|
Post by mcaryf on Nov 3, 2007 1:03:11 GMT -6
Hi Fred
I am giving a talk to the Custer Association of Great Britain in a week's time using some of my Google imagery to show visibility from the Crow's Nest. It would be very helpful to use some of your photos to augment my material with the actual scenery. Do you have any objection to my lifting some of your photos and using them for this purpose?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 3, 2007 4:57:19 GMT -6
Mike--
Absolutely no objection at all. Use what you want, my treat. In fact, I have plenty more if you want me to e-mail them to you. Just tell me of what and where. I am trying to put together a collection of every place from virtually every angle. Right now, the weak points are Benteen's route (none); the "flats" (only from a slight distance); the skirmish line (only from a distance); Custer's route to Reno Hill (you've seen the best I have); North Fork (none); from atop Luce/Nye-Cartwright (none).
The battlefield itself, I have tons of and from every angle. I also have a lot from Ford A and MTC and from atop Weir Point. Just let me know. If you want, I can even burn a disk and send them to you. My pleasure.
I've heard about your talk... congratulations. I think it's great and if you might have something like a transcript that would be available for purchase, I would be delighted to buy a copy. We don't always agree, Mike, but you have marvelous ideas and your originality is top-flight. It's that latter quality that always has me thinking and wondering. It's things like that-- especially if they fit my little parameters, and yours generally do-- that ring true. It's good work.
Again, congratulations. Nice job!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Nov 3, 2007 11:41:22 GMT -6
Hi Fred
That is very generous of you but for the time being just that one picture will do.
I beleive there are quite a few mechanisms that enable people to share photos and it might be a good idea if we set up one such to do that.
I wonder if someone on here who has good experience of such mechanisms might recommend one so that we can all have a common access at least for the duration of the chronology exercise.
With respect to the CAGB talk, I do not use notes when I speak and the slides are not really self-explanatory. However, the main new part of the talk will be aspects of my timeline for Reno Hill which I will be happy to post once your chronology gets there. You will already be familiar with my theories concerning Benteen's mission to the left which the talk will also cover.
Regards
Mike
|
|
dcary
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by dcary on Nov 14, 2007 9:55:38 GMT -6
I have really enjoyed these threads and would like to simply urge Fred and Mike and anyone else who has comparable material to see that somehow it is preserved in the context it is being used here.
Mike, as to using no notes when you speak, very good pocket-sized digital recorders are available, from which you can download the recording directly into your computer. I used little tape recorders extensively for 15 years as a reporter, but the tape variety is a definite second-place finisher, especially if you ever want to transcribe anything.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 14, 2007 10:28:54 GMT -6
dcary--
I am glad you are enjoying them. Anything you have to add would be appreciated greatly. And I agree with you about the recorders. The only problem with Mike, however, is I think he knows so much he doesn't need any prompting.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Nov 14, 2007 12:15:09 GMT -6
Hi dcary
I did speak for about an hour (whoops 45 minute slot!) without notes but to my mind that keeps it fresher because it will be different if I do it again!
Regards
Mike
|
|
Buckshot
New Member
CAGB (Custer Association of Great Britain) Founder Member.
Posts: 2
|
Post by Buckshot on Nov 14, 2007 16:29:44 GMT -6
I was fortunate enough to be there to see Mike's presentation. I found it extremely interesting and thoroughly enjoyable. It was a real pleasure meeting up with you last Saturday Mike. Many thanks. Bob.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Nov 26, 2007 15:11:20 GMT -6
Fred, I dug out my old copy of "Custer Fell First"Eyewitness reports of John C. Lockwood by J.C. Ryan, published in 1966. In the book Lockwood says there were eight citizens with Custer. Boston Custer,Autie Reed, four packers,Charles Reynolds and himself. Anyway on page 47 he says "Our battalion moved along northeast of the Little Bighorn River for about eight miles,circled the Indian camp..." He claims Custer sent him with a message to Major Reno, and that he went East and circled the Indian camp. Inside the cover of the book is a map of the battlefield-it shows Lockwoods supposed route. It has him crossing at Ford D and heading back towards Reno to the West of the Indian camp. He claims that he had only gone a mile when he saw Custer move toward the Indian camp and within 300 yards Custer was killed or wounded. This book dates from 1966, did anyone else mention Ford D 40 years ago? Also if Lockwood is to be believed could Custer have been hit near Ford D?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2007 17:30:06 GMT -6
gocav--
I'm a bit bummed out about some of this stuff, especially since I am quickly coming to the conclusion I have been concentrating my efforts in the wrong sphere. I would like to cut myself some slack by thinking my intentions were correct and I simply chose the wrong route and didn't know or didn't have access to the correct material, but I think that is simply an excuse for failing to recognize the direction I really should have gone. I think the Nichols RCOI book began this "soul-searching" for me and it has escalated dramatically in recent days. I have become considerably more skeptical of almost everything to do with this battle and am now believing that virtually everything I have read is nothing more than another hack theory, no better, no worse, than anything I can espouse.
