|
Post by johnson1941 on May 4, 2023 12:38:38 GMT -6
Publish?!? Oh HELL NO!! Cheers! I'm just some guy who recently bought a few Winchester lever-actions, did some history research, and came across the LBH (it been years since I did a half-assed report on it back in HS!) Now I've been stuck on it for months! Who knew? Good point on the "almost perpendicular..." - didnt really think on that! And here's one you'd remember (as you sourced it) - the Gillespie tracing showing "Co C" along many of those marks for the dead IN the ravine...(guess he thought he figured out what Benteen couldn't at first?).
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 4, 2023 14:23:57 GMT -6
Capt. John G. Bourke's diary, Vol 2, 21st July 1877. These corpses had been buried exactly where they fell by General Terry’s and Gibbon’s Commands over a year ago, but had been washed out by rain or dug up by wolves: it was hard to go ten yards in any direction without stepping on portions of the human anatomy and skeletons of horses, singly or mingled together. Colonel Sheridan, of Lieutenant General Sheridan’s staff, was out here a fortnight ago to take up the bodies of the officers and also to re-bury the remains of any of the soldiers that might from any cause have been exhumed. The extent of the field was a great obstacle to the accomplishment of this task which indeed may never be done, unless the skeletons of the animals are likewise buried. Pieces of clothing, soldiers’ hats, cavalry coats, boots with the leather legs cut off, but the human feet and bones still sticking in them, strewed the hill. Well down the ravine of which I write was the grave of Captain Tom Custer and below that still another, surmounted by a sapling, in whose paper I read the name scrawled in a rude hand, on the leaf of a pocket diary, (bearing the printed day, “May 26th[”]) “BOSTON CUSTAR”. That description by Bourke is very interesting. This map is great, seems a few people had a go at the original USGS. In this version you linked/added, when you check the details, Tom Custer, Yates & Smith are shown with the General. Their commands however...
|
|
|
Post by noggy on May 5, 2023 4:25:05 GMT -6
I think it is a lot more neat and tidy than some would like it to be. When I started getting "into the material", the same thought developed in my mind. I feel the enormous focus on details and individual stories have made some authors/books tend to present the battle like this gigantic, long endevour, when in fact it is only because they try to squize as much information as possible into the context of the battle. It can at times seem like the Valley fight for instance was the Plains' equivalent to Operation Uranus. But, I do like details and good storytelling, so I seldom complain.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 5, 2023 5:17:16 GMT -6
My latest dilema when reading primary sources is noticing how like half the stories (mostly hostile(?) have Custer coming in along the “second ridge from river” (up higher like Godfrey/Gall/JSIT), while the other half (mostly soldiers(?) Martin, DeRudio, etc) - have him moving across the bluffs.
I’d like to even get that right!
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 5, 2023 8:05:32 GMT -6
Thanks RB, yes on Martin re: the flat...
1910…“I did not follow Dry Creek all way back to coulee running north and south but cut across to the high ground.
When I got up on the elevation I looked behind and saw Custer’s command over on the flat and Indians over in the village riding toward the river and waving buffalo hides. The battalion appeared at this time to be falling back from the river.""
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 5, 2023 9:44:21 GMT -6
My latest dilema when reading primary sources is noticing how like half the stories (mostly hostile(?) have Custer coming in along the “second ridge from river” (up higher like Godfrey/Gall/JSIT), while the other half (mostly soldiers(?) Martin, DeRudio, etc) - have him moving across the bluffs. I’d like to even get that right! Curley stated that the battalion split in MTC. Ph.D. Douglass Scott has CIL going straight across and EF and HQ heading toward the river. Martin states he was sent back approximately 600 yards from the river. He describes cutting back cross country to hit the trail he came down. That trail would be to the east of Weir.
