Ought Crook Have Been Court Martialled?

[Dark Cloud]

Requested thread by Benteen.

Question by me: for what?

[benteen]

Thank you for the courtesy Dark Cloud,

Crook as we all know was the largest part of a three pronged assault force.His force alone equaled the number of troopers in Terry Gibbons combined.He had a fight with the warriors in which he lost a dozen soldiers.Rather than fall back a mile or so to a good defensive position,and send for supplies(mostly ammo) He,without telling anyone,completely abandoned his mission and retreated 75 miles to Goose creek. At the time Custer was engaged in his fight, Crooks men were writing in their dairies about the number of fish they were catching.

I look at this as after committing the airborne troops behind the lines at Normandy,Ike decided, the heck with it I'm going back to England.

This man in effect just left.He was the largest part of this operation and he just left.How can he justify his action.

[Dark Cloud]

Strongly disagree. The condemnation isn't justified.

Whether through incompetent soldiers or crappy firing, they were out 25k rounds of ammo and had 32 dead and 21 wounded, which would have to travel through Indian territory to their not overpowering expedition base camp and then back to wherever. Crook had no way, zero, of knowing where Terry was or Gibbon, or if they still existed, given he had a powerful unit that had been brazenly attacked. Nobody could recall Indians willingly going out of their way to attack such a large segment of the Army.

Crook reported only 13 of the Lakota dead. That sounds suspiciously accurate and not inflated, as so many others were given to do, and would suggest Crook had lost to those unfamiliar with Indian fighting. He comes across as honest.

Had he sent the wounded back insufficiently protected he'd be rightly damned if anything happened. The joy to any Army seeing huge reinforcements arrive without their own ammo can only be imagined. If there had been another similar battle, Crook's guys would have run out to happy, happy ending. If he managed to accomplish both disasters, he'd rightly roast in the afterlife.

He went back to resupply and while it gives people giggles to see the hunting and fishing records set, this was part logistics and part having little else to do. He was feeding the men (well) and not running around with his head cut off. The shoulda/coulda/woulda talk is based upon the blessing of hindsight, when it looks worse than it would have then.

[stevewilk]

Crook's losses at Rosebud were 9 dead and 23 wounded; one scout killed and seven wounded. Not 32 dead and 21 wounded. Where did you get that nonsense? Never mind, I already checked: Wikipedia, that source of all truth.

Crook wanted to follow up the engagement at the Rosebud with a dawn attack on the Sioux. In a council with his Shoshone and Crow scouts, this idea was strongly denounced. In addition, ammo was down to fifty rounds per man. So he retired to await reinforcements; ironically it was Crook who'd always claimed white bluecoats were useless in fighting Indians. Now, after being stung by the Sioux, he decides not to budge until he gets more of those same bluecoats. Doesn't move until the trout population in northern Wyoming is near extinct.

I feel Crook was to be the star of this campaign, not Custer. Crook had a whole cadre of press to trumpet his expected victory. Much of depredations were occuring in his Dept. of the Platte, south of the Black Hills. There was to be a punitive expedition in 1874 of one thousand men marching from Ft. Laramie. It was scrapped I guess in favor of Custer's expedition as well as Indian bureau politics. I think the killing of Lt. Levi Robinson had the army bent on payback. There was to be no talking, only shooting. I believe the army brass wanted a victory badly. The regulars hadn't beaten the Sioux in a major fight since Harney's 1855 attack at Bluewater creek. Crook, their most successful Indian fighter, was the man to get it done.

He flopped; though his troops did fight three engagements. I see no cause for any court martial.

[benteen]

Stevewilk.

Your point is a valid one, but only if Crook was the only force sent to attack the Indians.In that case he could do whatever he wanted.In this case however,he was as I stated the largest part of a three pronged assault.He had no idea if Terry/Gibbon were planing their strategy on the fact that there were 1500 additional soldiers in the area.I'm not saying he should have pressed an attack, but he had an obligation to at least stay in the area.

You rightly point out that he had wounded, and that of course is a priority,but he was between the main body of warriors and the base camp,he could have sent 200 or so men back with the wounded and have them return with supplies.That would have left him with 1300 soldiers.In a good defensive position they could have held out against any number of warriors

That he basically just left, leaving Terry/Gibbon on their own I believe was unjustifiable.

On a side note, you think George Soros and his Wikipedia people speak with forked tongue(LOL)

[Dark Cloud]

Did get it from Wikipedia. Sorry if it's wrong. The point being he had to divide command and ammo, and since the Sioux had already attacked them, staying there with less men and ammo and await the 200 returning along vulnerable route doesn't seem wise now and probably less so then.

