|
Post by desertlobster on Feb 8, 2009 15:38:37 GMT -6
1. What archaelogical evidence was found near Ford D?
2. Where were Sharrow and Kellogg found? Kellogg and a trumpeter(whether Dose or Voss) were found a "stone's throw" from the river. What source is there for Sharrow's body being found anywhere? And trumpeter Dose was found half way between Custer and Reno. That doesn't sound near a northern ford.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Feb 9, 2009 10:10:33 GMT -6
Where were Sharrow and Kellogg found? What source is there for Sharrow's body being found anywhere? Lt Charles Woodruff (with Gibbon) told Camp that Sharrow was found north of LSH. There were two markers placed in that area in 1890. This information is offered among other places in Where Custer Fell and They Died with Custer -- the full text of both available in Goggle Books. See how it's done? The location of Kellog is documented in numerous places and even easier to find.
|
|
|
Post by desertlobster on Feb 9, 2009 11:26:53 GMT -6
Thanks for the info that google has some books online. No way I would have ever known that. I just checked it out. Good resource.
As far as Kellogg, in "Custer Myth" and "Custer in 76" he is mentioned several times as being near a ravine, a stone's throw from the river near Voss, and mentioned as not being buried initially with those 197 bodies. Nothing more specific about directions.
How far north of Custer was Sharrow found? Any idea who the other guy was that was also found north of LSH?
Godfrey stated 42 men and 39 horses on LSH.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jun 16, 2009 7:36:21 GMT -6
with regards to the question as to what evidence there is for any kind of action happening at the fords Ds, as far as I'm concerned the evidence appears to be very thin. For the most part it relies on John Stands in Timbers account; and he being a Cheyenne, the witnesses are all Cheyenne, I haven't yet read any Sioux account of action down there, and a few spent cartridges in and around parts of Cemetery ridge and on the flats below that.
If anyone has any more evidence I would like to hear it, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't seem enough to confirm the almost set in stone notion that is seemingly held and accepted by many people now, that it actually happened, and is part of the battle landscape
shan.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 16, 2009 8:10:07 GMT -6
Shan, I go by Fred Girard's RCOI testimony unrefuted by any others that he saw evidence of a mounted shod attempt at ford D1 and then they moved over and crossed at D2.
The Cheyenne were the ones who were camped at the north end by the D fords. The Sioux were camped at the southern end of the village and you wouldn't expect any accounts from them. One of the problems with NA accounts is that you have to trace their individual movements back to their camp's location to determine which parts of the battle they could have been involved in.
There are a number of NA accounts of some soldiers going into the river and a buckskin clad soldier being shot. Fits the description of MTF/ford B and the D fords. Fred Girard with his 29 years of frontier experience didn't see evidence of an attempted crossing at MTF by a mounted group of soldiers in column. Benteen didn't either. Now you have to look at the camp locations of those NAs making the reports. I believe it was mostly Cheyennes and I don't think there were too many camped down around MTF.
Pick your poison. I picked mine. The evidence is thin for a full 5 company attack at MTF/Ford B.
bc
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jun 16, 2009 9:34:09 GMT -6
bc,
I haven't taken this line purely because I want to be a wet blanket, my problem is I just don't see enough strong evidence to be convinced.
That aside, can you point me to where I can read that Girard evidence online, as I haven't any copies of the report, I would be very interested to read it. Until I do, I would suggest that just as with the reports of shod horses being seen at MTF, those seen at the Fords D could equally have been the result of captured horse being driven around in the area and then across the ford.
Yes I agree that the Cheyenne were generally camped up in the area of the fords D, but I suspect that there were a good number of Sioux in the general area as well, firstly of all there would have been all those non combatants, then there would have been a number of warriors who would have been more anxious about their families than dashing off to confront Reno. Whatsmore, I would contend that many of these folk could have seen something of what was going on, in which case, I would have expected some accounts to have filtered down to us.
I also agree with you that the tale of the soldiers going to the river and the Buckskin man being shot could be placed at either MTF or the fords D, and have argued around that subject on the other board. I have to say that to some extent I'm playing Devils advocate here as I'm slightly more drawn to that event happening at ford D that MTF, but, as far as I can see there's no evidence for it as yet, so I wait in hope.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by scalar2 on Jun 16, 2009 9:35:26 GMT -6
Hi bc Girard didnt testify about Ford D or Ford D2. He found just one ford below Ford B where it lookedlike a crossing had been tried, but that ford was opposite Deep Ravine. He thought Custer did it but that doesnt fit anybody's ideas so maybe Bradley's men left the tracks while they were coutning bodies.
