|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 29, 2012 15:28:15 GMT -6
Glad to see you back RS, there are times when you do feel like packing it all in, I myself have had the crap kicked out of me on this board, but throwing your hand in is not the way to address the situation, just stay positive and keep posting.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 29, 2012 15:41:06 GMT -6
Well the way to address the situation is to remove members who attack people for no reason. I simply was removing myself from a situation that really was a "no win" for anyone. It was less a retreat and more a regroup.
But thanks just the same. I look forward to having discussions rather than defending myself.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 29, 2012 16:05:16 GMT -6
Well the way to address the situation is to remove members who attack people for no reason. I simply was removing myself from a situation that really was a "no win" for anyone. It was less a retreat and more a regroup. But thanks just the same. I look forward to having discussions rather than defending myself. ranger, I am delighted you have seen fit to return to these boards as your dignified responses to crass personal attacks marked you out as someone of worth. Enjoy your time here, ignore the idiot fringe and ask your questions. Finally and not before time, welcome to these boards. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 29, 2012 17:16:17 GMT -6
Rangersmith: Perhaps you can enlighten me as to your opinion on something that I have always wondered about. Why wasn't the 9th Infantry or any of its subordinate units awarded campaign participation credit for the Hayfield Fight? I would think the CPC should carry the blazon Montana 1867, yet it was not awarded. They carry Wyoming for both 1866 and 1867, but no Montana 1867. Very curious.
I am also wondering about your usage of two terms that I have never seen used by the U S Army, those being the abreviation Coy for Company, and the term "kit". Both are rather unusual.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Jun 29, 2012 18:32:11 GMT -6
"Further, nobody but me objected to walsh's celebration of the 7th killing Indians for being inferior at Wounded Knee."
I never celebrated it. I was just stating the majority opinion at the time. Everyone(white) was a white supremacist back then. Or almost everyone. Even the beloved Lincoln was a white supremacist and wanted to ship freed slaves to Africa or Haiti. To think that the feelings against Natives were any different is being ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 29, 2012 18:44:30 GMT -6
Walsh: You are old enough and smart enough to know that this is a very tender subject. Not taking anything away from your thirst for historical answers but possibly this is one that should not be litigated here on a public forum. I am not in favor of waving a red flag in front of a raging bull either.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Jun 29, 2012 18:51:33 GMT -6
Alright. End of this subject.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jun 30, 2012 8:06:20 GMT -6
Rangersmith: Perhaps you can enlighten me as to your opinion on something that I have always wondered about. Why wasn't the 9th Infantry or any of its subordinate units awarded campaign participation credit for the Hayfield Fight? I would think the CPC should carry the blazon Montana 1867, yet it was not awarded. They carry Wyoming for both 1866 and 1867, but no Montana 1867. Very curious. I am also wondering about your usage of two terms that I have never seen used by the U S Army, those being the abreviation Coy for Company, and the term "kit". Both are rather unusual. Chuck, I can handle the "Coy" one. On old documents I've seen, company is often written as Co y. I thought "kit" was an English or Canadian term? Billy
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jun 30, 2012 8:38:49 GMT -6
I would very much like to see your resume. Sign it. Soldier of Fortune in published in Boulder, and I might still know people who could vet it at a glance. If not, other options. POB 623 Boulder, Colorado 80306-0623 Put no words in your mouth. You said his orders were to "locate, close with, and destroy" the enemy, which were not his orders. Who's putting words in who's mouth? That said, you did not start the thread, and for that I was wrong and apologize. You did vector right in on a discussion of dead man's cowardice issues. Look forward to your resume. benteen, I'm not convinced the guy in the rifle pit who chickened out wasn't shot by Benteen or someone else. I understand that stuff happens and is legal and probably not discussed once done. Obviously, no proof, but it's not likely a bunch of guys would stand and charge with no casualties to speak of, yet a partially hidden soldier gets it between the eyes. That's the tell, I think. This is utter bullshit! Rich, erroneously accusing the guy of starting a this thread and then using that error to state that he called Bradley a coward is clearly idiotic on your part. My interpretation of what he states is that he thought Bradley overly-cautious, which I agree with. He does make a mistake in his belief in that the army was using the forts as force projection locations rather than solely as bases to attempt to protect civilians using the Bozeman Trail. I'm looking now at a morning report from C.F. Smith dated 07/23/1867. Aggregate officers and men, including one medical attachment, is 147. These were the reinforcements Ranger mentioned. The August 1867 return seen here: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002343091451 shows an aggregate of 375 officers, enlisted men and attachments present. That report also has the initial report of the fight. Also, regarding opinions. He stated he is, I believe, a part-time ranger. Nowhere did I see that he was speaking for the park service. Posters on this board are allowed to have opinions which differ from yours you know! Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 30, 2012 8:57:19 GMT -6
Billy: You picture looks much to scholarly for a fan of the Seldom Scene. That''s one thing I miss about the DC area. There is no Bluegrass in drive time here in West Kansas.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jun 30, 2012 9:05:07 GMT -6
Billy: You picture looks much to scholarly for a fan of the Seldom Scene. That''s one thing I miss about the DC area. There is no Bluegrass in drive time here in West Kansas. Hmmmm, I think I'll turn on the outdoor speakers and play Live at the Cellar Door now that you've got them on my mind! So, I reckon you could see the return, right? Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 30, 2012 9:27:16 GMT -6
Billy: I have spent some idle hours at the Cellar Door. It's been a long time. Thought they broke up after Duffy died. I am afraid I lost track. Another one of my favorites were the Country Gentlemen. Don't know if they are still around either after the death of Charlie Waller.
