|
Post by analyst on Jul 27, 2006 21:48:38 GMT -6
DC: Now lets see if I have this right according to you. 1. No one ever dared say Custer divided his command in1876? Even though the newspapers were full of these reports. Why was not Reno reported standing next to Custer? Passing odd I think. 2. For ten thousand years conquered people sucked up to their conquerors, even though recorded history does not go back much beyound six thousand years. 3. Non-sequator. 4. Skelnar did not research? This comes as a certain shock to me as he has a bibliography full of references. I had considered him one of the better historians of this engagement. I am glad you pointed out his inadequacies. You have probably written a better book on the battle than he. Could you cite it for me so I may obtain it and increase my knowledge to the exalted level of yours. By the way, what university did you get your advanced degrees from? Cest La Guerre!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 28, 2006 5:55:33 GMT -6
I think most of us understood West to be referring to Curley's story of Custer dividing his personal command into two wings. (As discussed in Gray, Custer's Last Campaign, pp. 358-360.)
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 28, 2006 6:38:55 GMT -6
Just because someone has written a book does not mean they know everything or is an expert. Many books have been written about Custer/LBH by hacks . . . Whittaker comes to mind.
Skelnar's book is based on everyone else's book and he is biased when it comes to Custer, Reno, and Benteen . . . which is his right.
I read the book and it is well written . . . it does not mean Skelnar is correct.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 28, 2006 9:06:57 GMT -6
crzhrs: Point well taken about book writers (authors), I personally find Marque rather fraudulent and many of his conclusions laughable. He became an expert in sign language? If he lived among the Sioux why not learn the language? Well, beside the point. In any case he was not an expert. However, I must disagree with you about Skelnar. I find him a excellent author and well researched. It is true the Custerphiles don't llke his conclusions, but different conclusions are what we are discussing here. Imagine writing a book on Custer now! Any eyewitness to talk to? Any undisturbed battle scene? No, of course not. You would have to draw on written accounts and research. Just because Skelnar did that as you would have to today, is not a reason to adopt Dc's philosophy of, if he had to rely on research of others he must be wrong! Hardly a valid analysis or conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 28, 2006 9:14:18 GMT -6
Analyst--
I think the problem with Sklenar is his reliance on mostly secondary source materials. But I was always under the impression that philes adore his conclusions; Custer was essentially blameless for the debacle, and everyone else and their mother were ... oh, yeah, and the assertations about the Lone Tipi.
Personally, I think To Hell With Honor is well-written, but errant, at best, and sickeningly melodramatic at worst.
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 28, 2006 9:19:34 GMT -6
Analyst,
You misstate, mis-read in the kindest light. Possibly because you didn't read the posting to which I responded. By number. (typo corrected after McLean noted)
1. I wrote everyone knew Custer divided his regiment in 1876. Everyone knew that the regiment was divided just after the divide. West is wrong. He may have meant Custer merely divided his particular five companies, but the "regiment" was divided around noon, and that was always understood. Picky? No, vocabulary accuracy tends to have import. In any case, it's still an assumption and not proven Custer operated two groups. And it speaks to the competencies of the Swiss boy(s) reading English, their skills in which are far below where they need to be for research.
2. Safe bet.
3. It's not a non-sequitor. It's a direct response to his statements. He can't answer them, you note. 4. Here, you can't read, to add to your many misspellings. I said first hand research. He says as much, himself. That you miss that, or lie about it, sorta undermines the "analyst" title you give yourself, no? Among the others.
Giving your idols public tongue baths in the hope they'll publicly call you friend isn't an elevating path.
If you have questions about me, there's a site for that. I finished third grade, and whether I have eleven advanced degrees or a GED or nothing isn't relevant. I'm either correct, and can back up my statements, or I'm not. And if Colin Powell posted here he should be judged by the same criteria, and not by his resume. Because, I wrote his publisher about his error regarding the 7th in his autobiography - he had Custer leaving a Kansas fort for the LBH - and corrected his memory of the song lyrics in "El Paso."
Perpetual hero worshippers, especially in the military, would rather have error enshrined so long as they themselves can bask in a distant reflection to cover their deficiencies. That's both dangerous, cowardly, and wrong in a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 28, 2006 9:29:33 GMT -6
Agree about modern day writers having to rely on research of others to do a book on a historical event after all participants are dead.