First of all, there was no Lockwood with the Seventh Cavalry and that includes the packers. Ken Hammer lists 12 packers with the command (a number that makes some sense... as does 6, by the way), none of whom were named Lockwood. There was also no report by anyone, that civilians-- other than the gang of four-- died with Custer. And we know for certain that Reynolds died in the valley. As for Ford D, it is also referred to as Cheyenne Ford and is mentioned in Stewart's book, Custer's Luck. That thing was copyrighted in 1955, so that pre-dates the Ryan book.
Lockwood is nothing more than another one of those guys who claim to have been with Custer and then escaped. As for Custer being hit at Ford D, it is as possible as anything else, though I personally doubt it. I think his reported position and his wounds indicate a man who was hit, incapacitated, and killed exactly where he was found and toward the end of the battle. Despite my current skepticism about virtually everything I have read, the Richard Fox scenario still stands the test of time to me. I know that will set a lot of people off, but from a strictly military point of view it meets all the criteria for a slowly developing battle, culminating in an absolute frenzy. I have read-- I think-- every other possible scenario and all of them are bunk, virtually every one of them military dither. Mike Fox (no relation to Richard), our own "mcaryf," has some good ideas on how it unfolded, so I would exempt him from my bile. "Keogh" and I disagree, as well, but he has some good points too.
To me, gocav, there are simply too many questions people refuse to answer when we discuss how the Custer fight unfolded and you must answer these points to explain a battle, otherwise anyone could make up any junk at all. Again, sharp, short, mobile fight unfold in a reasonably predictable fashion, so any deviation from the "straight line" must be explained and backed up by evidence, otherwise it probably didn't happen. The "deviation" defies logic. I have seen it happen in real life; I have been part of it. Quick, sharp fire-fights are generally easy to follow, it is human nature, instinct. I don't see this any differently.
If you study Ia Drang in Vietnam-- and that took a couple of days-- the whole thing followed a simple pattern. Once Emerson's battalion was trapped, he followed predictable measures, i.e., he sought high ground, he sought a forward position to help warn and protect his command, he covered the ingress routes to his position, etc. And the NVA did likewise, the only tactics employed generally being timing, intent, etc. I don't see the LBH as being a lot different. Keogh was killed because he didn't pull out; he didn't pull out because he wasn't threatened; he wasn't threatened because things unfolded slowly and by the time he realized the danger, he was surrounded and could do nothing. I don't see it any differently with Yates and Custer.
Best wishes, Fred.
As for those who got away... well, God bless 'em.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Nov 26, 2007 17:51:09 GMT -6
Thanks Fred for the reply. The "Custer Fell First" book was the first book I ever bought, I was 9 years old in 1966. I was sure that I had read on the boards before that Lockwoods story was a lot of hogwash, but the map was something I never really paid any attention to. You know even had the battle taken place in todays time, we still may had a hard time finding the truth. Can you imagine how the various TV news reporters, not to mention the gossip magazines- would have had a field day with the story. I will say that when I first heard the Ford D theory I wasn't really sure. However the more I read it does make some sense. The photo's you have posted have been great! I have been able to see sites and locations through your work that I may never have seen.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2007 18:47:51 GMT -6
gocav-- Nine years old in 1966! My God, you're a pup! Actually, you are my wife's age.