No could not click it on. My Dixie Cup and string computer has its limitations. Will try to fool with it later.
I do have an opinion though, and that is Bradley was the commander, and I am not in the second guessing commanders business unless there is clear gross misconduct, which there was not in this case. The young firebrands who opined about Bradley were products of their times. Everyone of them saw themselves as the reincarnation of Ivanhoe, ready to do great deeds of valor, overcome impossible odds, and leap tall buildings in a single bound. Commanders can't afford to think like that. They have the responsability. The firebrands do not. All in all in situations like this where there is doubt, I give weight to the commander's decision. Like rangersmith said - none of us were there.
|
|
|
Post by justvisiting on Jun 30, 2012 9:37:11 GMT -6
I'll wander down to the basement and post it at my web site in a bit.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by rangersmith1867 on Jun 30, 2012 9:39:24 GMT -6
Honestly I used COY becuase of the documentation I have been reading, and I used the term Kit as something I picked up from British soldiers I worked with overseas, and it just sort of stuck. I enjoy it more than say 'battle rattle', 'gear', 'trash', 'TA-50 (or 782 for the Marines)', ect.
As far as the 27th (9th) being awarded the Campagin ribbon, I am currently in talks with some congressmen over the issue as well as the US Army Center for Military History. I think some of the men should have been decorated as well. Just a matter of getting the research done and presenting it to them.
Also I am a full time ranger, just working here seasonally. (For the Summer). Thanks for the welcome from you all, and I look forward to sharing more with you, and learning more from you.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 30, 2012 9:53:59 GMT -6
Rangersmith: I knew the answer before I asked the question. The answer is from DA, that the Hayfield Fight was an isolated incident, involving a portion of one company and by itself did not rate it being elevated to campaign status, nor were there any other actions of significance in Montana Territory in the year 1867 to warrant them being bundled into a campaign. Therefore no campaign streamer. This was all litigated in the 1930's and is cold ground as far as CMH is concerned. I once had a discussion with Roma Danish about this very thing in the 1980's, and she pulled the information I just gave you out of her files and showed me the decision process. The bottom line is that there is not enough there to warrant campaign status. The U S Army does not award streamers for battles, only campaigns. That was what the basis for the 1930's reforms were all about, a standardization of the system, rather than let units do what they wished differing from unit to unit.
I served for a short time in the 2nd Battle Group, 9th Infantry, and 2nd Battle Group, 23rd Infantry, and these two units have always been of special meaning for me, and I am very familiar with their histories, as it is with all the units of the 2nd Indianhead Infantry Division.
Keep in mind though I am talking about campaign participation credit not campaign ribbons. They are two different things. The former is awarded to participating units, the latter to individuals. There was a campaign medal/ribbon struck and awarded to vets of the indian campaigns long after the fact. Few lived to receive the award but all who participated were awarded the ribbon.
Short of the MOH what decoration was available to award? None that I know of.
I have seen the old records also and have seen Coy used from time to time in the 19th Century. I would think kit though would be a word you would wish to avoid if you portray an American Infantryman.
|
|