|
Post by Realbird on Jan 6, 2007 16:42:47 GMT -6
It is believed, by some, that the warriors used just enough force to dispatch their adversaries and the resulting injuries were of, course, horrific. However, we also have Indian statements that allude to hoards of infuriated and revengeful Indian women scouring the battlefield afterward. The implication being that what they did to the injured and dead was beyond the pale and, during a time of Victorian sensibilities, unmentionable.
Tom Custer's head was reported to have been smashed down to the thickness of a man's palm. "Hell hath no fury..."
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 6, 2007 17:16:17 GMT -6
realbird:
The mutilations were not all done by the women. Both the Sioux and the Cheyenne had their own particular ways of marking the dead [which could be seen as mutilation] - cut throats, slashed thighs and chopped off fingers and hands. Plus the damages done supposedly to affect the recipient in the afterlife, such as eyes pulled out and etc. Plus whatever one wanted to do when there was no fear of immediate retribution.
There are all sorts of descriptions of what some warriors did, including one where two guys held the arms of a wounded [and hopefully insensate, but I doubt it] trooper, while another cut off his head with a belt knife.
Luckily, nobody does those sorts of things nowadays.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 6, 2007 18:03:59 GMT -6
Tom Custer was the object of someone's incredible wrath. Why? I believe he was still alive when the hill was taken or 'Rain' found his body. I personally feel the former is the strongest possibilty. I read somewhere that the really horrible mutilations were reserved for the living. Laying all the mutilations at the feet of the women is totally wrong I believe. I also think the warriors had a large part in the mutilations as well.
Good points Gordie.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 6, 2007 22:33:39 GMT -6
Scout, interesting theory (that the worst was saved for the living). I hadn't considered that before, and it makes the mental images of the battle's end all the more ghastly. It also takes me back to a previous discussion: Does GAC's lack of mutilation mean he was already dead?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 7, 2007 10:52:43 GMT -6
Diane:
His comparative lack of mutilation, if indeed we really know everything that was done to his body, could be due to virtually anything, including that the mutilations could have been interrupted by the mutilators heading off toward the Weir ridges. I think he was dead when any Indians reached his body, since both gunshot wounds [discounting the arm] were described as being more-or-less immediately fatal. Somewhere along the line, we have to accept something as factual, and I choose to accept this point, although who knows? Maybe they lied about that too, to 'spare' poor Mrs. Custer's feelings [the assumption being that she didn't care about any of her in-laws].
There were bodies not mutilated at all, some perhaps because they were hidden by tall grass in little depressions, and some that were out in the open and lying next to a body that was 'butchered' in the literal sense [legs cut off at the hip joints etc.].
Being co-called 'civilized' people, we try to find some 'civilized' reason why 'uncivilized' people would do such things [much as we do with some other cultures today], and when we cannot, we assign 'civilized' reasons to the acts, such as religion etc., when the facts may be so simple as "I cut off his head and paraded it around to show everybody what I thought of these *****" or "Look at this guy, he ain't so tall anymore." Anyway, you get the idea.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jan 7, 2007 12:30:40 GMT -6
Gall's statement on the killing of his family: "It made my heart bad. After that I killed all my enemies with the hatchet." Clearly a more satisfying outlet for grief than a long-distance rifle shot. One can imagine that depth of emotion extending to the carving up of the dead guys. And as observed above, somebody was deeply bent at Tom Custer. It could have been personal, or it could have been somebody who had just lost their best friend or relative.
In regard to Keogh, the theory is that he was left alone because of his extreme bravery and the belief that whatever religious medal he was wearing was powerful medicine which would make it dangerous to mess with him. But somebody (can't remember who) observed that a large chunk of the regiment were Irish Catholics, many of whom would have been wearing similar religious tokens. Was it an accepted custom to not mutilate an enemy out of respect, or would they have been more likely to carve up a very brave enemy to protect themselves from him in the spirit world?
And what about the other side, the theory that Custer wasn't mutilated because he committed suicide? Was it common practice not to mutilate a suicide? I realize that people have been over the Custer suicide bit and concluded that a right-handed guy would have had a bit of trouble shooting himself in the left temple, so I am not asking about that, but rather about Indian customs.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jan 7, 2007 14:49:57 GMT -6
Melani:
I don't know about the treatment of suicides, but you are correct, insofar as I know, about extra slicing and dicing for brave opponents. There are stories of a very brave enemy's heart being cut out and passed around so that warriors could partake thereof and get a little braver themselves. The descriptions of what was done to Wheatley and Fisher at the Fetterman thingee claim that they were singled out for extra attention because of their brave stand and the casualties they had inflicted.
Personally, I've never torn a chunk out of a human heart, although I am a member of the 'cut ear' society [just kidding].
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 8, 2007 4:00:13 GMT -6
Melani,
I think Homer S. Wheeler, in Buffalo Days, says they didn't mutilate suicides. If he's right, of course, it thoroughly sabotages the Wooden Leg/Kate Bighead mass-suicides nonsense!
I guess we can't rule that out as an explanation for Keogh, if we're honest; immobilised as he was, it'd be a reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, the Indians seem to have prized his belongings (e.g. keeping his gauntlets wrapped in his company guidon) which would be less likely for a suicide ... There's the Little Soldier story to the effect that he was still holding Comanche's reins after death, which might be another explanation; and he fits the description of the back-from-the-dead officer, which might be yet another. Then again, Mrs. McGillicuddy (wife of Dr. V. T. McG) apparently quotes Crazy Horse as saying that it was partly because of the medal medicine, and partly because the Sioux "knew and liked" him. Which is a lovely notion, but it's hard to see quite when they'd have had face-to-face dealings with him, so it smacks of the fanciful ... Not quite in the class of Luce's loony idea that they thought the Agnus Dei was a bighorn sheep (!!!!), but close!
