|
|
Post by Mike Nunnally on Jun 30, 2005 14:30:46 GMT -6
I'll go with the Indian accounts....and no I don't think they have been changed...not everything is a conspiracy even though you make it sound like it is. You need to go back and read Kate Bighead's account...no one was ''standing gloriously'' at the LS. they lay behind their horses and stuck their heads up only to fire shots....sounds real to me.....you keep saying why was no evidence [shells] found on LSH. People have picked up shells on LSH for years....soldiers that later camped on the battlefield, locals tell tales of having picnics there and collecting shells there, years and years of souvenir hunters and you scratch your head and can't understand why nothings been found? The iron fence wasn't erected until 1915. souvenir hunters carved Custer's wooden cross tombstone literally to pieces and chipped one granite one away before the fence was erected looking for relics.....and you still say ''no evidence'' was found.......what part of this is it that you don't understand? I don't believe in your drop dead theory....there were over 80 troopers on that hill and they were heavily armed and dangerous.....the Indians didn't dare rush in, they weren't that stupid....Kate Bighead says several of the young warriors tried this and lost their lives.
You say Michno ''discounted soldiers testimony''.....didn't know any survived the LS.
Who is this by the way?
Scout
|
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jul 1, 2005 0:41:40 GMT -6
Some of the soldiers who commented on the firing had an agenda. The longer its presented that they sat idly by, listening to firing in the direction of Custer's battle, the worse they look.
Michno doesn't say the last stand took 2 hours. He says from the first light firing near the ford and on the ridges above to the Last Stand and mopping up, was about two hours. An hour or so of long distance fighting and relative stability. And then the rest of the time is the turning point and the collapse. Its plausible.
I love it when people say "no, this is not possible, this person has no clue because he didn't do this". Its all speculation. I think Fox is incorrect on the C Company charge. I still think it fits E Company to a tee. To his credit, he is open to being wrong (not that he admitted he was) and open to other theories. And when I talked with him on the field, I got the idea that the "no last stand" aspect was misinterpreted. He said there wasn't a heroic last stand (agreed), and the last of the soldiers ran for the river and died on that run. Thus, the last of the fight was these running soldiers. These kinds of things happen when you condense hundreds of pages of a book into one sentence.
Fox also mentioned something that he thinks happened that he didn't put in his works, and that was the possibility of a dismounted charge by L Company to push back the warriors. Rather interesting to hear that, as I believe he said we were the first people he told of this new theory of his. And we were standing on Calhoun Hill, no less.
Anyway, don't put much stock into the soldier testimony. Much of it was influenced by agendas and/or hindsight. I really think what they saw from Weir wasn't the aftermath of the fight, but the aftermath of the right wing. Of course, there was nothing they could have done to save the few left on LSH when this was going on.
Interesting, that few if any accounts that I've seen mention warriors finishing off the soldiers on Custer's field, then seeing those on Weir Point. It has always led me to believe those going after Weir et al were not the same ones finishing off Custer's battalion. I just haven't seen any accounts that essentially said "we killed off the last few soldiers on the hill and then saw the soldiers to the south..."