Im using Nichol's Court of Inquiry book. It has the comments about the ford on 98, 99, 101, 104 and 105. He placed it close to Deep Ravine using Maguire's map, the "L" in 'LITTLE BIG HORN".
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 16, 2009 13:38:15 GMT -6
When I said pick your poison, maybe I should have said pick your "thin" poison. I don't think there is any thick, strong, confirming, set in stone, or beyond a reasonable doubt evidence one way or another except where some of the bodies were found. Nothing I can say will change your mind but maybe you can change my mind since I have no model that is thick, strong, confirming, or set in stone. You've already chosen to believe evidence that is thicker than the D fords movement. Guess I'd ask what do you believe and why is it thicker than going to the D fords? If you are wanting someone to convince you something, then I'm the last person who could and the last person who would want to try. I believe in live and let live and freedom of choice to believe or disbelieve what ever you want. I'm not out to "convince" anyone of anything, I'm just studying the evidence as I see it. There is thin evidence for every model out there and I'm waiting for someone to produce the smoking gun to support a particular model but the problem is that it gets so windy sometimes, I couldn't see the smoke even if there was a smoking gun around. Girard testified there were 5 or 6 fords he found and that Maguire's map did not accurately represent the battlefield. Deep Ravine doesn't add up to me but I wouldn't rule it out or in Shan's terms, Deep Ravine ford is thin and the D fords is much thicker. RCOI Page 87: Q: "State what you know about the river from the point Maj. Reno crossed it on his advance to the point he reached, with respect to fords, .... begin where Maj. Reno crossed the river on his advance." Page 88: A: ".... After that, I rode over the country and I saw there were five or six other fords, and when we moved from on top of the hill down to where Gen. Terry's command was encamped in the bottom, I went ahead and helped to take the wounded down, and I found several crossings a little south." There aren't two fords at Deep Ravine and he had already described the MTF/ford B ford and this isn't the same one. Page 88: Q: " No in regard to the point "B" as represented on the map, state what you know about the stream at that point." A. "That was a watering place ....." Q: "Begin at "B" and tell what you know in regard to river below that, as to ford, trails and banks." A: "I know of only one ford - the one where we found the horse and where we crossed." Q: "How far was that from the point "E" or "H" on the map?" A: "I should say from "E" to the ford was between a half and three quarters a mile, and almost in a due west line." Girard said they tried one ford and moved over to the next ford: RCOI Page 91: A: "I went down with Maj. Reno's command from this hill to Gen. Custer's battlefield, and was there during the whole of the time they were burying the soldiers. I made no discoveries, except this ford. When I came to it I saw from the marks that, as I supposed, Gen. Custer had attempted to cross there, that he had been delayed some little time, and left it. I only judge from the signs I saw at that ford. After that the troops came over, and crossed at this other ford. Then we came up into camp, and I went back to get some articles that I had left in this timber where we were cut off." E is LSH and the one ford he is refering to is the one that he has Custer actually crossing which has to be near the one that Custer attempted to cross but moved over. All this points to the D fords. He also noted signs of lodges 200 yards from this ford. Here is the website for the online version of the RCOI: digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.Renobc
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jun 16, 2009 15:46:46 GMT -6
bc
maybe you took me too seriously, I'm more than happy for you or anyone else to change my mind, as I'm of the school that thinks I have a handle on it one week, then something is pointed out that changes the shape of the battle in my mind so that I have to re-think all over again.
When I say the evidence for action at ford D is thin, I mean as compared to the dead bodies on Calhoun hill being identified as men from L company, or that Custer and most of the members of H.Q lay on the Knoll at the apex of LSH. Those things have been verified by a number of witnesses. That doesn't mean to say that we can explain how and when they died, or how they got there, but we do have something to go on.
As I've implied, although there is little to go on, the fact that none of the members of H.Q. or E and F troop were found around Calhoun hill or in the swale where Keogh and the men of I troop died, indicates to me that Custers wing did indeed move on up to, and past LSH, and that they were not involved in the fighting in the afore mentioned places.
The fact that many Indian witnesses testify that a number of soldiers, most of them on foot, left LSH before the end of the battle, and that many of them eventually died in Deep ravine, something seemingly verified by various burial parties later, plus the fact that it was mainly men from F troop who were found with Custer and members of H.Q LSH tell us that they wound up there, but where they were shortly before that, and what they were up to seems to me at the moment, to be a complete mystery.
by the way thanks for the website to RCOI
shan
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 16, 2009 16:56:15 GMT -6
Shan, you probably took me to seriously and that's the problem with typing here. I probably need to add a bunch of tongue in cheek emoticons to my typing to truly express myself. I approach things fairly lighthearted even though it always doesn't appear that way as typed.
