|
Post by markland on Dec 27, 2005 7:56:11 GMT -6
In the Ricker Inteviews book, there is a long series of letters Ricker exchanged with E. H. Allison. In 1881 acccording to an affidavit, he stated he was chief of scouts for Terry in the Dept. of the Dakota. Whatever. My question is this. During one of the letters (3/7/1906), Allison states he was a messenger to Sitting Bull's camp in Canada. While there he was invited to Gall's lodge to eat and took the opportunity to ask Gall about the fight at LBH. He said that since the Rain in the Face story had come out four years after the battle, he specifically asked Gall whether the story was true. According to Allison, Gall stated that Rain had been one of seventeen men sent south to scout for troops and was not even present at the battle, not rejoining "until 5 days after the battle when we were moving north along the base of the Big Horn Mountains." I had always heard that the Rain story about Tom had been pretty well discredited but that is the first I had read that Rain was not even at the battle. Since you guys study this battle much more than I do, I was just curious whether the above is proven or suspect One thing, Ricker in an interview with F. E. Server writes this about Server, "He approves what Scout Allison has written about his conversation with Gall concerning Rain-in-the-Face being in the Custer fight." Thanks in advance, Billy P.S. In one of the interviews, I see where Nomad gets his ideas from
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Dec 27, 2005 10:43:51 GMT -6
it doesen't sound truthful to me , rain in the face account of the battle is too good and not exagerated at all and he was seen and appears in the indian accounts of the battle (moving robe and others )
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 27, 2005 10:47:22 GMT -6
Billy:
A lot of what Gall stated about the LBH is open to debate, especially is part in the battle. He also ended up being a turn-coat and a spy for the Indian Agent McLaughlin.
|
|
Nomad
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by Nomad on Dec 29, 2005 14:24:50 GMT -6
Hello Mr. Markland,
I've never read Riker's book, and I've never heard of E.H. Allison, but I am curious about why you think my ideas are inspired by Riker's work.
Best regards,
Nomad
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 30, 2005 19:17:29 GMT -6
Nomad, notice the *smile*. Either Allison or someone else mentioned in an interview/letter that had Benteen advanced down the river to the left (west) of Reno, the Indians would have been routed. Since your theory, if I read correctly (if not, please explain the difference) espouses the same, I made a smart-a** comment. I will quote the exact quote to make you feel better.
Seriously, I need to look at the topo maps but the question is whether if Benteen had completed his movement to the south, would he have had enough room on the western bank to advance?
Gotta go, burning steaks and you will understand that you and most other people come behind a medium-rare ribeye (on the rare side).
Happy New Year,
Billy
|
|
Nomad
Junior Member
Posts: 65
|
Post by Nomad on Dec 30, 2005 21:59:16 GMT -6
Happy New Year Mr. Markland,
Yes, I did notice the smile emoticon, and I took your comment in the playful way that you intended.
I agree, my theory explains that had Benteen followed Custer’s orders and continued moving west, he would have crossed the river 1 to 6 miles south, and either at the same time as Reno, or a few minutes later.
Cheers,
Nomad
|
|