|
Post by Tricia on Sept 7, 2005 23:16:40 GMT -6
I happen to love this book. What are your thoughts? Has anybody read Michno's "Sand Creek?" It was one of the titles I would have bought, but it was completely sold out during my last trip to LBH. Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Sept 8, 2005 5:30:02 GMT -6
Don't know why but my computer vote never registers on these poll questions. I have had other problems in that area...I have aol, is that a problem with this website. Anyway, I cast my nonregisterung vote for number one; 'important gains'. But I agree totally with Tony about timelines...no one can ever know actual times, but Michno has put together a probable scenario and breathes some life into the battle. It is merely a 'blueprint' for possibilties,' but it is among my favorites. The time thing is the biggest abstract problem regarding the battle and the source of a many heated debates here. I change my mind constantly on the subject, so I never argue either way. Have not read 'Sand Creek' yet.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 8, 2005 9:02:52 GMT -6
I loved the Indian testimony . . . the question is how does Michno use or interpret the statements. Some have called his book LAKOTA LOON! But I think his interpretation hold up for the most part.
I have read his article on line for WILD WEST regarding his version of Sand Creek (probably what his book is about). He mostly blames an Indian Ring, which includes Wynkoop, Tappen, and others for the problems regarding the Indians. He talks very little about the atrocities committed by Chivington's command, which, in the end, will always be the main issue of Sand Creek. If Chivington's command had won a victory and avoided atrocities, he might have escaped the condemnation, but he allowed the worst kinds of offenses to take place by whites and forever will remembered for it.
|
|
|
Post by Two moons on Sept 8, 2005 9:13:18 GMT -6
ATTN DIANE.....My login doens't work either Scout. So it must be something Diane needs to look into. Hey Diane, you up to checking into this? When I log on it puts my name on the list at the bottom of the front page ok. But it doesn't recognize me otherwise. Then when I try to reply it asks me for my name. Like i'm not logged on at all!
I respect Michno for what he tried to do. I think it was an honorable beginning. But I don't think there is any basis of fact to it.
Michno stretches his theories too far. He fails to compare the Sioux accounts with those of Custer's surviving Indian scouts. A major flaw if you ask me. They likely would have disproved much of what he was theorizing. Especially Curley. Curley's claim that some troops (perhaps Companies E and F) actually made it to the mouth of Medicine Tail Coulee is in direct conflict with Michno's theory. Michno should have made an effort to either acknowledge or refute Curley's claim.
Micho doesn't take into account that much of what was stated was not part of the indian testimony. Because in most cases the indians told companies by the colour of their horses. It would be next to impossible to discern one company from another. As for the grays, they seemed to be everywhere didn't they? hmmm....
Then he over uses the testimony. By that I mean he uses the same testimony for two different actions. This has the effect of destroying his theory before it even gets off of the ground. For example, he establishes at one point that Yates' men engaged on foot holding their own horses, and at another point that Calhoun's men engaged on foot with every fourth soldier withdrawing with the horses. Then he presents testimony where the Indian said that the soldier's withdrew their horses, and he attributes this as a sighting of Yates' Company? Kind of shot himself in the foot there, didn't he?
Michno's understanding of cavalry tactics is lacking -- for example, he assumes that volley fire would be used as a signal for a unit to withdraw, right? Ummm..., ya right... I thought that's what the trumpets were for? The implications here is the two shot volleys being some kind of signal. This was stated by Curley, hmmmm..., I guess he didn't want to attribute this finding to him. The 2 volley signal was a signal of distress, and is so stated by members of the 7th in other testimony. Didn't do his homework on this one did he? And then again. It could just have been two quick volleys, nothing else.
Michno's greatest mistake was not tying into in some fashion, Gray's work. Had he done this, perhaps his timelines would be more believeable. Trying to do this would either prove his theory's wrong, or Gray's. At some point he would have had to made decisions based upon actual timed events, that I feel are valid. While I can't say that Gray's work is definitive, it has more basis of fact than Michno's, with less chance of error.
Last ~ It seems to me that all these new ~ modern day authors seem to enjoy demeaning another authors work on the subject. I realize their efforts to acknowledge differences in theories but clearly Micho goes to far.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Sept 9, 2005 14:06:05 GMT -6
Moons,
Yea, that volley firing as some sort of signaling has always bothered me two. I have to think that it gets down to interpretation, but I have problems with that theory on the whole. Hate to simplfy it, but it was probably used to kill Indians, who were increasing en mass.