And the problem doesn't end with the Custer battle with no blue belly survivors. There were over a hundred anglo survivors on the Reno valley fight and we can't agree there on what actually happened in the valley either.
bc
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jun 17, 2009 8:05:25 GMT -6
bc
no problem, I know there are sometimes difficulties in catching on to how we on this side of the pond tend to use English as opposed to you folks over there. But as you suggest, more often than not it's a problem of typing out what may well be a particular character, or personality trait that just doesn't work on the page. I've leant the hard way that irony rarely works on page or screen, nor whimsy, and certainly not flippancy. Given the problem, one wonder if one or two of those that stalk this board may in fact be an extremely nice, pleasant people who happen to have a writing style that belies their actual personalities.
Anyway, back to the battle and ford D. You asked if I had a model of the battle, and more particularly what do I think happened after Custer dropped off Keogh on Calhoun hill. Unfortunately I haven't. I suspect that Custer left Keogh behind so that he might be available for several different scenarios. One to come on to Custer should that be required, secondly to be in a position to get to, and cross MTF fairly rapidly if he judged either Reno or Benteen required his assistance. I would also guess that Custer had left him there to drive back those Indians who had followed the command up from MTF, plus those that were beginning to appear from the Weir Point area, in other words, to secure his, Custers flank.
That's the easy bit. As to what Custer had in mind for his own wing, well given that there is so little to go on, one has no option but to fall back on speculation. I find it hard to believe the rounding up the non-coms as some sort of ransom theory, if for no other reason than I cannot believe that 80/90 odd men could not have controlled literally thousands of volatile people, whilst at the same time trying to defend themselves. In which case did he plan to drive them back towards Reno thereby causing confusion amongst the warriors, again I think that highly unlikely, besides, although he may not have been aware of the fact that Reno had been driven from the field, enough time had passed, and the views he had had of the valley floor ever since moving up onto Luce ridge, would have told him that Reno's attack had not been pressed on into the camp. Surely a major cause of concern should he decide to press an attack across the river some two to three miles further on.
So, all I'm left with is sitting here kicking around the idea that whilst he may have wanted to check out the fords D, he had decided to temporarily position himself on Cemetery ridge in readiness to strike across the fords should things begin to develop down in the valley as a result of Benteen's arrival. I have an idea that he may have become a casualty at this point, and as we all know from the descriptions we have, either wound would have killed him fairly quickly. That changed everything, and as the wing dithered, it was attacked and driven towards LSH. South of them, Keoghs wing itself was collapsing and was thus in no position to offer any help.
That's where I am today, who knows what tomorrow may bring.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 17, 2009 9:38:47 GMT -6
Shan, we are probably not that far apart here. I think making a 2 or 3 prong attack on the village was the main focus of his plan and to capture the non coms and get the NAs to surrender that didn't runaway. (like Washita) I don't think Custer was ever worried about his numbers versus the NA numbers. It was the cav's willingness to fight versus the NAs not usually willing to fight a pitched battle. Unfortunately for Custer, the sheer numbers of NAs reinforced and abated any NA unwillingness.
I have resigned myself to realize that I am never going to be able, or have the time, or have the wherewithall to conduct any type of massive Custer fight research project. That leaves me with dealing with second through tenth hand information coming from others. About all of it is thin and conflicting evidence subject to interpretation using my own point of view to decide what to adopt and not to adopt. I just keep going until I achieve sufficient knowledge that I can support a reasonably thought out model. Since I haven't read all the books previously published on the subject, I'm relying upon information derived from the boards. I doubt I will come up with a model that is exactly what happened, but at least I hope to come up with a model based upon my opinions of the evidence as I see it which is all anybody else is doing. Once I have done all that is possible from my standpoint, then I can kick back and start a new hobby while watching and waiting for new evidence.
I and most others here try to pick someone's brain as to why they believe some aspect of their model but it usually boils down to which of the thin evidence they choose to lend credence to along with their argument. I'm still looking for evidence though. I haven't read all the RCOI, just bits and pieces, so any model I have is subject to change. I haven't read Gray, Graham, Liddic, Fox, and others so who knows where I may end up if I had the time to read them all. I checked out Gray's book but after a month, I only had time to look at a couple chapters. I quit reading Doran's book after the Reno fight so I need to look at his Custer model since he seems to quote John Stands In Timber a lot and I have no reason to doubt John although I have drawn different conclusions than Doran on some of the stuff he has arrived at. I wish some of these authors would actively post here and defend/explain their models.
