|
Post by Margaret on Feb 21, 2011 18:17:01 GMT -6
Hello shan,
Thank you for your reply and of course for your appreciation. That is not something I am used to.
I find that, reading the comings and goings on these forums, on this subject, reminds me of how I felt after reading 'The Custer Myth'. It gives one nothing but a headache. The contradictions are immense and unfathomable. Is it any wonder one seeks comfort, solace by forming a conclusion that allows one to rest in peace.....?
I would like to know more about your interests if you are prepared to tell, regarding any research you've undertaken away from here, travels and excursions you have been on, if any. Have you been to Rosebud at all? I love the country, I absolutely love it, despite it being threatened by and surrounded by coal mining and ranching.
I read that, when Crook's troopers were entering the area, they saw a deer shoot out from the bushes and many of them started firing at it, but I believe it got away unscathed. I was pleased about that. When I was at Kollmar Creek, the drainage where so much action took place, a beautiful red deer shot out from the undergrowth and I also took a popshot at it, but this time with my camera. I was delighted. I also saw what I thought must be a Muskrat on a ledge and on the hill right at the Rosebud bend just before you turn to go up the Canyon, I saw a white horse that appeared from nowhere and stood there majestically surveying all before him, including us. I think there were a group of Indians on this hill when Mills was making his move towards the Canyon, which in itself must be one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Today, I can follow it on Google Maps.
This has not been my only area of interest over the last few years. I love books about the overland emigrant trails, like Merrill Mattes [1969] book ''The Great Platte River Road''. I had to follow something of it's course, and we made our way from the Little Blue river area in Nebraska, passing Fort Kearney, Chimney Rock, Courthouse Rock, Scott's Bluff, Fort Laramie and the North Platte area, passing Box Elder Creek where Mrs Kelly got ambushed. Then onto Casper and followed the Bozeman Trail some way north to Fort Phil Kearney.
I also explored the western part of the Smoky Hill river in Kansas, which is another place I completely adore for it's bleak, windswept austerity. I have a book on the Smoky Hill trails and the people at Fort Wallace museum very kindly, and for just 1 dollar, posted me home a copy of a document I saw that caught my eye. It's titled ''War Department, Surgeon-General's Office, Washington, May 1, 1875'' ''A Report of the Hygiene of the United States Army with Descriptions of Military Posts''. It covers Fort Wallace from 1870-1874 and it's a most fascinating read, detailing not only the state of health of the occupants, but the Smoky Hill River, it's flora and fauna, the Fort buildings... it's a little gem of a piece and I absolutely treasure it.
I'm sorry to go off topic, I do waffle on - please forgive. Good day to you. I have another reply to do, to Mr Fred. I am flattered that people ask such questions.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 22, 2011 5:36:51 GMT -6
hello Fred,
Thank you for your comments. As I think you have stated yourself previously, there will always be a problem as to which narratives you choose to run with and that you will always have to discount others. You've seen fit to disregard Curley - I'm not quite sure of your reasons, but anyone who does accept him as a truthful honest person, who remembered well the incidents in question, is in for a rough time. I feel as though I find myself at a Headcut in a ravine.
It was Curley who claimed to see Boyer report to Custer and ''do a whole lot of talking'', and then saw a young man sent away with a note. Of course this may be bunkum, but ultimately it must be reader's choice whether to believe it or not. Curley said it, I don't see why I shouldn't accept it.
I do find it astonishing to suggest that, at the time in the Coulee, just prior to sending troops to the river, Custer nor Boyer was not fully aware of what was happening to Reno, and that they were still under the impression that all was going to plan, whatever that plan was, and that there was effectively nothing much to worry about, as yet. Which seems to be what you are saying.
I understand you have a book in the making, or two perhaps. If I might be bold enough to suggest that, I do believe you have an agenda here, that you are on a mission to eradicate a long held suspicion, which since Gray's book has become a full on accusation that Benteen dawdled and that he got left behind. Written by a non-military person too which I don't think sits well with you, and about a man I think you admire greatly - and I think rightly so. I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm not being cynical, I'm just observing from your writings. I really think you want to put the record straight with those who mean most to you, which I am thinking are militarists, and the more serious students and writers on the subject. Am I right in thinking this?