Gotta disagree with you on the Last~ I don't think demeaning is the correct term. When it comes to the battle of the LBH, maybe 'critical evaluation' would be a better word. Even Walter Mason Camp's work has serious problems in regard to the type of interviewing he did, at that time. And we all know how important Camp's work is. Some authors' works have fallen by the wayside through the years as we put more pieces to the puzzle together, but serious critcism is in order to gain knowledge. You make good points though.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Sept 9, 2005 22:39:04 GMT -6
Scout and TwoMoons -- sorry to everyone else because this is way off the topic -- AOL users have had problems registering, but I was not aware of any other problems until I saw your posts. Scout - I suggest you use a browser other than AOL's (I use Firefox) and see if that will solve the polling problem. TwoMoons - Did the non-recognition just start? I'll contact tech support and e-mail you if I find out anything. -- Diane
|
|
|
Post by Two Moons on Sept 9, 2005 23:14:28 GMT -6
Yup! Just started. I tryed it again just to make sure. Names at the bottom of title index page but at the top it still says "Welcome Guest, sign in or signup, whatever...
Then when I tryed to reply I still had to do it as a guest. I sure hope you can fix it. Thanx.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 21, 2006 8:59:42 GMT -6
While on the road trip to New Mexico, I was fortunately able to finally pick up Lakota Noon at the Ft. Larned bookstore. I must say that I am impressed with it. The book consolidates the Indian testimony, supplies a time-line (while arbitrary, still reasonable) and supplies well-reasoned discussion.
Of course, now that I have read it I am looking at other books through the "Michno colored glasses" such as Scott & Bleed's route for Crazy Horse mentioned in A Walk Around the Perimeter (Deep Coulee vs. Medicine Tail). Although the latter booklet did clarify were the references to the village on the east bank of the LBH originated.
Now that I have read it through one time for the entertainment value, I will now get out the pen and notepad to take some notes on questions I had.
By the way, the volley-fire that is mentioned. By my intrepretation, Michno did not state that it was a signal such as "one if by land, two if by sea" but simply an ad hoc signal to two veteran officers to "come to the sound of the firing."
Best of wishes to all,
Billy
P.S. Now to keep my head down at work as they are looking for a "volunteer" to go to Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Mar 27, 2006 14:01:34 GMT -6
Michno is simply showing what the Reno Court of Inquiry was telling us since 1879 :
on the last page of his book, Michno asks the reader WHY DID SO MANY OFFICERS LIE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE BATTLE ?
Answer : because some of them had something crazy to hide - betrayal.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 27, 2006 14:21:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bigpond on Mar 27, 2006 18:47:16 GMT -6
CSST , f*&^*%g Bollocks
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 27, 2006 18:53:22 GMT -6
bigpond,
What does f*&^*%g Bollocks mean in Scottish?!?!? (just kidding!!!)
Jim
|
|
|
Post by weir on Mar 28, 2006 6:56:19 GMT -6
Michno is simply showing what the Reno Court of Inquiry was telling us since 1879 : on the last page of his book, Michno asks the reader WHY DID SO MANY OFFICERS LIE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE BATTLE ? Answer : because some of them had something crazy to hide - betrayal. CSS, I think you are making your case a little too fast. You know some here may think it is common in the XIX century US army to be late, to refuse to obey orders, to wait while his commander is fighting and to lie in an official military inquiry. All is a matter of mentality... You should have learnt that : the swiss delegation is extremly obstinate... ;D I'm sure you get tired of reading that but I think it is disgusting to think some of you studied the battle for years and never admitted a so clear fact. Utley did. He has maybe another view of what "respect to the deads" means.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 28, 2006 12:40:47 GMT -6
CSS wrote:
"on the last page of his book, Michno asks the reader WHY DID SO MANY OFFICERS LIE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE BATTLE ?"
I obviously have a different copy from you as the last page of text in my book is the closing of the chapter entitled "Vagabonds" and ends with the sentence, "It truly was the Lakota Noon."
p. 314, Third printing, 1997
Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2006 12:47:27 GMT -6
Markland:
Mine says the same thing as yours . . . maybe CSS is--oh my God! WRONG?!?!?
|
|