The higher portion is CIL which crossed Deep Coulee from Nye Cartwright and came to the Calhoun Area from an eastern direction. If you look at Godfrey's map, it states Custer's route is unknown. If you follow what Curley observes, he explains the Indian observations. Custer went toward the river, and CIL went straight across and approached Battle Ridge and the Calhoun Area from the east as the egressed Deep Coulee.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 5, 2023 12:14:06 GMT -6
Thanks, AZ. For reference...Godfrey's map from Custer's Last Battle Godfrey: "The wife of Spotted Horn Bull, when giving me her account of the battle, persisted in saying that Custer's column did not attempt to cross at the ford , and appealed to her husband, who supported her statement. On the battle-field, in 1886, Chief Gall indicated Custer's route to me, and it then flashed upon me that I, myself had seen Custer's trail. On June 28th, while we were burying the dead, I asked Major Reno's permission to go on the high ridge east or back of the field to look for tracks of shod horses to ascertain if some of the command might not have escaped. When I reached the ridge I saw this trail , and wondered who could have made it, but dismissed the thought that it had been made by Custer's column, because it did not accord with the theory with which we were then filled, that Custer had attempted to cross at the ford, and this trail was too far back and showed no indication of leading toward the ford. Trumpeter Penwell was my orderly and accompanied me . It was a singular coincidence that in 1886 Penwell was stationed at Fort Custer, and was my orderly when visiting the battle-field. Penwell corroborated my recollection of the trail." Of course, Martin had something to say about this! "It has been asserted by some writers of late years that Custer's comand never got nearer the river than where he was found dead, but I know this to be incorrect for I myself was with Gen. Custer when he was much nearer the river than is the point where he was found dead and I saw him and his command right down on the flat within a few hundred yards of the river retreating from it." He also said something about being amused by govt maps showing "custer route over this ground is unknown" in spite of the fact he was with Custer and showed Terry.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on May 5, 2023 12:47:00 GMT -6
Thanks for the perspective, esp. on timing - good stuff!
Well that would suck! Throws other "observations" like this into being nonsense too...
"Then Custer halted command on the high ridge about 10 minutes and officers looked at village through glasses. Saw children and dogs playing among the tepees but no warriors or horses except few loose ponies grazing around. There was then a discussion among the officers as to where the warriors might be and some one suggested that they might be buffalo hunting"
Of course then you can't believe much of anything he stated. Booo!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 5, 2023 13:00:31 GMT -6
The Martin quote is interesting. 'When I got up on the elevation I looked behind and saw Custer’s command over on the flat and Indians over in the village riding toward the river and waving buffalo hides. The battalion appeared at this time to be falling back from the river.'
If one were to assume that 'Custer’s command over on the flat and Indians over in the village riding toward the river and waving buffalo hides. ' means the Indians Martin saw riding toward the river were waving buffalo hides then the comment is senseless.
Of course that cannot be what he was saying or said.
How about this. When gunfire first erupted into the camp there was panic among inhabitants. Some turned and fled whilst others began taking down tipis. That involves waving buffalo robes.
What do you think. The Chicago Inquiry transcripts are to greater and lesser extent junk. But of course you all know this, right?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 5, 2023 15:21:23 GMT -6
Interesting, since I disagree. Where you feel Martin viewed from is relevant and from the higher ground looking west along the river then nothing under the bluffs can be viewed. That is, the area of the channels down to Maguire's B.
There are only a handful of routes out ofMTC to move north and movement and presence can be detected beyond the viewshed. A rapid advance towards Deep Coulee could and can be seen.
We disagree but if I search really hard for images I can show you. If your idea is the flat above the national cemetery then there are viewing difficulties but there was not time to advance that far whilst Martin had the opportunity to view.
