|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 23, 2008 6:47:00 GMT -6
Glad to hear it, Fred.
If the review proves accurate, then of course everyone must disassemble away to their hearts' content. But most previous disassembling on these boards, as I recall, has been done on the basis of what's in the book itself, not on what some extraneous person happens to have said about it. It'd be nice if this one could be judged by the same criteria.
|
|
|
Post by douglas on Jan 23, 2008 8:49:30 GMT -6
Elizabeth, Wasn't it you who cited the fabulous research? Do we credit the reviewer for that too? I agree that we should all wait for the book.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 23, 2008 9:09:56 GMT -6
You know, this is helpful dialog from all. No one should be upset. What's the old saying...'there's no such thing as bad press.' I believe that and I shall wait for the book to come out but I've also gotten very cautious on buying New Custer books. The habit can be more expense than a heroin habit. Donovan aside, many of you know what I'm talking about, I won't mention any authors. I haven't marked the book off based on this discussion though. Fred's points and criticisms are helpful, as are the others.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 23, 2008 13:22:07 GMT -6
... but I've also gotten very cautious on buying new Custer books. Boy, I'll say! And sometimes it is not even the dollar value that concerns me; it's the wasted time. That is why I get so hot under the collar with some of this stuff. Some of it shouldn't see the light of day. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 24, 2008 0:06:14 GMT -6
I've seen some more reviews, but I think I'll keep them to myself!
I believe Jim was very conscientious about using primary source materials. What drives me nuts is when authors use secondary sources so that the same half-truths get repeated over and over again.
In the interest of full disclosure, I critiqued a chapter of Jim's book a long time ago. He is a gifted writer, and I have no doubt this book will be excellent.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2008 6:45:11 GMT -6
I believe Jim was very conscientious about using primary source materials. What drives me nuts is when authors use secondary sources so that the same half-truths get repeated over and over again. In light of what has befallen my life over the last one to two years, let me add to my misery by ruining some of my friendships here. It's the sado-masochism of an old man. If the quote, above, is correct, then how do we arrive at some of the conclusions of the reviewer? Either the reviewer has taken things out of context or Donovan has reached some strange conclusions. Is it the reviewer's musings about the lack of coordination? Does the reviewer not understand why closer cooperation was not possible? Or is that a Donovan conclusion? Now please... before anyone goes off the deep end here-- including myself-- let's please remember, my questions are not declarative in nature; they are simply being thrown up as points to remember. And this goes for any book or any review. There are plenty of times the reviewers go off the "erudite" end, thinking they know just as much as the writer. Read any NY Times reviews lately? I think even a modicum of research would bring out the answer to "concerted action by far-flung columns" issue. I also continue to question the "capability" issue regarding the Seventh Cavalry, and even if Donovan has made "recruits" or "training" or "morale" an issue, he is not alone. All you have to do is head to the History or the Discovery channels and watch when they put on one of these LBH "exposed" or "investigated" shows. They continue to harp on the "new recruits" business, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Or is it necessary for me to post the breakdowns I have spent the time researching? Unless, of course, Nichols, Smalley, Hammer, Overfield, Hardorff, et al, and the U. S. archives have all got it wrong. Now... and this is my latest olive branch... if the research is there and these are Donovan's conclusions, then all bets are off. He-- like everyone else-- is entitled to his opinion... even though-- like Harpskiddie might say-- he is wrong. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2008 9:37:16 GMT -6
Let’s see if I can dig the hole a little deeper.
The battle at the Little Big Horn is a contentious subject because of a number of issues (we all know what they are, so there is no sense in re-hashing that). It is unlike what we have from mid-20th century on, where you have reporters galore, photographers, cameras, tape recorders, and all the rest. Sound and film do a lot to solve vexing questions. So, a lot of what we can discern from the small trove of “evidence” we do have from 1876, we have to interpret. Some people interpret things differently than others. That’s called opinion and from opinion, discussion follows. That discussion can be contained in book form. And I—personally—have no problem with any of that.