I'm not criticising it, let me make clear and I hope you succeed, because actually I think you deserve to do so but you have an enormous task at hand as you are dealing with a book that has become a standard by which others are judged, although I have noticed for some time that some writers are trying to ignore his work and pretend it didn't happen. I think perhaps you should too.
Gray's book is very readable, half of it is biographical about Boyer and we can give that a miss if we want although I find it all quite fascinating. He writes I think in a quite thrilling manner, he even makes me fall in love with Boyer, can you believe? I feel very much involved. That fact that it might be all hogwash, and it has crossed even my little mind, doesn't make it any less worthy. I sometimes think people today actually like fiction over fact, real life, the reality is often the most boring, and Custer is a sexy persona, he's easy to write about and film. Benteen isn't, he seems unattractive and chippy.
I may not be your market but if a lady says to me ''my son is wanting to learn about General Custer, can you recommend a book?'' what am I to say to this person? Well, I might start with Utley's little paperback that's a good starter I think, then I might suggest Donovan's recent work for something up to date, then after that where do I go for something more all encompassing, something that's difficult to challenge for the lay person. It's going to be Gray's book I'm afraid, and I'm not going to say, ''oh, ignore his timings down Reno Creek, and Benteen did not dawdle'',... no I wouldn't bother.
I bet you will start off, probably on the first page, with some reference to Gray's book. I think this will come across as narky, like you have an axe to grind, and I think that would be unfortunate. I would like to see you not make any reference to it at all, and that you are able to make it interesting to the casual reader, not just the specialist. That will take some doing, as I fear you may include too much militarist thinking, too many statistics, too much information presented in a regimented manner that people don't really need.
I want your book to appeal to me too, Fred. It might even re-infect me with the bug again. ....Heaven help us.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 22, 2011 6:56:58 GMT -6
he strikes me as a blithering idiot, as he does on the Kansas prairie all alone and getting his horse shot.
If you ride enough times at speed next to buffalo things will happen. There is nothing idiotic about the shooting of the horse. If you can't understand what causes him to do that it doesn't make him an idiot. If being alone is the standard then mountain men were idiots also.
I have to agree with bc that Custer was fearless in his approach to things in my opinion. That behavior can be confused with a death wish. He was willing to chase a buffalo at speed an attempt to take it with a handgun. So you can view it as death wish or fearless.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by shan on Feb 22, 2011 6:58:52 GMT -6
Hello Helford,
with reference to your words, " Thank you for your reply and of course for your appreciation. That is not something I am used to." I can only hope the last part isn't true, after all we all need kind words and appreciation it's the water we drink from when we find ourselves in need.
With regards to my interests and my reserch etc, look, we don't want to bore the rest of the posters with a colourful mini saga detailing who I am and how I got here, but if you want the leave a message on the members details page, I'll be happy to reply and bore you to death.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 22, 2011 11:41:01 GMT -6
Helford,
You raise several points.
Benteen dawdling. The Benteen dawdled theory didn't start with Gray. It started before Gray was born. Whittaker and Rosser raised these issues within weeks of the fight.
History. The study of history follows sine waves. Someone raises a theory, then someone raises a countertheory. Main stream views flow from one end of the spectrum to the other. So there have been periods where the dominant opinion is Custer was a military god to Custer is a buffoon. Fred is moving the balance back toward the middle.
Fred. Fred has no agenda. I have seen him change opinions based on solid arguments. He has done extensive research and is working for telling a reasonable story. The book will lose market share as a result. The sexy books are more historical fiction than history, picking extreme examples and playing games with facts that border on fraud.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 22, 2011 14:05:15 GMT -6
Helford—
Your post was very well thought out and insightful, if not entirely accurate. Since you took the time and effort, I shall respond in kind and I will attempt to address each of your points.
Let me start in order and get Curley out of the way. As I have alluded to elsewhere, I have assembled more than 190 profiles of people associated—in one way or another—with the LBH. I have posted two of those on different threads: one for SGT Daniel Kanipe and the other for TMP Giovanni Martini. I will put up the one on Curley so you may see some of what the man said over the years and my comments regarding various issues.
As I think you have stated yourself previously, there will always be a problem as to which narratives you choose to run with and that you will always have to discount others. You've seen fit to disregard Curley - I'm not quite sure of your reasons…
I have not chosen to disregard Curley totally. In fact, I have used him as a source in “The Snake,” aka, Fred’s time – line. I do, however, have serious issues with his latter – day narratives, especially since almost everything he says is contradicted by the three Crows who rode with him up the bluffs, as well as by several of the Rees. These Rees may not have even known Curley, but alluded to him in contexts outside of Curley’s narrative, thereby contradicting or negating that narrative. Too much evidence against the man. So… while I discount most of what he said, I do not disregard all of what he said.
