seriously doubt it. Custer's arrival at LSH (sic) was at the very last moments of the battle. It is evident by all archaeological evidence that no organized resistance occured there. Looters, plunderers and other battlefield tampering aside, why only there, and not at Calhoun Hill where evidence was found for an organized resisance? The simple truth is difficult for most to swallow. And Dr. Fox has made alot of progress in our understanding of this battle. No, I don't agree with everthing he has asserted, but to be honest, I find no evidence that any organized last stand occured there. It is my belief that once Custer or whoever was in command on the flats after the failed Ford D events, realized that they needed to get to higher ground, or a more a more defenseable position from which to make a stand, it was simply too late! This occured shortly after the fall of Calhoun Hill. By the time that Custer's contingent reached it, the indians were upon them. They couldn't even get into firing positions and the indians simply overwhelmed them before they could.
His timing is all wrong, pure will of fiction! He goes against the evidence that even the soldiers on Reno hill say didn't happen. There simply was no firing after about an hour or so, their statements indicate that the firing trailed off into sporadic shots. For anyone to assume that any soldier fighting silently with fists and knives any longer is a stupendous assertion. And if there was no firing heard, that would have been the only way that any fighting could have occured, that I know of anyway, you? Also, when you consider that Custer's arrival at LSH was at the very end of the battle, just a minute or so prior to the firing dying down, how could it have lasted any longer?
Okay, I'll give Michno credit for trying, but that is all. He tried and failed. Mainly because he didn't percieve that work within that hour timeframe that the soldiers on Reno hill all clearly said was how long the battle lasted, based upon the shots heard. I don't beleive that anyone should "discount" their testimony, not even Michno, yet he did, didn't he?
It has been agreed over the years that the indians perception of time and even space as the white's percieved it was different, alot different! The only way those event's described by the indians and so put forth in Michno's work to be credible is if they can be concantenated into that hour time frame. Can it be done, sure, should it have been done by Michno, yes! Many have claimed that Fox's work discount's indian testimony, the same can be said for Michno, he discounted the soldier testimony in total! Who do I believe? The soldiers, at least their reference to time and space would have been as we understand it, and in reality, it is the only true reference to a time frame that gives any credence to any theory proposed. That doesn't mean that I don't believe what the indians were trying to convey. It only means that what they said has to be fitted within that hour time frame. And Michno didn't do that, it is a great work for the effort, but fictionalizes the time frame and distorts the true understanding of what happened ~ ie. great fiction! Do I discount his theory, not exactly. If he reworks it to fit the time frame of the soldier testimony in total, then perhaps I could believe it. Otherwise it deserves to be none other than a great work of sensational fiction.
In truth the answer lies between Michno and Fox's work. The truth will be found there. But in any event no one should discount or take complete comfort in either work. That they should contribute? Definitely. That they should be used as "definitive proof"? Definitly not.
|
|