However, I feel Sklenar has an agenda . . . trying to prove Custer did everything right while every one else was at fault.
Sklenar places blame for the Little Bighorn debacle on Reno, describing him as a novice, a drunk, and lacking leadership. He doesn't mention Reno personally led an attack to protect Macintosh's flank in the timber and he ignores the effect Mary Hannah Reno's death in 1874 had on Reno while he was in charge of the U.S.-Canadian Boundary Survey.
Sklenar's research is extensive, but not exhaustive. He completely ignores The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies which documents Reno's campaign against the Umatilla Indians and the close relationship Custer had with Reno during the Civil War.
He also freely mixes quotes from novels, such as Son of the Morning Star and and others and misrepresents them as historical facts.
Research is one thing but if you do not include ALL the sources available and show the other side, plus use "novels" as part of your research then that should raise red flags as to one's agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 28, 2006 9:33:40 GMT -6
Analyst, You misstate, missread in the kindest light. 4. Here, you can't read, to add to your many misspellings. "Missread?" I'd be writin' with a firm finger upon that spell check button a little more often, DC .... What's next? Dangling modifiers?
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 28, 2006 9:52:41 GMT -6
Crzhrs wrote:
"Sklenar's research is extensive, but not exhaustive. He completely ignores The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies which documents Reno's campaign against the Umatilla Indians and the close relationship Custer had with Reno during the Civil War."
I will have to look through the ORs to find mention of Marcus. However, I can state factually, that while Reno perhaps participated in Crook's Umatilla campaign, it was not with his company of the 1st Cavalry. For the duration of that campaign, he was on detached service to the Departmental Headquarters per the regimental returns of that regiment. While he was on detached service, his second-in-command, Lt. John Madigan and several of the men in his company were killed at the Infernal Caverns, September 27, 1867. I believe it was Co. H but don't have time to find my notebook to see if I wrote it down somewhere. I will look at that return again this weekend and confirm.
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 28, 2006 10:00:28 GMT -6
Billy:
The point being is that Reno was on duty during the Umatilla Campaign . . . so he was assigned there and like many other officers may have been given time off.
The fact is Sklenar failed to mention Reno's service there and omitted other pertinent info regarding Reno's career (CW included) other than his performance at the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by historynut1876 on Jul 28, 2006 10:20:30 GMT -6
Crzhrs...
It's been a while since I read Son of the Morning Star, however, I do not recall it being a novel.
Did you name the correct book, or am I mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 28, 2006 10:33:19 GMT -6
History N:
I meant SOMS . . .
It's more than a novel but not quite a "real" history. The Index is always a clue and it's skimpy.
Cornell's writing jumps all over the place and it's maddening trying to find something you read in the book because of the inadequate index.
There are no footnotes either, which should raise red flags. There is a bibliography but nothing is referenced throughout the text.
While I enjoyed the book and feel every LBH fan should read it . . . it is not a LBH book per se.
|
|
|
Post by historynut1876 on Jul 28, 2006 10:57:44 GMT -6
CRZHRS -
I agree that some aspects of SOMS are maddening, such as the lack of an adequate index, but I think it was intended to be for a general audience. However, I wouldn't consider this book a novel. It's a history book. Utley wrote a book, Cavalier in Buckskin, without footnotes, and it's not considered a novel. I guess it's not that big a deal, and not worth bickering over, but I do think calling SOMS a novel is incorrect.
HN1876
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 28, 2006 10:57:46 GMT -6
SOTMS is not a novel. It's not a history, either. It's a compendium of stories about Custer and the LBH. It isn't a linear story, probably in honor of the way campfire stories come out, as a spate of recollections. It's a mood, and so long as you're in it, it works.
Connell wanted no index at all, but the publisher made him put one in. He did no unique research; he just told the various and often conflicting tales, and because he was a much better writer than others, it sold a gazillion and still sells a lot twenty-two years after the first printing.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 28, 2006 11:38:57 GMT -6
DC:
I couldn't have said it better . . .
The best part of SOMS is the tidbits of info and the many short bios of the "players" at the LBH, plus a round-about history of Indians, the US, and government policy.
My interest in the LBH has always been the characters, the people involved, not so much the tactics, but the why-fors of how people reacted pro & con on both sides.
|
|