How would he know - how could he know - what the main body of warriors was and where they were? Crook always felt Indians fought Indians better than the whites - and with reason - but there was no option of waiting for sufficient Indian allies to go after unknown numbers of Sioux over an unknown duration. You make it sound as if it were a racial profiling of the Army by Crook as inferior warriors, and that in his personal cowardice he then begged, pleaded for White Soldiers to rescue him. In those years, and given the factual results, his position was mostly true, overall. Whitaker agrees with that, for what it's worth.

Crook was new to this department.

"...leaving Terry/Gibbon on their own..." isn't what happened. Crook was still in the field, and the Sioux had to know and take pains to deal with or avoid them, if they were as organized as is periodically claimed. It was hoped there would be one battle to do the trick, and that the three would somehow be working together, but not controlling the land between precluded it. That we now know what could have happened shouldn't alter what Crook, Terry, and Custer could have known at the time.

And in fact, it can be argued that Terry and Gibbon actually left Crook on his own on the 28th and took the steamboat to FAL. They didn't know what had happened with Crook. They could only assume he was still out there. What's the difference? They both had reason to do what they did.

And the campaign was successful, just without the big (eh, winning..) battle. It achieved all that could have been reasonably expected. In hindsight, the Indians could have won every battle, but as long as the Army was in there after them, they couldn't survive with no time to hunt and get organized for seasonal requirements.

[benteen]

Jul 11, 2010 18:02:28 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

".

And in fact, it can be argued that Terry and Gibbon actually left Crook on his own on the 28th and took the steamboat to FAL. .

Dark Cloud,

This is an unfair and inaccurate statement.Terry/Gibbon didn't leave anywhere,they were defeated.They had lost the most powerful contingent (Custer's 7th Cavalry) of their entire force. They were no longer a viable attack force.In addition they had numerous wounded,they had no choice but to withdraw.

Crook on the other hand had lost about 30 men,killed and wounded, out of a force of 1500.I cant fault him for not pushing on since I don't know what his concerns were.However there was no excuse for abandoning the entire theater of operations .

Reno/Benteen held out for a day and a half with only about 250 men,there is no question Crook with 5 times that many could have held out against any number of warriors.He just simply left

For all the good Crook was to this operation he may just as well have never left his base camp in the first place.He was useless

[Dark Cloud]

As is repeatedly said, it's all in the spin.

If some think it wise to stay pointlessly enemy accessible with insufficient ammo (how that came to be is another issue) and risk slaughter, some don't. The fact is that Crook actually stayed in the field, where he was, at least, an issue for the Sioux. He didn't run back to Ft. Fetterman as others did to A.L. Terry's command went away despite the fact the Indians 'ran' from them on the 26th. (Again: spin) They had certainly been defeated, but Crook had certainly been gelded from future offense with insufficient ammo to maintain it.

The two columns (after Gibbon joined Terry) were supposed to be self sufficient and able to operate alone, so the premise that one was abandoned to danger is bogus on its face. Crook was in the wild throughout, had no reason to imagine what happened to the 7th.

[benteen]

Jul 12, 2010 15:39:52 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

As is repeatedly said, it's all in the spin.

Terry's command went away despite the fact the Indians 'ran' from them on the 26th. (Again: spin) .

Dark Cloud,

Not true.The Indians left on the afternoon of the 26th.Terry didn't get there till the morning of the 27th.The Indians weren't running from anyone.

You state that Crook didn't have enough ammo to press forward, if you look at my post you will see that I stated I was not blaming Crook for not advancing,I don't know what his concerns were. What I find to be dereliction of duty,was his not staying in the area. He had enough ammo to do that.

You also state that he stayed in the field.Again I disagree, Crook left the next day and didn't return to the field until mid July.

Be Well
Dan (Benteen)

[Dark Cloud]

The Sioux knew Terry was advancing toward them and it has been claimed it was this - and the attached idiotic theory of their fear of infantry, plus artillery - which inspired them to leave. No way to know, of course. As I keep saying, it's in the spin. Not necessarily true. Impossible to know, in any case, and only of importance as faux historians try to attribute motivation and character flaw.

What is the point of staying in the 'area' of the enemy with insufficient ammo for advance, but somehow enough to stay? What would be the correct - by manual - mathematical computation of so much ammo per man for staying vs. pursuit? What was it for Crook?

We're not talking specific 'field' but in combat-likely territory. When soldiers say they were 'in the field' they aren't generally referencing a specific locale smaller than Vietnam or Afghanistan.

[crzhrs]

I don't believe the LBH Indians were in any fear of more soldiers coming. In fact a number of warriors had wanted to take on the Blue Coats but the elders overruled them.

In addition members of Terry's command spotted "soldiers" marching around (in fact it was warriors with captured 7th's uniforms trying to lure soldiers into a trap.