Where I begin to run into problems with some works is when the research is shoddy or things are taken out of context or things are opined when there is scant or no evidence to back up the theory that follows. I hate to pick on Jack Pennington, but I will. Despite several very good points Pennington makes in his book, he makes three points that are, to me, unconscionable. (1) Because Custer sent Sharrow and Voss to Benteen with messages, and because Kanipe was supposedly sent back with a message for the packs, and because Cooke sent Martin back with a note, Pennington makes the assumption that Custer had several more messengers running hither and yon. We also know Reno sent McIlhargy and Mitchell back and we have the possibility of Goldin being sent from Custer to Reno. There is enough evidence for all of these to be true—or close to true—without having to manufacture more messengers, so I find Pennington’s claim to be specious. (2) Pennington draws the conclusion that Custer ordered Benteen into the LBH valley and from that, Benteen was to come up on Reno’s left and that was the promised “support.” I don’t want to waste any more of my time than I already have, so my argument here will have to be perfunctory (does that negate my argument about research?), but I remember Pennington drawing this conclusion because of comments like “valley hunting ad infinitum”; another specious argument because one conclusion does not draw from the other. A = B; B = C; therefore, A = C. Pennington’s syllogism doesn’t fit that requirement. (3) If I remember correctly (there’s that research issue again!), Pennington concludes Custer was killed, mortally wounded, or completely incapacitated at Ford B, and he bases his argument on the testimony of White Cow Bull (whose testimony over the years has pretty much been debunked… or “bunked”!) and the ruminations of the wife of one of Custer’s Crow scouts… another sterling chunk of historical data. (Of course, it is my opinion the Crows never came within 1,000 yards of Ford B, so how could…?, but that’s just me.) Pennington then concludes the rout was on. I don’t think I even have to address this particular issue for you all to get the point.
If I can prove there were no soldiers in Custer’s entire 5-company command who had been in the military for 6 months or less, then how can we say one of the root causes of the defeat was the presence of so many recruits? Now I realize no one has brought up the issue of “recruits,” per se, but the “lack of training” business comes directly out of “recruits.” (You could hardly accuse a 2-year or 5-year veteran of not having been “trained”… or could you? Even in today’s army [“today” equaling 1970], basic training and AIT are over with in less than 6 months and guys were thrown right into battle; we don’t excuse Vietnam as “too many recruits.”)
Now… have I lulled you all to sleep?… The issue of “self-serving” officers is also one of testing the quicksand with too long a stride. How come that has never been an issue before? Suddenly, after 131 years we find “evidence”—in the pursuit of “research”—that these officers were all complicit in Custer’s defeat—through lack of training—because they were too interested in restoring their brevets? Don’t we think that might be something of a stretch?
My whole point here is simple: whether this review accurately reflects Donovan’s opinions or not, there is considerable ground for skepticism. And it is almost skepticism due to irresponsibility on someone’s part. The conclusions or the intimations I have read in that review are truly damning, and someone, whether it is the author or the reviewer is going out on a very flimsy limb. As far as I can see—and I will accept responsibility here if my own research is faulty or incomplete—conclusions have been reached that are no more supportable than some of Pennington’s. Even the business about the marksmanship of Crook’s troops is susceptible to reasonable explanation, i.e., weapon quality, movement, distance, covering fire, battlefield conditions, concealment, etc. All these things—and more—can be used to explain the lack of hits.
As I have said, I intend to buy the book—only because I liked his other one—but serious red flags have been raised here. I have learned a lot since I have been a member of these boards and much of that has been because of Elisabeth, Markland, and Diane. A good deal of that “learning” has been applied to my caution with this book, or, to be fair, this review. Someone’s reputation will pay the piper because of this. I have no reputation, so it ain’t gonna be me! (Or else, it’s so bad already it no longer matters!) I would only hope that whatever I may write in the future would not be susceptible to my own criticism.
(Can someone please douse the fire I have started at the far end of the bridge….)
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 24, 2008 10:58:32 GMT -6
Fred:
I'll never win the Fireman Of The Year Award [is it still the Rolaids Award?], so I'll simply ask one question [not to you, but to the reviewer, whoever it was, or maybe to Donovan, or everybody], and repeat one suggestion I have made before to everybody, with a little expansion thereof.
QUESTION: How does one restore lost brevets, and how did they get lost in the first place? [Maybe that's really two questions].
SUGGESTION: Go to original sources if you can. DO NOT use anyone's books as sources, except as sources for sources. If you want to know what really happened at the Little Horn, you need to find out for yourself. You can use others' research as a guide; but don't take it as gospel, as your sources might be better; your use of same might be more honest; your own interpretation of the evidence might be the correct one. Don't allow yourself to get bogged down in arguments about what might have been intended, what might have been said; what might have been period. What-ifs are interesting, but ultimately lead nowhere and detract from your pursuit of the facts.* The truth is in the facts.
Explore the ground. Find out what can be seen from where. Determine how long it would take men on tired horses to travel from one point to another. See for yourself what routes experienced horsemen would travel and not; where they would water and not. Answer for yourself where there actually would be water sufficient to water 120 horses or 210 horses, and where it would be that those horses or mules might bog down. And etc etc etc..........
Everything you need to know is out there, somewhere, perhaps not come to light yet. Mulder on.
*Look at what happens when the message/note/order to Benteen from Cooke/Custer is mentioned. 400 pages of debate on what "come" means, or "bring" or "be quick." And no final agreement. EVER.
