In Defense of Benteen

[Gen. Kuster]

May 13, 2010 11:40:35 GMT -6 Melani said:

There doesn't have to be new evidence for there to be a new way of looking at existing evidence.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Dark Cloud]

What in the world would "a new way of looking at evidence" actually mean? It sounds so exciting, like 'a new way to scramble eggs', but the result can only be the same with different garnish and acceptance on the palate. It doesn't change the fact you've just gussied up an excuse for breaking the first yoke.

Fresh hypotheses, perhaps? Hardly. Evidence as it exists can serve any number of theories. In any case there are none.

Everything panted about today isn't original to this century or to the last. The archaeology can only prove date of manufacture, location of find, and possible inclusion in the battle. There is no way to ascertain if it was used in the battle, or during the mutilation of the dead in the following day, or anything.

Science may or may not identify the dead, but not how or where they died, only where they were last dug up. As such, they're not reliable indications of what happened.

Few make any attempt to flense late appearing stories from actual evidence, which is pretty much only first hand accounts or testimony taken within a few years of the battle by reliable sources, like officers under oath and those not hawking a book or fluffing a relative.

[Melani]

Same old tired garbage. If you can't figure out what it means, I certainly can't explain it to you.

[Reddirt]

Melani, there are actually television shows watched by millions that exemplify your position. "Cold Case" files are reviewed over and over again from different perspectives. As a result, "There doesn't have to be new evidence for there to be a new way of looking at existing evidence."

Cases long dead are re-opened and criminals are brought to justice for the horrible crimes they have committed. Keep up the good work Melani, your posts are enjoyed by most. ;)i

[AZ Ranger]

May 13, 2010 11:40:35 GMT -6 Melani said:

There doesn't have to be new evidence for there to be a new way of looking at existing evidence.

When someone states Benteen watered the horses for a time greater than 1/2 hour then he should have the supportive evidence. Interpretation based upon nothing is the same as making a false statement without the supportive evidence to form the opinion.

[AZ Ranger]

May 10, 2010 13:33:16 GMT -6 Gen. Kuster said:

There are very good reasons for calling both of them weasels. At least two separate officers reported that Reno was drinking in the valley and at the Defense site. Plus, Reno probably lost more men in his retreat than he did during the actual fight in the valley. His whole goal that day was to stay alive. Yes, do the minimum (so he doesn’t face Custer’s wrath) but more importantly, stay alive. Tell me what helpful thing did he do during the entire battle except beat a hasty retreat that was meant to save his own life more than anything else? And Like Benteen, Reno did not get along with Custer, so he had a motive not to perform that day.

Then in the case of Colonel Benteen, he harbored ill will towards Gen. Custer from the day they met, and there are scores and scores of things he wrote about how he despised Custer, yet how often did Custer write or say ill of Benteen? The animosity was certainly one sided, and I think Custer was mystified by it.

Colonel Benteen took over 30 minutes to water his horses after regaining Custer’s trail in Reno Creek, and when he was told to be quick, he still took his time. In his defense, people say that he believed that Custer was routing the Indians, so he did not have to hurry. That is a load of BS. Benteen was at Washita right? In that battle, which was considered a route for the Army, Custer and his men narrowly escaped, and every soldier he had was needed in order to gain the upperhand. Benteen knew that. He was at Washita and he knew how quickly a battle could turn especially considering the large number of Indians and considering they had lost the element of surprise they had at Washita. He knew the village was huge too. If people think that Custer expected to charge the village with just 200 men, take NCs, and get the Indians to surrender just like that without a tough battle, then they are naïve. Benteen wants you to believe that!

Custer first had to get the upperhand by delivering an unexpected blow to the village (his charge at MTF followed by Benteen), do some serious battle with several hundred Indians, and in doing so, shock many of the Indians into a retreat. In order to do this, Benteen and his men were needed!!! There is no way that Custer and his 200 men could have delivered a strong enough blow that would cause panic. Only after the Indians had retreated could he go after the NCs to really secure the victory just like at Washita. Benteen knew this too, but what he did to Custer was payback for his friend MAJ Elliott. Thus, in my book, Benteen is a weasel too.

