Ought Crook Have Been Court Martialled?

[benteen]

Dark Cloud,

Your point about my comparing Overlord with the situation at the LBH is a valid one.For the reasons you gave,it was a poor example,I stand corrected.However I still disagree with you on the Terry/Crook messages.Terry basically had nothing to tell Crook. All he knew by Reno's scout was a guess as to where the Indians were and by this time Crook had already started his march back to Goose Creek.Crook on the other hand had vital information.The Army was of the firm belief that the Indians always scattered (which I disagree with) Crook not only knew the size and strength of the Indians but most important, their disposition. He knew the warriors were not going to run but stand and fight,or even attack.He had to believe that Terry would plan his tactics and strategy based on the conviction that the most difficult problem he would face is the camp running away.Crook knew they wouldn't,and he had an absolute obligation to let Terry know of this vital fact.He was only 30 miles away he could have easily sent a messenger in a wide arc around the warriors and still have reached Terry before Custer set out.
Be Well
Dan (benteen)

[Dark Cloud]

In hindsight, things look different. Crook had no clue where Terry was, as Terry had no clue about Crook. Terry knew from the 7th and his scouts the size and inclinations of the Indians, much of which he could probably smell across the river. He did not know, had no reason to think, Crook had been in a fight and so, by fair application of your logic, was obligated to warn him.

Further, and by your logic, Terry on the 27th was under obligation to swing a rider wide around the Indians to get to Crook if Crook was under the same ten days previous. But on the 17th of June, Terry was somewhat further away than the estimated 30 miles between battlefields. As the crow flies it looks to be, at a guess, more than 80 miles to the junction of the Tongue and Yellowstone, and that through territory rightly considered iffy. Reno was closer, but moving north further up the valley Crook and others rightly considered a death trap.

[benteen]

Dark Cloud.

I believe I have unintentionally given you the impression that I support Terry's actions,since our discussion has moved away from Crooks actions to one of a Terry vs Crook.Let me clear that up.I in no way excuse Terry for his actions either. I stand by my conviction that Crook had the vital information and had an obligation to get it to Terry,but Terry was the other half of this operation and had an obligation to himself, his men. and to the mission to at least attempt to find out where Crook was.True DC he was 80 miles away, but Reno when on his scout was only 30 and Terry could have told him that if possible to attempt to send a patrol to attempt to locate Crooks forces.He didn't.Or at least I have not read anywhere that he did. As a matter of fact rarely do I read that on the discussions with Custer and Gibbon on the Far West does he even mention his concern or care where Crook is.

My coming down on Crook and not so much Terry is that at least Terry tried to accomplish his mission, his part of the operation (although it turned out to be a disaster) Crook on the other hand didn't even try.He just left

I look at Terry's action as being foolish and perhaps incompetent..I look at Crooks as being out and out dereliction of duty

[Dark Cloud]

Well, that's one of the big things that sets me off, this bit about having different standards evaluating the actions of officers in combat.

You cannot have evidence that two officers did (or did not) do the same thing and simply say one is guilty of dereliction of duty and the other as merely being 'foolish and perhaps incompetent.' (For one thing, wouldn't being foolish and incompetent BE a dereliction of duty?)

And, in fact, both generals did do what was procedure and got the info back to where it was required and did not substitute a dubious activity to find the other through messages on missions likely suicidal. Custer and Herendeen didn't risk a far lesser journey to a place where they knew the desired recipient would be after a glance north to Tullocks showed no smoke or sign of a village. If Herendeen had been sent around by loop, if it got there at all the message would be rendered irrelevant by events Custer planned anyway.

That it is now known it could have been done isn't relevant or fair given what they knew at the time, or could know. I note you do not address the point of simply staying on the Rosebud field that you suggested for Crook in your last post.

Both generals did the same thing, which suggests agreed upon procedure, and neither seems to have thought the other had screwed up. That Crook went fishing is construed as inappropriate behavior for US soldiers under the circumstances, but in aggregate with else, he did nothing wrong and much right.

It's worth recalling that the campaign succeeded in its goals, that its only failure was Custer's, which required the 7th to retire from the field to recharge. Crook was in the field for a long, long time. And despite the god awful conditions, the Sioux collapsed.

Crook, and others, knew that simply staying in the field to keep the enemy on the jump was more successful than risking pointless battle. That soldiers wanted 'glory' and press coverage for battle victory isn't necessarily conducive to a nation's goals, pocketbook, or advance.

[benteen]

Jul 23, 2010 11:14:06 GMT -5 Dark Cloud said:

You cannot have evidence that two officers did (or did not) do the same thing and simply say one is guilty of dereliction of duty and the other as merely being 'foolish and perhaps incompetent.' (For one thing, wouldn't being foolish and incompetent BE a dereliction of duty?)