I think a trip to Ford D makes a lot of sense, especially if you believe-- as I do-- that Custer's goal was the round-up of "people." ("People" being anyone who fled the village.) I believe his mission was to get Indians back to the reservations, the agencies. This did not preclude killing as necessary, but I do not believe annihilation was his or Terry's goal. Despite the man's obvious brutal bent, he was probably a decent individual and if I properly recall his pre-campaign activities, he hated the fact the Indians were cheated and lied to by the government.
So, while I think Custer certainly wanted all the credit and glory, it wasn't a blood-lust. I think the key here, Larry, is in how you feel the battle unfolded. I think if you feel Custer was repulsed from the Ford B area, then you have to go with serious pressure the rest of the way and that, to me, rules out any excursion to Ford D. On the other hand, if you believe Custer withdraw from that area, calmly and without pressure, then you can explain a foray to D. The first scenario requires a shorter battle, the second, an obviously longer event. If, on the other hand, you believe Custer was wounded or incapacitated at Ford B, then that requires a whole new set of circumstances, all of which I believe to be indefensible. I just don't buy a command traipsing around broken territory carrying a mortally wounded George Custer.
Incidentally, the best guy around-- at least that I know of-- who can tell you about these "battle witnesses"-- is "Scout," Mike Nunnally. He wrote a great article in the last winter Research Review about them. I just glanced through it briefly, but I didn't see Lockwood's name. He takes on Frank Finkel, though, and completely debunks that nonsense. "Scout" is a great guy, one of the absolute best and he knows his stuff cold.
Also, I am delighted you liked the pictures up there. If you want, I can send you those and some more, virtually the entire route from Davis Creek to Deep Ravine and Last Stand Hill. They give you tremendous perspective and I will send you a disk, fully annotated so you know what you're looking at. If you-- or anyone else, for that matter-- want, just PM me your full name and address and I'll burn the disk and ship it off, toute de suite.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 27, 2007 1:47:26 GMT -6
Hi, just to add further info, FWIW, I pulled out my Custer Fell First book. I don't know if any of this has any merit but it probably one of the first Custer books that I read many moons ago.
He says that he, Charlie Reynolds, and 4 other packers went with with Custer's batallion.
He basically has Custer circling the camp with his battalion along the ridges and travelling about 8 miles from the divide of the command with Reno & Benteen. They were 2 miles from the LBH where they stopped and unpacked and distributed ammunition. Custer wrote 2 dispatches for Reno sending one with Charley Reynolds going east and one with John Lockwood going west accross the river and around the Indian Camp to get to Reno. He went about a mile, heard the bugle, saw the 5 companies abreast moving to the river with Custer in the lead. About 300 yards from where the Indians were waiting, (it doesn't say how close to the river) the Indians opened fire and Custer and his staff fell checking the rest of the troops. The troops dismounted and returned fire. He saw a great stir among the Indians of the main village. He heard the firing for sometime until he crossed the LBH.
He rode around the west side of the Indian village, heard firing at Reno Hill, and got through the lines after dark where he gave his dispatch to Reno. Just after he arrived, he said Charley Reynolds then arrived with his dispatch. He said they both told Reno, Benteen, French, and others what they saw of Custer and that the last they saw of them they were dismounted fighting to the front and the Indians were coming in hordes surrounding them and that they could hear the firing for a short time, then it ceased. Reno's men wanted to go relieve Custer but Reno wouldn't let them. Reno said they could go back to Custer.
About 10:00 am on the 26th, he and Reynolds left the hill moving south to the river. Indians saw them, killed Reynolds, and the 2 horses. He floated down river and hid in the grass and willows. He then walked all night and got back to Reno Hill on the morning of the 27th. After Terry arrived and they went to the battlefield, he and James Severs of M Troop lifted Commanche up and used their hats to bring water to the horse to drink to save it.