Gordie MC
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 24, 2008 12:25:40 GMT -6
Those are good principles, Gordie. And if I seem somewhat touchy on this subject, it's because I know Jim did go to original sources, to the nth degree, for this book. Obviously, I haven't yet read the final version. But I'd be very surprised to find that there's any assertion in it which isn't fully and credibly sourced (and mostly, as Diane has said, from primary sources). We can all disagree on interpretations of evidence (and frequently do) but evidence I'm sure there will be ... The assumption seems to be that this is some kind of lazy rehash. Honestly, it's not. Wait and see.
The fire can smoulder quietly till March 24th, perhaps, if it has to. Once the book comes out, we can all decide whether it's violent conflagration or mere ashes.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 24, 2008 12:26:19 GMT -6
(Can someone please douse the fire I have started at the far end of the bridge….) Let's throw this thread into the morass, if there is any water in it, and douse it until we see more reviews. We could try to douse it at ford B but I'm not sure the ford is crossable with a large force and especially when their may be enemy fire helping thwart a crossing. By the way, the book is available at amazon.com for a measly $17.81. A discount from the $26.99 regular hard cover price. There are move reviews by googling a terrible glory by james donovan . Here is the editorial review from amazon: "Book Description In June of 1876, on a desolate hill above a winding river called "the Little Bighorn," George Armstrong Custer and all 210 men under his direct command were annihilated by almost 2,000 Sioux and Cheyenne. The news of this devastating loss caused a public uproar, and those in positions of power promptly began to point fingers in order to avoid responsibility. Custer, who was conveniently dead, took the brunt of the blame.The truth, however, was far more complex. A TERRIBLE GLORY is the first book to relate the entire story of this endlessly fascinating battle, and the first to call upon all the significant research and findings of the past twenty-five years--which have changed significantly how this controversial event is perceived. Furthermore, it is the first book to bring to light the details of the U.S. Army cover-up--and unravel one of the greatest mysteries in U.S. military history. Scrupulously researched, A TERRIBLE GLORY will stand as ta landmark work. Brimming with authentic detail and an unforgettable cast of characters--from Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse to Ulysses Grant and Custer himself--this is history with the sweep of a great novel. About the Author As a literary agent over the past 14 years, James Donovan has sold several bestselling nonfiction titles; previous to that he was a bookstore chain buyer and a trade book editor. He lives in Dallas." I am sure anyone interested about the details of a US Army coverup will be interested. Has the Army ever covered anything up you ask? Ask the family of pro football player Pat Tillman turned ranger who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. My personal interest is in sorting out what happened at the "Custer field" and not really the rest of it as I am not interested in pllaying the blame game even if there are those who are blamable.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 24, 2008 12:36:25 GMT -6
*Look at what happens when the message/note/order to Benteen from Cooke/Custer is mentioned. 400 pages of debate on what "come" means, or "bring" or "be quick." And no final agreement. EVER. I'm still trying to figure out what the meaning of "is" is. And that is just a 2 letter word. My 19+ years of formal schooling hasn't quite prepared me for those big 4 and 5 letter words like come and bring.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 24, 2008 12:43:05 GMT -6
Here is another review I found. This book probably isn't my cup of tea because of the subject matter but I'm sure others will find it interesting:
Book Review: A Terrible Glory - Custer and the Little Bighorn by James Donovan Written by Realist Published January 19, 2008 See also: » Book Review: Programming WPF, 2nd Edition by Chris Sells and Ian Griffiths » Book Review - Miss Alcott's E-mail: Yours for Reforms of All Kinds by Kit Bakke » Book Review: Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules by Jeff Kinney
There are advantages to having relatives working in the publishing trade. I often get to read the proof galleys of books before they get published, which is how I came into possession of A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn by James Donovan, which is to be released by Little, Brown & Co. in March of 2008.
Donovan's research covers the entire period of the Indian wars, including conflicts involving tribes far from the Great Plains involving military officers who participated in the campaign which cost George Armstrong Custer his life, but the main focus of the book once this background is established is the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
Like many Americans, I have read about Custer's Last Stand many times since I first saw Errol Flynn in They Died With Their Boots On. Considering that ongoing interest, one has to marvel at how it is possible at such a late date to have anything new to say about that debacle, and yet author James Donovan managed to accomplish that very deed.
Donovan culled historical fact from well-known and obscure sources, with source material dates ranging as far back as 1863 to as recently as 2007. Donovan also doesn't exclude information from Native witnesses either, which provide a perspective too often ignored in telling the tale of the Seventh Cavalry at the Little Bighorn. Many of the books he cites were published privately, so one must assume that tracking down surviving volumes had to have taken a great deal of time. In addition, many collections of letters and contemporary newspaper accounts were also used, sometimes to great effect, to illuminate the atmosphere at certain times, such as the investigative hearings into the conduct of Major Marcus Reno on June 25, 1876.