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Jul 1, 2005 6:28:13 GMT -6
Anyway, don't put much stock into the soldier testimony. Much of it was influenced by agendas and/or hindsight. I really think what they saw from Weir wasn't the aftermath of the fight, but the aftermath of the right wing. Of course, there was nothing they could have done to save the few left on LSH when this was going on. Interesting, that few if any accounts that I've seen mention warriors finishing off the soldiers on Custer's field, then seeing those on Weir Point. It has always led me to believe those going after Weir et al were not the same ones finishing off Custer's battalion. I just haven't seen any accounts that essentially said "we killed off the last few soldiers on the hill and then saw the soldiers to the south..." yes , i agree , for me from weir point soldiers could only see cahloun hill because of the powder , grace coups where against these soldiers , battle on last stand hill was not finished yet , indians who went againt weir where the one from the cahloun field , some hundreds of these where enough to force the retreat form weir point while some other hundreds where finishing the battle on custer hill ( here now there was little firing , soldiers where short of ammunitions and in depression and indians used almost only arrows from distance and body fight in the last assolut as indians told ) |
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jul 1, 2005 7:10:03 GMT -6
El Crab ~
How many soldiers atop Reno Hill heard the firing in the direction of LSH? Produce a list of "all" those who heard the firing, then tell me that they "all" had agenda's? No El Crab, they didn't. I wasn't just referring to Weir Point and it's part in this, I was referring to "all the soldiers" atop or in the vicinity of Reno Hill, from the onset of when they heard it, until they heard it die down. And yes I definitly take stock in what Reno, Benteen and others heard, and no I don't believe that they had any agenda's what-so-ever. Placing myself in their situation, for good or ill, I could never ever place my self interest above and beyond helping to save my friends over and above my hatred for just ~ one man, could you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jul 1, 2005 7:43:34 GMT -6
You said Fox never said there was ''no last stand,'' just no ''heroic'' last stand....huh? talk about gobbly-gook, the question is about whether the soldiers put up a defensive fight. How in the sam-hill does the word ''heroic'' figure into the argument of a last stand? Fox's whole claim is based on lack of shell casings he didn't find...how does a ''heroic last stand'' differ from just a plain old, ordinary last stand? It doesn't matter if it lasted 15 minutes or 2 hours....it was a last stand regardless of any theories or adjectives to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jul 1, 2005 8:33:39 GMT -6
Scout ~ IT WASN'T ME WHO SAID THAT. Having said that. Please direct your question to the party in question, which was, EL CRAB. Thanks.
I will however respond to this, by replying to a question that was directed twoards me.
Mike Nunnally ~
I personally don't believe that there was any conspiracy, where you got that notion is beyond me. I beleive however, that back in those times the reporters or whatever you wish to call them didn't completely understand what the indians were conveying to them. This has contributed alot to our misunderstanding of what happened.
The indians as I have said had at that time no time and/or spatial concept in which to express what they were trying to convey. The question definitely needs to be addressed when we examine their testimonies: Which Hill, Calhoun, LSH, The Flats etc. were they referring to when they made their statements? Several indians referred to charges by individual indian braves that were repulsed, which hill?
One perception of this is that people want/need/desire/wish that their hero died valiantly. In this so did those who took the indian testimonies. Did they cant the testimonies into stories of their own will in this regard? Conspiracy, no, just as your own theories are, they too had theirs, and in this they had to have a "sensational story." Even today this is a perpetual revolving door, a prime example of this is the sensational account by Nightengale in Wild West magazine. Great fictional reading, with little or next to nothing to contribute.
I never personally claimed that there was no last stand. Somewhere on the battlefield there was, I suppose a Last stand, whether it was at LSH, the Ravine or as some have asserted Calhoun hill, is still open for debate ~ perhaps on another thread.
As for Custer Hill, I don't believe that there was any "organized resistance" there. Resistance, yes ~ it was, if you will, every man for himself. When they arrived there it was too late to form any organized resistance, the indians were too close and dispersed in such a manner for the soldiers to form a standard defensive postion. The fight at LSH could not have lasted more than 5 to 10 minutes, at best.
The references that I made was those soldiers who heard the firing from Reno Hill. If you go back and read it again, I think you will find that I did say that. These are the "discounted soldiers" testimonies that Michno either forgot about, or didn't want in his book. The time references they made in regard to hearing the firing spanned only about 1 hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jul 1, 2005 10:00:22 GMT -6
Just two quick points---one, what they saw from Weir Point could not have only been the destruction of Calhoun Hill--they saw squaws standing there--squaws would not have been on the battlefield if LSH was still a hotly debated issue--if the battle was still going on the squaws would still have been in the village, or where ever--there was ample testimony that the squaws did not come onto the field until the last soldiers were killed.