He was placed in command of the pack train until they arrived back at FAL. He and the regiment quartermaster, Major Skulley, went to Fort Leavenworth to sucure more horses and mules. Since he was a civilian, they had papers prepared for him to enlist but said he couldn't because he was 19. The commanding officer sent a letter to his father in Grandview, IA for permission and he says that his father's signature is now at the war department in Washington. He enlisted in the 7th on August 31, 1876. He spent a lot of time moving stock around the forts in North Dakota and running dispatches. At Fort Rice, he was assigned to M Troop and Capt. French. They were involved in going after Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce in 1877. He was discharged on July 14, 1878 with tuberculosis. His discharge paper is in the book listing the 7th.
He said he was with the 7th Cavalry on all their expeditions since the arrived at Yangton, SD in the spring of 1873. Charley Reynolds and his uncle, John Raymond, were in appointed as official guides with him in charge of the pack train during the Black Hills expedition in 1874. He also carried dispatches to Crook when Crook was exploring what is now Yellowstone NP.
John Raymond had a homestead on the Solomon River near Delphos, KS in 1870. That year Lockwood helped him move a herd from Texas to Abilene. Somewhere (around Abilene?) in 1870 he says Custer and about 20 men stopped at their camp one day and he talked to him the next day while hunting deer when John was 13 years old at the time. In 1871 John and his Uncle John went prospecting into the Black Hills.
That is John C. Lockwood in a nutshell. I'm not sure I know enough to corroborate or refute his story. If he was on all the other expeditions as a packer then surely his name would show up somewhere. He only indicates one attack by Custer to the LBH which seems to me to suggest around the Ford D area but the author, J. C. Ryan, (who was Lockwood's nephew) later toured the battlefield with Lockwoods manuscript indicating it was at MTC/Ford B but I don't really know enough yet about what may have happened at Ford D to draw any conclusions. He is also saying that Custer took some packs with him and supplied more ammo to his troops about 2 miles from the River. Was this in addition to the 124 rounds they were already carrying? Why the P.S bring packs to Benteen if he already had extra ammo? When did Charley Reynolds arrive to meet Reno? Does Reno or Benteen or anyone else mention receiving 2 dispatches from Custer during the night of the 25th or was there a coverup? What did those dispatches say? I'll leave it to others who may know if Lockwood or his uncle, John Raymond, are mentioned in any of the earlier expeditions.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Nov 27, 2007 2:52:22 GMT -6
BC, You covered John C. Lockwoods story quite well. I believe it says in the book that it was first written down in 1926. I am positive Fred is correct, in stating his reservations as to Lockwoods story. What intrigued me most was looking at the map in the book it had Lockwood crossing the river at or near Ford D. I was just curious if perhaps instead of MTC/FordB perhaps he saw Custer fall at Ford D. He does have a photo of himself in 7th uniform as well as the papers you indicated,in the book. As Fred suggested, I will wait to hear what Scout has to say about Lockwood.
|
|
|
Post by gocav76 on Nov 27, 2007 3:06:47 GMT -6
Fred, Thanks for the offer to send me a photo disk of the battlefield. That Sir is most generous, and I accept your offer. I'll send the PM with address. Larry
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 27, 2007 6:35:32 GMT -6
Phew...... What a tale.
This Lockwood character sounds like a real drinking buddy of ole Fred Goldin's, if not his first cousin.
Police detectives encounter the same personalities today, when numbers of 'confessions' are made by people claiming guilt/credit? for high profile and baffling crimes.
By 1926, LOTS of factoids about the Little Bighorn fight had surfaced. Enough so that faintly to intriguingly credible stories could be concocted and put forth.
In this present day, we see books on everything from the Bermuda Triangle to Leonardo Di Vinci and right on through astronomy presenting cases for theories that are highly compelling to the layman. Yes, the Old West tradition of spinning tall tales is alive and well.
I don't believe that even the Alamo inspired as many 'participants' to put forth their 'eye witness accounts.' But then, maybe they did and fewer people gave them much lasting consideration. Just a slap on the back and laughter in the local saloon. Tell a big enough whopper and someone may buy you a drink, just to hear another.
"Now. O.D. Cleaver and I were surrounded by Comancheros one time, down on the Brazos. When suddenly....!"
M
|
|