These sources were instrumental in forming a view of just how unprepared the Seventh Cavalry was for the chore assigned to them. Many of the troopers were newly inducted, barely trained, and some didn't speak English well. Many had never even fired a weapon in anger in their lives, or knew how to care for a horse much less ride one. A crash course in the absolute basics of cavalry operations was undertaken by a few of the more diligent officers just prior to the Seventh departing on the campaign, but this was the exception to the norm.
Donovan's research points out to the discerning that Custer's share of the blame, besides the well-known historical charges of rashness and impulsiveness, included not knowing the sorry readiness state of his command. He was on poor terms with most of his officers, and wasn't aware of their personal capabilities and deficiencies. In addition, most of the regiment's regular officers -- who should have known the condition and readiness of the Seventh -- were on detached duty elsewhere, so company command devolved in their absence onto the lower and less experienced officers. So many officers were unavailable for command that, in one case, an officer was borrowed from an infantry unit for temporary cavalry duty.
From Donovan's research, Custer didn't seem to understand that his regiment was asking for the fate it got by going into the field so ill-trained, and he did nothing to improve its prospects. He and many other officers in the Army at that time were more interested in reclaiming their brevet (temporary) Civil War ranks rather than attending to their assigned duties, and the top command of the Army displayed serious incompetence in allowing such self-serving activities to occur at the expense of the Army's readiness. Such blindness, honed with superiority and arrogance, was a major factor in the defeat.
These observations of Custer can also apply to the other commands ordered to conquer the Lakota and their allies that summer. For instance, Gen. George Crook's command expended about 25,000 rounds (roughly ten per soldier present) at the Battle of the Rosebud -- only causing between 31 and 84 Lakota and Cheyenne casualties -- a sorry result which indicates the command neglect of not improving the Army's marksmanship. Donovan reports that this expenditure of almost all of the rounds carried by Crook's command was one major reason why Crook was not in position to support Custer's later assault.
Overall command was limply exercised by Gen. Alfred Terry, who allowed his three subordinates -- Custer, Crook, and Col. John Gibbon — far too much leeway for independent action in what needed to be a tightly coordinated plan. His successor, Nelson Miles, appears to have learned from Terry's mistakes, as he became the most-successful commander in the effort to pacify the Native Americans after Terry was reassigned to department command.
Donovan relates all of this, and also the willingness of intense rivals to band together against outside investigation of the sorry state of the Army in the 1870s. In reporting about the hearings concerning charges of Major Reno's drunken cowardice at the Little Bighorn, Donovan reports -- often from obscure newspaper articles -- how the officers were quite open with trusted reporters concerning their strategy of protecting the Army and all of the involved officers — with the notable exception of the late Col. Custer -- from any potential loss of control to civilians of Army operations or loss of "honor" over their mis- and malfeasance as field commanders. It was all an attempt to buy time until someone — Gen. Miles, as it turned out — could become victorious enough to divert attention away from the Custer disaster.
A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn may not be the total and final chapter in the Custer saga, and he notes as much quite often. He freely notifies when he's taking a chance with history, but carefully notes his sources and reasons for doing so. Custer aficionados will appreciate Donovan's careful and detailed footnotes. But if you aren't interested in all that dusty stuff, the essential story is contained within the chapters. No one should have many questions about the basic tale of the biggest battle of the Plains wars.
I highly recommend Donovan's book to those whose interest extends to conquering the Old West, the Indian Wars, and to the history of this nation.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Jan 24, 2008 12:54:17 GMT -6
[glow=red,2,300][/glow]"this is history with the sweep of a great novel." I don't read novels.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jan 24, 2008 13:19:05 GMT -6
I realized that the review I posted above by realist is the one that Diane posted the excerpt from that started this thread.
I also see that Amazon does not show the book being available until March 24, 2008.
I swear this is my last post on this thread. I'm not sure we can throw it in the morass because I think there is disagreement on where the morass is and also whether there may be more than one morass.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2008 13:34:23 GMT -6
You should all be pleased to know I just ordered the damned thing. Thanks for the Amazon heads-up, bc. May I be considered the "first"?
Harpskiddie--
Your post may just be the best advice and the most cogent piece of information ever posted on these boards. Also, remember-- when assessing this book-- your comment about brevets. That may turn out to be the most important observation of all.
As for throwing this thread in the morass, we're not sure where the morass even is!
And if the fires rage, so be it.
And Gordie, come quick... and bring the packs, will you? You know what I mean, don't you? Is this really worth it?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|