In the military you may harbor petty thoughts of ill will towards your Commanding Officer, but you never leave him or his command out to die because of your personal issues against him. A real officer performs his duty to the best of his ability at all times. He does not say this mission is worthy of me dying but that one isn’t. He does not choose. He follows orders to the T or men get killed unnecessarily. Civilians can’t be expected to understand this.

Melani the above statement is not a new way of looking at the evidence of how long it took for Benteen to water without some new evidence that it took longer than 1/2 hour.

So again I ask what research discovered that it took longer than 1/2 to water the horses.?

Is fabrication the same as research for some people?

AZ Ranger

[shan]

Darkcloud,

The trouble with your position with regards to re-examining evidence, is that if we all took your advice then we'd have nothing to talk about and then where would we be? Whilst I actually agree with you to some degree, if we bother to join these boards in the first place it's usually because we want to push things a little further in the hope that we might discover something we'd overlooked, if nothing else it provides us with the opportunity to turn the evidence over either in the hope that someone has inadvertently revealed something they'd hoped to conceal, or else in the hope that we might find that maybe down there amongst all the dross we've all read a thousand times before, is a glimmer of something that may help add another piece to the jigsaw puzzle.


I've recently been in discussion on another board which necessitated me re-reading some of Kulmans book Legend into history, and it reminded me of the pitfalls we all face when faced with someone's theory of how the battle unfolded. The problem is this. Like all of us---and I'd include myself in this--- Kulman takes the text, the words of various witnesses, and bends them to suit his purpose. In his case I'm thinking more particularly of his use of Curley, Gall and Mrs Spotted Bull amongst others. Where any of their testimony seems to contradict a particular theory he holds, he says something along the lines of, " Gall was mistaken here, or, Gall mis- understood the question, or, Godfrey misunderstood the answer. I'm not picking on him, but just look through any number of other books on the subject and you'll find the same. Read through any number of posts on any number of boards and yes, you'll find the same. The trouble is the words are just the words, their neutral. Yes we all know that they come with a heavy back story, especially the Indian evidence, and yes we all use that as an excuse to re-interpret them by either blaming the interpreters, or the fact that the Indians might have feared reprisals, you know the kind of thing, the list goes on. But this back story can never be proved, the words are neutral so all we can ever have is a gut feeling and a lot of hearsay to go on.

As an example, take a man I'm particularly interested in; Low Dog. When he gave his statement one evening shortly after his return from Canada, he gave it to a group of several curious officers and at least one reporter. I suppose had he had the option, he would have preferred to keep his thoughts to himself { but this is just a classic an example of me putting myself in his position,} but, having no idea what his fate, or the fate of his family was going to be, and knowing very little of the strange ways of these men who were now his conquerors, he must have felt that he had very little option but to comply with their request that he give them his view of the battle.

His statement is full of observations a number of other Inians voiced, observations such as " I never saw, or fought such brave men,"etc, which I tend to interpret as the words of a man buttering up his audience and giving them what he thought they wanted. But that's just me, I have a particular interest in this man, so I would say that wouldn't I? Who knows? He may have meant it for all I know, besides, when I read the text I'm not only reliant on the man who translated his words, I'm also reliant on whether the reporter actually tried to write down exactly what he was told, or whether he decided to bend it a little for the benefit of his readers. The bottom line is this, all these things were probably happening to some degree that night, they are the background, the landscape in which all this was happening; the landscape we can't see. Did Low Dog mean what he said? Did the translator try his hardest to transcribe his words, was he fearful that an Indian going on and on about his exploits in other battles would bore the officers to tears, and so he abbreviated what Low Dog said? Dd the reporter write down exactly what was said or did he want to put his spin on it as we say these days? The trouble is we will never know, and a man who can never know can only give it his best shot.

There is of course one last hidden viewpoint in all this, which is us the reader and what we bring to what we read, which may---may---complicate things even further. I'm thinking here of the number of people on all the boards who have had military experience, something which naturally colors their approach to things---some more than others. Then there are those like myself who have a leaning towards the Indians which makes us view their testimony more favorably. There are yet others who favour Benteen, and some who hate him, likewise Reno, although it has to be said that those that speak up for him are very few. There will be the long battle advocates, and the short battle advocates, you get the picture. We all bring our agenda to the table.