Next--doesn't that fact that horses were killed in a Cemi-circle on LSH give credence to the fact that a intelligent resistance was taking place? To have the presence of mind to position horses and shot them for Brest work surely leads to the fact that someone was thinking and leading a resistance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jul 1, 2005 14:39:42 GMT -6
Absolution,
My point on the last stand was not directed at you....I never addressed it as such. The comments were in response to El Crabo....and I know you never claimed there was no last stand.....my comments are in regard to Fox's theory only....that is what we were talking about. My conspiracy comments are directed at those that believe in such things.
Now, that having been said, I think you are right about the every man for himself comment...but I gotta think the 5 to 10 minute last stand is interesting at best...can't say yay, can't say nay....personally, I think it lasted longer....but I, like you, have no concrete proof...only speculation.
Tony....well put. I do think they had that much ''presence of mind'' to form some type of defensive perimeter. Benteen thought so...I would have to agree.
We lost another great writer here in Memphis this week....Shelby Foote was buried here yesterday.....one of the great civil war writers...God Bless.
Scout
|
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jul 2, 2005 9:07:09 GMT -6
Tony, I hope that by your statement that you are still missing my point. The shots and volleys that was "heard" [ie. implying hearing, not seeing] was from Reno Hill, not Weir point. My discussion had nothing what~so~ever to do with Weir point. However seeing as you have brought up this subject. I hadn't heard the "story" about them seeing "Squaws", please validate that statement by a source. I usually don't do this to people, as it is extremely annoying. But I would like to know which soldier stated that he saw "squaws, thanks.
If it can be found, that indeed that someone on Weir point saw squaws, indeed as you claim, then your assertion, is another validation that Michno's theory's are bunk! Which I know from soldier reports about hearing the shots and volleys [from Reno Hill] and the timeing is true. Weir left for Weir point at about 5:05, and again according to sources on the scene at the time, he was to quote them, "way out in front". That could only mean that he wasn't dawdling, and that his pace would have taken him to Weir point in approximately 5 minutes and certainly no more than 10. Placing him at that point at around 5:15. If your statements are true about the squaws then the battle indeed was over by 5:15 at the latest. This squaw thing is extremely important, simply because from the onset of firing that the soldiers heard at Reno Hill at 4:25, and the conclusion at or before 5:15 tells us that the figthing was over in less than and hour, in fact only about 50 minutes. Fascinating that... wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Jul 2, 2005 9:20:04 GMT -6
Tony, I hope that by your statement that you are still missing my point. The shots and volleys that was "heard" [ie. implying hearing, not seeing] was from Reno Hill, not Weir point. My discussion had nothing what~so~ever to do with Weir point. However seeing as you have brought up this subject. I hadn't heard the "story" about them seeing "Squaws", please validate that statement by a source. I usually don't do this to people, as it is extremely annoying. But I would like to know which soldier stated that he saw "squaws, thanks. If it can be found, that indeed that someone on Weir point saw squaws, indeed as you claim, then your assertion, is another validation that Michno's theory's are bunk! Which I know from soldier reports about hearing the shots and volleys [from Reno Hill] and the timeing is true. Weir left for Weir point at about 5:05, and again according to sources on the scene at the time, he was to quote them, "way out in front". That could only mean that he wasn't dawdling, and that his pace would have taken him to Weir point in approximately 5 minutes and certainly no more than 10. Placing him at that point at around 5:15. If your statements are true about the squaws then the battle indeed was over by 5:15 at the latest. This squaw thing is extremely important, simply because from the onset of firing that the soldiers heard at Reno Hill at 4:25, and the conclusion at or before 5:15 tells us that the figthing was over in less than and hour, in fact only about 50 minutes. Fascinating that... wouldn't you say? these squaws are so fastttttt ! on foot from the other side of the river on the hills were seen on last stand hill at 17.15 ? are you serious ? if is true the fight must have been finiished at 16 .30 !!!!!!!! in all that smoke and powder from that distance they could see squaws on lst stand hill ? absurd , probably some has seen a few squaws on calhoun hill ,the few squaws who where on the battlefield during the fight , on cahloun hill fight was over here went these few squaws while fight on last stand hill was not over yet until about 18 , more possible than seeing squaws on last stand hill |