There's one definite case, isn't there, of someone left unmutilated out of respect/friendship: the trooper -- I forget his name -- who was kind to Rain-in-the-Face in jail. He was not only left in one piece, but had had his face covered. So getting at the hard-and-fast rules (if there are any) isn't easy.
Maybe the most significant thing in Keogh's case is that they left the medal, when they took everything else that wasn't nailed down. It can't have been as simple as that the clasp was difficult to undo; they cut off people's fingers to get at rings, so they could just have cut off his head. Leaving that lends some colour to the "respect" story, perhaps ...
Has anyone ever heard what they did with all the name-tags they cut out of everyone's socks? Were they kept as trophies? Ritually destroyed? Or what?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 8, 2007 10:06:06 GMT -6
More than likely the Indians didn't know what soldiers were attacking them. But afterward . . .
It's quite possible that after the battle there were a number of Indians who recognized Custer and probably others. We know Dorman was recognized by many because he had spent time with the Sioux and some of them felt he betrayed them by being with the soldiers. Thus the "special" attention given to him.
Boyer while still alive but wounded, was said was to have been discovered by some Indians who knew him. Boyer said he was hurt bad and to finish him off.
Girard was known to a number of Sioux, including Sitting Bull.
And whose to say that Custer was spared excessive mutilation because of some Cheyenne who recognized his remains.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 8, 2007 15:24:12 GMT -6
I've collected some 15 'Indian truths' stories about Custer's death. Bouyer is in several as well. The story you are talking about horse said he and a trooper fled down to the river where they were killed. Actually Bouyer asked to be killed the story claimed. their bodies were thrown in the river. The Indians were not above spinning some tall tales themselves. I've heard the cannabalism tale as well. Another story says Bouyer killed Custer over his treatment of old whats-her-name. Another tale has one of the Crow scouts killing Custer and Bouyer.
Don't think there is any dark secret on why Custer was not mutilated. He just wasn't. He might have been shot by one of his men...the fear of torture was real. Who was found closes to him...Dose?
Just remember...over 1000 Indians or more may have come over from the village to see the battlefield and look for relics/booty. The scene after the battle probably looked like a good day at the county fair. There were a lot of old men, young people, squaws and dogs roaming around. Last Stand Hill was well trampled over at one point...Custer may have been overlooked in the rush for souvenirs and such. That Ralston painting 'After the Battle' shows what it might have looked like although I have never thought he had enough people in his art work. The sheer volume of people hid a number of people.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jan 8, 2007 23:25:25 GMT -6
I assume the Indians cut the nametags out of the socks because they knew what they were and wanted to keep the soldiers from being easily identified, for the same reason they cut the bodies up--they were really mad. The thought of trophies in the form of pieces of socks these guys had been wearing for weeks is kind of mind-boggling, but I suppose they weren't any more disgusting than scalps...I am definitely living in a different time, place, and culture!
Maybe Scout is right and stuff just happened or not--no hard and fast rules, just individual cases.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 9, 2007 5:11:37 GMT -6
They had the good sense to leave the actual socks behind ...! I should think even the Indian dogs would have backed away in horror from those.
Scout, great to be reminded of those weird stories. It's odd how Bouyer features so strongly in all the conspiracy tales, considering how late in the sequence of events he joined Custer. (Irrelevant to this thread, but I wonder what the Custer/Bouyer relationship was really like? Since Custer was so furious about Reno's scout, you'd think some of the fury would have rubbed off on Bouyer for giving Reno "bad" advice. Yet apart from the "it'd do a damned lot of good to hang you" exchange, it doesn't seem to have happened.)
Love the image of "a good day at the county fair". I'm sure you're right, the souvenir-hunters must have been tussling over every scrap like little old ladies at a rummage sale. Absolute chaos. Easy to overlook the odd body here and there. And Custer was found on top of a pile of others, wasn't he -- so they'd dealt with those bodies first. Maybe by the time they got to Custer they were getting tired and bored, and just couldn't be bothered!
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jan 9, 2007 7:51:31 GMT -6
I think in our culture we expect an answer for everything...even those things that are unknowing. We all know how the human brain works. A couple of guys go into a wheat field and make designs...crop circles...and the next thing we know we have alien landing spots!! Big foot, UFO's and the Loch Ness monster.
GAC wasn't mutilated because he was already dead...nothing else. But we have to invent or come up with an answer as to why. We have to know. That's how most of the myths have sprang up surrounding the battle. Over active imaginations. The LBH is full of these...Indian and soldier alike. It's our nature.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 9, 2007 10:37:39 GMT -6
Elisabeth:
Yes, Boyer seems to come up often in a "conspiracy" regarding Custer. A couple of books state outright that Boyer hated Custer for his treatment of Meotshe and "their" child, held a peace council between the Sioux/Crow and may have signaled the Sioux when Custer approached the village. Then some say he may have been the one to wound/kill Custer.
Gray's last Book about Boyer/Custer doesn't really say what their relationship was . . . but Gray feels Boyer was a honest, trust-worthy scout, second only to Jim Bridger in experience/knowledge.
Even still, a good person can hate someone they feel was not worthy . . . another one of the LBH controversies!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 9, 2007 11:06:55 GMT -6
crzhrs,
Comical stuff. Maybe the legends got woven around him because he was the first one the Indians recognised ... but they really are rum stories.
|
|