That said, we can, if we can put these things aside, and sometimes dare to actually change our minds, find something new in the text, so that even though the words down there on the page appear to be neutral, I think we can occasionally glean something by re-reading them

Shan

[AZ Ranger]

May 14, 2010 6:32:05 GMT -6 Reddirt said:

Melani, there are actually television shows watched by millions that exemplify your position. "Cold Case" files are reviewed over and over again from different perspectives. As a result, "There doesn't have to be new evidence for there to be a new way of looking at existing evidence."

Cases long dead are re-opened and criminals are brought to justice for the horrible crimes they have committed. Keep up the good work Melani, your posts are enjoyed by most. ;)i

Modern forensics techniques can produce new evidence that did not exist at the time of an investigation. In some cases a person wrongly convicted is released. I would think very few "cold" cases that result in a conviction are without some new evidence being developed.

For example if we have a incompetent investigator from Baltimore and he looks at the evidence and fails to put it together and misses interviewing a material witness and then a new investigator puts it together the witness statement is new evidence even though the witness's knowledge existed from the time of the crime.

[AZ Ranger]

Shan I think we can all use things to support a particular theory. It may or may not be evidence but simply consistent with a particular theory. When one makes a statement that it took over 1/2 hour for Benteen to water the horses based upon his research then he should be able to produce whatever he used to form his opinion.

[Dark Cloud]

Shan,

First, I'm not really sure I'm giving advice as to how to proceed, and would suggest we'd still have plenty to talk about regarding the LBH without the increased micro-investigations of notional phantasms - generally involving time - that cannot be solidified at this date.

This will require some rehash of past points I've tried to make, obviously with no success.

1. define and stick to terms in a glossary of terminology that prevents sliding around and disallows what amounts to fan fictionalizations using favorite characters. This would include terms like 'field', 'volley', and time, etc. Gray's work was the necessary first step, for which he's greatly resented, but the very concept of time/motion is now cemented into place and cannot be ignored.

2. disallow any account/testimony that appears for the first time after the RCOI. This for the simple reason that with the best heart and intent in the world, we know for a fact after centuries that such memories are dubious and seem to increase in detail as the years pass. What truth is lost is off set by the loss of much garbage.

3. any theory or conclusion that presents a Custer new to history, a 7th suddenly performing intricate moves dependent upon highly skilled soldiers, horsemen, and marksmen, and this atop a visualized Sioux nation barely short of shoulder boards and crisp British command structure, should be viewed with a cancerous eye and have to explain how such ability magically appeared.

You suggest "...it's usually because we want to push things a little further in the hope that we might discover something we'd overlooked, if nothing else it provides us with the opportunity to turn the evidence over either in the hope that someone has inadvertently revealed something they'd hoped to conceal, or else in the hope that we might find that maybe down there amongst all the dross we've all read a thousand times before, is a glimmer of something that may help add another piece to the jigsaw puzzle."

We know more about this battle than some firefights in Vietnam or World War Two (or, I suppose, any war). The great mysteries of the LBH tend to be where precisely so and so was when killed, and who shot him, and was he brave at the end? The guys who walked the field were often, like Benteen, guys who'd seen a LOT of battles and knew what to look for. In general, they pretty much agree it was short and brutal. The exceptions fall under the category of accepted social conventions of the time, and concern for Maggie Calhoun's unimaginable losses, worse than La Custer's.

I'd be more congenial to your position if people limited themselves to best evidence, which would be as described by participants under oath or close in time to the event. In reality, they cherry pick a newspaperman's account of an 'interview' through a translator in after fiasco hysteria, prop it up with a remark made decades later that supports it, although the remark may have been absorbed by the speaker from that newspaper years in the past, and is not a mutually supporting piece of evidence from another participant. All the end notes in the world may have only one source, and that dubious.

Kuhlman is guilty of this as many are to this day.

Words are hardly neutral. Strongly disagree. Defeat? Fiasco? Or heroic Last Stand? That sets the tone for all accompanying 'evidence.' Actually, they're rather instructions on how information, true or not, is be received by the reader. It's why conz and others affect the British inclination to elevate terminology and call soldiers Soldiers and Indians Warriors. It's a message that he's praising them and so not to be condemned when he slanders individuals like Reno and Benteen because of that respect, you see. Of course, it's also a way to use this battle to praise himself, which is his entire goal, and at the expense of those who are bemedalled combat vets, which he is not.