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jul 2, 2005 9:38:05 GMT -6
shatonska, get a grip, okay. First of all, kindly explain to us, how anyone can deny, that all of the soldiers on Reno Hill agree that the firing in Custers direction commenced at 4:25. 2nd, they, the soldiers also agree, in their statements that the 'intense' firing in the Custer battle's direction began to die down at 5:10, and only sporadic firing was heard after that time, and died down all together by 5:25. Get a clue, okay! If there were any soldiers in or around LSH, by 5:10 or 5:15 at the latest they were all dead! The "sporadic shots" were the indians firing into the corpses and wounded to make sure that they were dead. And who in their right mind could even suggest with that many indians that the fight could have lasted any longer. The only way to silently fight, so that the soldiers atop Reno Hill couldn't hear them was by Hand to Hand or with knives. Are you implying that? Find the proof to me that ~ that battle lasted well past 5:25 at the latest? The fact is, you have to disprove ""every soldiers statement"" and the timing of the shots that they heard atop Reno Hill. This I want to hear!
|
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jul 2, 2005 9:41:52 GMT -6
Oh, and one last thing. I don't want to hear the agenda thingee. Try that one, and you are saying that you would leave your friends to die without trying to go to their aid, just because you hated just one man! I don't buy that, and neither does anyone else!
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Jul 2, 2005 13:22:45 GMT -6
shatonska, get a grip, okay. First of all, kindly explain to us, how anyone can deny, that all of the soldiers on Reno Hill agree that the firing in Custers direction commenced at 4:25. 2nd, they, the soldiers also agree, in their statements that the 'intense' firing in the Custer battle's direction began to die down at 5:10, and only sporadic firing was heard after that time, and died down all together by 5:25. Get a clue, okay! If there were any soldiers in or around LSH, by 5:10 or 5:15 at the latest they were all dead! The "sporadic shots" were the indians firing into the corpses and wounded to make sure that they were dead. And who in their right mind could even suggest with that many indians that the fight could have lasted any longer. The only way to silently fight, so that the soldiers atop Reno Hill couldn't hear them was by Hand to Hand or with knives. Are you implying that? Find the proof to me that ~ that battle lasted well past 5:25 at the latest? The fact is, you have to disprove ""every soldiers statement"" and the timing of the shots that they heard atop Reno Hill. This I want to hear! i know that from acustic tests from reno hill you cannot hear shooting in the LSH area , only and with difficulty the medicine ford area , this means half distance last part of the battle on the LSH according to the indians was made of sporadic fire from soldiers and arrows overpassing dead horses protection , this lasted the time to approach the site then the last charge , i'm sure that from weir point soldiers only saw cahloun hill , LSH was to far ,too dusyt to see anything , |
|
|
|
Post by Billy Markland on Jul 2, 2005 14:27:32 GMT -6
Uhhh, Abs and Shatonka, aren't you two basically saying the same thing regarding Indian women at LSH, or for that matter on Calhoun Ridge or Hill?
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
|
Post by absolution on Jul 2, 2005 16:47:37 GMT -6
Billy, No were not! But to get a complete sense of what is being discussed you would almost have to read the whole thread starting with this page. LOL...
I keep getting this "Weir"(d) phenomonon where these guys are "insisting that I am using what was "seen" at Weir point, which by the way I am not, nor was NOT! My sole argument was based upon what the soldiers "heard atop RENO HILL, ie. the shots and the timing of them.
Then Tony comes up with an accusation that Weir in the advance party, or someone seen squaws on Custer battlefield, you can ascertain what was being said from that. I personally don't care what was "seen" at Weir point, I am only interested in what the soldiers "heard" ie the firing, volleys etc from Reno Hill! But if for some reason Tony can produce a credible source as to his accusations, then that is another story!
Best wishes, absolution
|
|