The Indians had plenty of weapons/ammo taken from dead 7th soldiers so they had the arms and apparently the hutzpah to take on more of the trouble-makers coming for them.

Maybe Crook, who was one of the most experienced commanders, knew what the military was in for after his "victory" at the Rosebud . . . the warriors were in no mood for being chased around any more and extreme caution was the best policy.

[benteen]

Jul 13, 2010 12:55:36 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

.

Maybe Crook, who was one of the most experienced commanders, knew what the military was in for after his "victory" at the Rosebud . . . the warriors were in no mood for being chased around any more and extreme caution was the best policy.

Crazy Horse,

I agree with your entire opinion especially the part that I have quoted.Your right about Crook, he was experienced and knew that he was the only one who was aware of the size, strength, and disposition of the warriors.Terry/Gibbon did not.It was imperative that he at least try to get a message to Terry/Gibbon to inform them of this.But he did not, he just left.

Dark Cloud I believe our disagreement as to should Crook have remained in the area ( not pushed forward Ive never criticized him for that) deals directly with the subject of ammunition.If he was almost out of ammo say 5 to 10 rounds per man than I can see his concern with being attacked and overrun.But if he was just low on ammo say 20 to 30 rounds per man than there is absolutely no excuse for him leaving.

If you or anyone else has done any research or has any knowledge of how much ammo Crooks men had, I would be much appreciative if you could tell me.

Thank You
Dan (benteen)

[Dark Cloud]

What in the world would be the point of staying on the Rosebud battlefield with 20-30 rounds per man (or 500 rounds, for that matter....) after the battle? These units were not defense oriented. You're projecting he was scared of being over-run. Rather, he had not enough material for offense - the point of the mission. In any case, he was supplied for four days only.

When did Terry send messages to Crook after the debacle? Shouldn't Crook be immediately informed of the size and ferocity of the Sioux and Cheyenne as you insist Crook should have informed Terry? He sent Taylor west. Crook would have to send someone to Ft. Fetterman. If you're okay with them leaving the LBH without directly contacting the other army in notionally known location, why so annoyed with Crook for leaving the Rosebud w/o doing so either? The same enemy controlled ground between.

The battle was on the 17th, Sheridan was informed on the 19th, who sent the info down the line, not reaching Terry till the 9th of July. In what way does Crook's procedure vary from Terry's? IF it's an error, it was an institutional and not a personal one.

Neither Crook nor Terry was annoyed with the other over this. They understood the issues on the ground.

[benteen]

Jul 15, 2010 12:31:43 GMT -6 Dark Cloud said:

What in the world would be the point of staying on the Rosebud battlefield with 20-30 rounds per man (or 500 rounds, for that matter....) after the battle?.

Neither Crook nor Terry was annoyed with the other over this. They understood the issues on the ground.

Dark Cloud,

The point of staying would be to remain a part of the operation.Remember these were not contingents sent on their own to attack Indians, they were to act in unison with each other

Let me try another example of what I mean.Ill use D Day again.
The invasion of Europe at Normandy was not just beach landings,it was a combined operation in which airborne troops were to jump the night before and take certain objectives so the men on the beach would not be decimated and would also have a way of breaking out from the beach

What would you think if the airborne commander had lost a few planes and decided they weren't going to jump,and just flew away without telling anyone.This is basically what Crook did.He also on top of that, had vital information about the warriors and did not let Terry know of it

I'm not excusing Terry.If for no other reason I would certainly want to know if I were him, if there was another 1500 troops in the area,and attempt to contact Crook.

As far as being annoyed at each other, what did Crook have to be annoyed about, he accomplished absolutely nothing.

( On a side note I saw in a message(cant find it now) that someone was on a list for the Mystery of E troop I have the book and would be glad to send it to him If you or anyone else reading this message knows who it is tell them to send me a PM)

Be Well
Dan (Benteen)

[Dark Cloud]

I grasp the comparison, but it isn't remotely valid. The intent, never mind the ability, of an army in 1876 to act in conjunction with another without any ability to communicate except by physical sight or presence, and this in a timely and helpful manner, is not comparable to an army in 1944 with planes and radios and timetables to the minute. They use many of the same words, but they reference the abilities of their times. Further, there was no tight coordination planned in 1876 comparable to Overlord. Hoped for, not planned, hardly assumed.

But you DID excuse Terry from the same standards by which you dis Crook. If one of them had contact with the enemy and is criticized for not attempting contact with the other, you would have to apply the same damnation to the other commander for not doing the same. You didn't, and don't. Didn't Terry also have 'vital information' about the warriors? Why, yes. Yes, he did. Terry wasn't annoyed with Crook, why are you? And Terry had accomplished nothing either. Less than nothing. Lost, in fact.