We can differ - that's cool.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 8:32:18 GMT -6
That description by Bourke is very interesting. This map is great, seems a few people had a go at the original USGS. In this version you linked/added, when you check the details, Tom Custer, Yates & Smith are shown with the General. Their commands however... View Attachment Reminiscences of General Custer: Custer's Last Battle by Richard A. Roberts (1891), in Tom O'Neil's Arrow & Trooper
I talked with Captain Sawyer, Captain E. W. Smith and General Hughes on the Far West. Captain Smith was the secretary of General Terry. I also talked with Lieutenant Edgerly, now General, who also helped bury the dead, and he said that dead men were found in two well-defined lines for nearly two miles from the stream. Captain Smith's Company E and Captain Custer's Company C were found in a ravine, one-half mile nearer the stream (28 men in one bunch) than where Custer made his last stand, as shown on the map. He was surrounded by Company F, with its commander Colonel Yates, (my brother-in-law) and the following officers: Captain Custer, Lieutenants Smith, Cooke, Van Riley, and near them Boston Custer and my friend "Autie" Reed, also Mr. Kellogg, correspondent for the New York Herald. I wish to state here that young Reed and Mr. Kellogg were not found exactly here, but their bodies were brought here.[/quote] Manuscript by Richard Roberts.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 8:35:32 GMT -6
Interesting, since I disagree. Where you feel Martin viewed from is relevant and from the higher ground looking west along the river then nothing under the bluffs can be viewed. That is, the area of the channels down to Maguire's B. When Martini has reached the top of the bluffs to be able to see the village.....Any action about or near ford B is out of sight and impossible to see. This is what I said. I'm not butting heads.There are only a handful of routes out ofMTC to move north and movement and presence can be detected beyond the viewshed. A rapid advance towards Deep Coulee could and can be seen. No, you are wrong here. You can leave MTC to the North any time you want. This is not a steep sided canyon. It has sloping sides that horses can traverse any time they want. I would agree that a rapid advance would be seen if they were on the flats on the North side of MTC. The question becomes. How flat does flat need to be to be considered flat? OK We disagree but if I search really hard for images I can show you. If your idea is the flat above the national cemetery then there are viewing difficulties but there was not time to advance that far whilst Martin had the opportunity to view. We can differ - that's cool.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on May 6, 2023 11:46:40 GMT -6
Let's not besmirch a man's reputation because he said things that don't jibe with one's theory. Martin/Martini was a trooper following orders. He was there. He may notbe correct,but that is not the same as saying he is telling tall tales. Multiple peer-reviewed studies clearly show that memory and recall are ephemeral at best. Then there is the "mythologizing" process that further distorts (i.e. the fish story told around the campfire). Perhaps Martini saw something along those lines. Enough to fill in the missing pieces. No surprise there, over time stories change. And quite often become exaggerated. These are not necessarily lies, as the person telling might well-believe that's what they saw.
On another note: Based upon what we know of Custer's personality and command style, I find it hard to believe he didn't go down towards ford B. I'm not suggesting he would stay down there, but it is quite probable he would want to see for himself before continuing up the ridge.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on May 6, 2023 12:53:03 GMT -6
From research by a long time buff (Jose Blaque), Martin gave a lecture in 1914 which explains everything (maybe) - “I had proceeded some 200 yards towards the positions of Reno and Benteen, when my attention was attracted by a volley. Turning, I saw a sight that astonished and almost unnerved me. The Indians had opened fire with their Winchesters, and were making a charge behind fresh buffalo skins, spread out in such a way that Custer’s horses were frightened into complete disorganization. I only stopped to look a moment, but here and there I noticed men dismounted, trying to hold two or three horses which had got beyond the control of their riders. In most every instance I saw the dismounted men shot down and the riderless horses plunge away. The odor of the fresh skins being shaken in the heat of the broiling sun seemed to craze the animals, and undoubtedly contributed largely to the rapidity and success of the Indians’ awful carnage. I don’t think the massacre lasted more than an hour. […] Terry asked Benteen if there were any survivors, and I was ordered to give him an account of the carnage as I had seen it.” (From an abstract of the lecture published by The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 4th 1914).
I'll give my interpretation more weight than Martin lecturing 38 years later but of course, time flies.
I am perfectly happy to alter my view of this quandry should it ever prove that the Indians sat on buffalo skin blankets whilst riding but I find this a difficult proposition.
Buffalo skin in one hand and Winchester in the other, doesn't really make much sense. Just like Walter M. Camp's quick notes. He knew what he meant and actually got time with Martin, apparently.
Another matter related to Martin which I kept open for years whilst digging battle turnips up, was trumpeting. Hostile's accounts tell of this happening but Martin, one of the instrumentalists, does not. Thus it took place after his departure and moving far enough not to hear. Today, trains running along the railway can be heard a mile to two distat, on the battlefield.
There are enough references in the Indian accounts that bugling did take place.
A point worth noting is that Cheyennes and Sioux perfectly understood the army's tactics of destroying property to destitute them as happened in March '76 at Powder River; and the Cheyennes perfectly understood Custer's flanking tactics to attack from all directions. It fell apart on Greasy Grass in the blink of an eye.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 7, 2023 8:58:20 GMT -6
Didn't the trumpeters also act as couriers? I wonder just how many trumpeters Custer had left to blow a signal, Voss was his main man.
Martini embellished his story to get work, he could make a few bucks telling the story others wanted to hear, I guess a few Indians were guilty of this too.
Ian
|
|