I note you do not address the point of simply staying on the Rosebud field that you suggested for Crook in your last post.

Both generals did the same thing, which suggests agreed upon procedure, and neither seems to have thought the other had screwed up. .



Crook, and others, knew that simply staying in the field to keep the enemy on the jump was more successful than risking pointless battle. That soldiers wanted 'glory' and press coverage for battle victory isn't necessarily conducive to a nation's goals, pocketbook, or advance.

DC There are different levels of incompetence and based on what officers did(or in this case did not do) determines that level.Some mistakes can be looked at as foolish and others as dereliction of duty based on what they did

I did not suggest that Crook should have stayed on the field? Thats all I have been doing

Both Generals did the same thing? No they did not Terry at least tried to accomplish his end.He made mistakes like not trying to know where Crook was, and letting Custer go on his own which is always a dangerous thing,but at least he tried. Crook on the other hand just felt he had enough of this Indian fighting nonsense and just left'

Your last point about Crook knowing that just staying in the field was more important than attacking.If he knew that why didn't he do it. He didn't attack, or stay in the field, he did nothing but leave.

[Dark Cloud]

1. DC There are different levels of incompetence and based on what officers did(or in this case did not do) determines that level.Some mistakes can be looked at as foolish and others as dereliction of duty based on what they did

I understand that, but here we have two general officers who did exactly the same thing. After an arguable defeat, they retreated and sent riders to the surest contact with their superior. Neither sent riders to each other for logical reasons.

2. I did not suggest that Crook should have stayed on the field? Thats all I have been doing

I know, and I asked you to explain what the point of a depleted Crook staying on the Rosebud field was. I ask again.

3. Both Generals did the same thing? No they did not Terry at least tried to accomplish his end.He made mistakes like not trying to know where Crook was, and letting Custer go on his own which is always a dangerous thing,but at least he tried. Crook on the other hand just felt he had enough of this Indian fighting nonsense and just left'

Yes, they did the same thing. Your opinion of Crook's frame of mind has no basis other than wishful thinking based upon that of others. Again, 'staying in the field' does not reference a battlefield as 'on' the field would.

4. Your last point about Crook knowing that just staying in the field was more important than attacking.If he knew that why didn't he do it. He didn't attack, or stay in the field, he did nothing but leave.

That's not true. He had insufficient ammo for offensive operations if the 25k vanished as repeatedly stated and uncontested. He only had supplies for 4 days and needed to return to train with wounded, however many. And, he stayed in the field, did not return to stockade protection.

[benteen]

Jul 25, 2010 11:49:48 GMT -5 Dark Cloud said:

1.
I understand that, but here we have two general officers who did exactly the same thing. .


I know, and I asked you to explain what the point of a depleted Crook staying on the Rosebud field was. I ask again.


Yes, they did the same thing. .

. He had insufficient ammo for offensive operations if the 25k vanished as repeatedly stated and uncontested. .

Dark Cloud,

Point 1- No they didn't do the same thing,Terry stayed and tried to complete his mission, Crook left, that is the whole basis of my opinion

Point 2- Crook depleted condition? He lost 30 men out of 1500

Point 3- See point 1

Point 4 - In my last post I stated that he neither attacked or stayed, that was to show he did nothing. I have never advocated that he should have attacked.If the man felt that they were planning an ambush and didn't want to attack I'm not criticizing for that I never have. My problem with him is that he left

[Dark Cloud]

He did exactly what Terry did, policed the field of combat and retired, sending out messages to Sheridan, who told Crook to wait for Merritt and the 7th for replenishment. Terry retreated at least as far as Crook did, with the Yellowstone providing an impediment atop distance the various drools from the Bighorns did not offer Crook. From the time of their individual actions to their retreat, they did the same thing. And survived.

Had anyone known where the other was, and what they were doing, there would, as it happens, indeed have been opportunity for some effective cooperation, but they didn't and so there wasn't. They didn't control the interior lines (so to speak) because that was, of course, the entire point of the campaign: they didn't control that land and to assume riders could get through in time with meaningful info could be as self defeating - by informing the hostiles of another unit behind them they may not have known - as 'doing nothing.' Although, 'nothing' somehow seems to have demanded the division of the tribes into more easily cowed units who spent the remainder of the summer on the run and the following autumn and winter in Canada freezing or on the Rez. Also freezing, but the point was win or lose, just being in the field and cramping the Sioux style did the work as well as battle.

In contrast, those who damn Reno for not doing what Custer is hypothesized as having done resent his survival and boring defense rather than those thrilling firing lines. Boring defensive succes then denies Custerphiles the joy of using military terminology today in dubious, half-backed theoreticals demanded for the Last Stand weepers.