There is much evidence that many of these 'translators' (frankly, how would anyone who didn't speak the language know how good they were? If they could tell, they needed no translator) were only marginally better than Godfrey. But really, you can ascertain some insight not by focusing on knowing the unknowable - what Indians actually said, felt, feared - but by what the common templates and stories were in our own press and literature of the time. If these templates have Indians playing roles suspiciously like mythological European heroes of the past, or ripped from King Arthur's tales, or using unit letters and army terms and names for geographic sites, every storm warning flag should be flying.

"The trouble is we will never know, and a man who can never know can only give it his best shot."

The best shot for people desiring 'truth' is to admit we will never know, as you do, but at the same time not feel obligated to take a position that cannot be held superior to numerous others. That's one thing Connell did I like. Here are the options, but who knows? Pseudo historians take an unnecessary position and state it as uncontested fact, like Donovan and Philbrick do. It's wrong of them to do that.

Kuster seems sure that officers said Reno was drunk in the valley. Really? And were they there themselves? Were they repeating a story? And when did the story appear?

I don't think there are very many on these boards who've served in the military whatsoever and, of those, fewer who've served in combat. The gap between civvy (again: I never served) and soldier is less vast than that between combat vet and Bevo officer. There are also those who, it's fairly clear to me, are using the battle as a way to work out some issues they had in their past with officers or the army.

Or trying to leave that impression, because there are some - equally clear to me - who never served and pretend to have done so. Anyone nearby come to mind? Why, yes.

[Gen. Kuster]

hmmm....I echo the comments above from Melani, Shan and Reddirt.

1) New Evidence (i.e. new information) may be out there waiting to be discovered. Old documents are constantly turing up (not in this case but in others) because they were incorrectly filed in the various national archives, overlooked by previous researchers, or held in personal collections. I believe that the famous order to Benteen to "come on. Be quick" falls into this category because Benteen kept it in his possession for a long time. Thus, we need to continue looking for new information that may shed more light on the battle.

2) Evidence that is available can always be looked at with a fresh / new perspective as new technologies and areas of expertise develop. DNA is a perfect example.

DC - are you always this closed minded?

[crzhrs]

I would think the descendants of Indians who fought at the LBH would still have "souvenirs" cached away that they don't show "outsiders". May not add much to the "whats', whys' and fors" of the battle though.

Not sure what kind of "new evidence" is out there. This battle has been dissected for 134 years, there was an official inquiry done, countless books written, and of course, forums like this.

Not to say someone's grandfather didn't squirrel away some "evidence" but unless they show up on Antique's Roadshow . . . I think we've got all there is to know . . . it's how it's interpreted that's the thing.

[Gen. Kuster]

You would be surprised how many documents are in the national archives that may contain some little nuggets (a word or two, sentences, paragraphs, etc) that could provide amplification. Researchers are not perfect so something important may have been missed especially because as time passes, it's easy to take something out of context and not fully understand it. Thus, it's always a good idea to comb through old documents in case some little nugget was missed.

I have been to the National Archives in Washington DC many times, and always find something new. I have done a lot of Civil War research there related to my family, and since they keep all military service records there for any person who has served in the US Military, I plan to check out Benteen and Reno's record in the near future. I expect that their service records will be pretty extensive because in my Civil War research on my ancestors, it was common to find several hundred pages worth of records that always seems to generate something new.

[Gen. Kuster]

May 14, 2010 8:03:04 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

Shan I think we can all use things to support a particular theory. It may or may not be evidence but simply consistent with a particular theory. When one makes a statement that it took over 1/2 hour for Benteen to water the horses based upon his research then he should be able to produce whatever he used to form his opinion.

Gee wiz AZ. I respect your need for references when discussing this battle, but typically if I think that something is general knowledge like the basic purpose of cavalry or the approximate time that Benteen took, I typically don't feel a need to site references like I would do if writing a paper or book.

But I understand your point, and if you allow me time, I will respond with references.

[Dark Cloud]

You're now saying it is common knowledge that Benteen took OVER a half an hour to water? Really.

Oh, now it's approximate?

Well, whether you feel the need to site references isn't of issue, only that you cite them when you claim all this original research.

Also, who were the officers claiming Reno was drunk in the valley? And where were they when they observed this?