Like I said, none of it can be confirmed, thick, or set in stone, etc. to the complete satisfaction of everyone. You started this yesterday asking for someone to confirm the ford D theory and that will never happen as none of us can control your mind and your own skepticism. Only you can do that. I have to make peace with my skepticism as well. Some of my thoughs about Custer come from reading CW books and articles about him and my favorite is The Cavalry at Gettysburg by Longacre which describes cavalry actions for about 30 days around the battle. You should read that and information about many of his other cw battles if you have any concerns about Custer attacking forces of greater strength. Fear was not in his vocabulary except to strike fear into others with his boldness and daring. I've more closely followed his 4 years here on the Kansas Plains which didn't diminish his boldness and daring. Custer was leading and with his brother when Tom when Tom won his second CMOH when charging through a Confederate wagon train and when Tom got shot in the face. When you read about the countless charges Custer has made in his life that really thickens things up (for me anyway) when you want to consider whether he tried to cross at the northern fords.
bc
|
|
|
Post by runaheap on Jun 17, 2009 11:53:04 GMT -6
Girard in RCOI also stated that the ford that Custer or some of the troopers crossed, that there were two bodies on the west side of LBH one naked and one with greasy shirt and trousers-both scalped.
|
|
|
Post by scalar2 on Jun 18, 2009 8:19:31 GMT -6
You're misreading him bc. Girard said direct he knew of only one ford below ford B. Its a reach to argue he confused Deep Ravine with Ford D when they were in quite different places relative to the battlefield, andit looks like circular reasoning to me to say that since there arent two fords at Deep Ravine he couldnt have been talking of Deep Ravine. If there arent two fords at Deep Ravine, and he said his ford was at Deep Ravine, and he said that ford was the "only one" he knew of, maybe he's not talking about two fords eh?
He's not. I'll quote from his testimony:
"Subsequently when we went to bury the troops there, there was a horse, wounded, standing in the stream where we crossed."
"Q. where was that place where you found the gray horse?" "A. I would say about wherethe letter L is in LITTLE BIGHORN."
"Q. Begin at B and tell what you know in regard to the rivr below that, as to ford, trails, and banks." "A. I know of only one ford, the one where we found the horse and where we crossed."
"I made no discoveries except this ford. When I came to it I saw from the marks that, as I supposed, General Custer had attempted to cross there and that he had been delayd some time, and left it. I only judge from the signs I saw at that ford. After that the troops came over and crossed at this other ford. Then we came up into camp and I went back to get some articles that I had left in this timber."
You are taking that last one out of context to say that Girard was talking about two fords, but he said more then once there was only one and if you read the other passages it is clear what "troops" he's talking about that crossed there. It's Renos', the burial parties he mentions touring the field with after Terry came up. Probably another "we" dropped out of "crossed" in the transcript since in the next sentence he's talking about going into camp and visiting the timber, where the previous comments had him crossing the ford after discovering it. "This ford" and "this other ford" are the same thing, it's "other" in relation to Ford B which was the context in which he had repeatedly been asked about it.
|
|
|
Post by historybuff on Jun 25, 2009 18:20:46 GMT -6
Just a quick observation from someone new to the site: Benteen stated at the court of inquiry regarding the Custer battlefield that he thought he could cross the river at virtually any point. Any hypothesized movements of Custer's wing, in my opinion, have to be viewed from the perspective of tactical aims- i.e. force dispersal to intimidate, threaten and string the NA warriors out and prevent their concentrating on weak spots (which they did anyway), to buy time for Benteen and Reno and assess a rapidly changing situation. It seems a reasonable response to me, but we'll never know what Custer was thinking. I tend to kinda sorta buy in the Ford D thing with some element of the command, if only for the reason that that was where the noncoms were sort of headed for, or at least where there was access to them once the command was reunited, in part or total. I kinda got to believe Bouyer told Custer of Reno's fallback to the woods(Custer may have even seen that himself), and he would have informed Custer of Reno's retreat up the bluffs (or at least he should have if Bouyer saw it) This is basically Skelnar's argument. Custer's options were dwindling, but not yet nonexistent. Then there is Lt. Clark's map and warrior testimony he gathered subsequent to the battle (see Fox's "Archaeology..."), which seems to carry some weight.
|
|