Staying an 'enemy in being' - to steal from Mahan - prevented normal hunting and gathering for the tribes, who had to keep moving and were unable to horde even without an actual battle of size. What would be the point of the army risking another battle of similar nature without greater surety of victory?

[benteen]

Dark Cloud,

Your message brings back memories of trying to figure out what William F. Buckley was saying. I knew it was intelligent, and on point but a monkey could figure out a Rubik's Cube before I would understand it

I can safely assume that you have not changed your mind and agree with me. It appears that we are going around in circles, with me saying the same thing over and over, and you refuting it I believe we did this before over Reno's actions, and basically agreed to disagree. I think that would be a proper ending to this little debate. Unless of course you have some ammo left to throw at me and change my mind.

As always I enjoy having an exchange with you on our different points of view, and look forward to the next one.

[Dark Cloud]

Buckley was a posturing and often drunk fraud, for the most part. That's not just my opinion, it's that of many who knew, liked, or loved him. Read his son's recent book about him, for example. His funeral was quite devoid of the many Republicans he'd made over the years, but McGovern (a close friend) and many other Democrats were there.

That said, it's disingenuous to postulate confusion here. You claim Crook deserves a court martial for 'leaving' and that Terry 'stayed' and tried to complete his mission. Terry did not stay, and moved further from the LBH battlesite than did Crook from the Rosebud's. They did the same thing, awaiting resupply, but Terry's men were on the Yellowstone with traders and boats and Crook had to wait for Ft. Fetterman's contact and supplies. Unless you can provide evidence that isn't true, you're claiming a falsehood.

[roberts]

Sorry to break in on your debate, but I would like to interject my opinion, if that is okay.

I think Benteen has a good point that 50 rounds per man was not necessarily a major drawback. From what I have read, the typical combat load for Cavalry was 50 rounds on their person and 50 rounds in their saddlebags (plus possibly some additional rounds in the packtrain). I don't know how many rounds the infantry carried, but I would be willing to bet they didn't carry much more. To suggest that being down to 50 rounds per man (if indeed that is what they had, as claimed earlier) put them in a dangerous position, in my opinion is wrong. They could have easily conducted small actions with that amount of ammunition. If Crook's command was low on rations, that could be seen as a possible reason to leave the field, but, judging from Crook's later actions, he didn't seem to care too much if his men were low on rations.

I have to ask this question though, what could have been accomplished by Crook holding his position? Presumably, he wouldn't have expected the Lakota to hold their position (because they would need forage for their horses and meat), so why stay?

From the little I have read, I have never seen any evidence that the 3 commands expected to communicate with eachother directly. In order for Crook to act, not only would he have to wait for his message to get through, but he would have to await a return message for the commands to coordinate their actions. I don't think it is realistic to expect that they could effectively communicate with each other, nor have I seen evidence that they planned to.

I also have to ask, why court-martial Crook, when they effectively blamed Custer for any problems (rightly or wrongly)? They already had a scapegoat, why lose another good officer?

While I don't believe Crook had to leave the field, I don't see what would be gained by staying, nor do I see any expectation on the part of the 3 commands that they could effectively communicate with eachother.

[Dark Cloud]

What could be the possible court martial charge against Crook? And, why wouldn't Terry be subject to the same or worse?

Crook had in hand first hand info about ammo expenditure and success against the particular enemy at this particular time. You now suggest that he continue offensive operations despite this knowledge?

Also, 'the blame' is tossed around and used for three related but separate things: the success level of the campaign, the battles themselves, and Custer's fiasco. For the fiasco, only Custer could be to blame. For the Rosebud and LBH battle in toto, little blame need be apportioned since they succeeded in the goals of the campaign: keep the Sioux moving, hungry and tired and they'll collapse, which is what happened. Would have been nice to win melodramatic victories, but the idea is to win the war with lowest losses possible.

Isn't it?

[Reddirt]

Roberts, a very well written summation of facts without innuendos and personalization. Thanks for a job well done!

[dgfred]

Plenty of 'blame' to go around.

Custer's ultimate demise- Custer's fault

Custer attacking in the first place- EVERYONE involved (especially Terry) knew exactly what Custer would likely do if he got within range of the Indians.

Terry was now in a position with Custer chasing the Indians, Cooke stopping any moves southeast, with his force northwest to wrap up the Indians retreating from the area ahead of Custer.

Probably didn't think for a minute Custer would be wiped out... but probably thought a little like Custer that the Indians would retreat before him. Right into his hands.

Custer's rotten attack plan and impatience ruined everything tho.

[dgfred]

Haha... most forums are for discussions of different conclusions by different people.

What exactly was your 'conclusion'? Maybe you could discuss instead of faulting other's post. Or just skip over 'em.