There may actually be a modicum of truth in this, but distorted truth. This could very easily allude to Boyer speaking feverishly with Custer just prior to Custer telling Boyer to take the Crows and head up to Weir Peaks. The young man with the note could easily have been Martini, as I believe Curley was still in the vicinity when Martini headed back.
In other words, Curley could have remembered these incidents and used them in a different way… intentionally or otherwise, clouded or not by the mists of time.
This is a timing issue—an issue of time—totally. First of all, I believe Custer spent very little time in Medicine Tail Coulee. From the perspective of a former officer in the U. S. Army, I see no reason to utilize MTC unless one needed to gather the speed or momentum for an attack across a known ford. That was not the case here.
I believe Custer turned into MTC after a difficult descent of Cedar Coulee and when he saw an easy slope leading to the ridges above, i. e., Luce Ridge, he took it. Mitch Boyer was already with him. Two of the Crow scouts said that Boyer left them on Weir Peaks and re-joined Custer in Cedar Coulee, not MTC. That means neither Custer nor Boyer were aware of Reno’s plight.
Reno began his retreat at 2:21 PM. At 2:21 PM, George Custer and Mitch Boyer were negotiating the final stretches of Cedar and/or its banks and ridges. How could they have known anything about Reno? Helford, the timing must fit! and in your statement above it does not.
And you are correct; that is precisely what I am saying. Remember, Custer, despite it all, caught the Indians napping—literally, in some cases. We have narratives from white and red, soldier, warrior, and scouts, that say—or intimate—that the Reno battle unfolded a lot more slowly than the detractors claim, i. e., longer than 10 minutes on the prairie floor. Very few Indians were mounted; they fought on foot; they pulled back; they retreated. They raised tons of smoke and dust, they delayed and delayed… until there were enough of them on horseback. The Indians on foot didn’t charge Reno; those on horseback did. The foot – warriors began infiltrating the timber from the village – proper. This all took time.
With all the hoop – la going on at the upper end of the village, very few saw a threat at the lower end. Very few Indians met Custer’s command when it approached Ford B. They made a furious howl about it, but no one can come up with names… and names are what I deal with. I can give you some, but I cannot even give you 50% of what I believe were there.
So essentially then, when Custer turned into MTC, he had the world by the… [fill in the blank].
You are both right and wrong with this. My agenda is to find the truth. Well… guess what? That is impossible. What we can reach, however, is a reasonable proximity, but that has to be done using as many “tools” as we have, i. e., eye – witness accounts, and add to that as much reason and logic as possible. The military operates quite differently that the civilian sector. We think differently; we believe in discipline, organization, authority… words I find increasingly anathema in the civilian world of today.
These military traits also offer a different mind – set. It is why I refuse utterly and unequivocally to accept Gray’s conclusion that Custer ambled down Reno Creek at a pace of no more than a walk. I am not out to vindicate Fred Benteen—though I admire him greatly for his coolness, his bravery, and his intelligence… I wish I had been ½ the soldier Benteen was; I am out to see if he was as good or as bad as some say. I am seeking to find out if Fred Benteen did his job! But I am also seeking to find out if George Custer did his and Marcus Reno did his. I reject categorically any assumption that I have an agenda that vindicates some… or all! If I did, I would have nothing more than what John Gray had: the penchant to jam facts into theory rather than the other way around.
As for a military person versus a non – military person… well… it doesn’t matter very much to me as long as the non – military person understands the exigencies of what—in this event—constitute a military operation. John Gray, in my opinion, refused to accept that and substituted his dislike of Benteen, never considering what this entire event was all about. This was not Guttenberg inventing the printing press or Nostradamus predicting a dry spell. This was a hell – bent – for – leather military operation. People like me, Steve Andrews, and Will (“Montrose”) train for these things. This is one of the reasons I respect “Darkcloud’s” opinions so much.
Again, Helford, that smacks of an agenda. If I want an opinion on a sore back, I will consult a doctor; if I want an opinion on what should have been done at Tora Bora, I will speak to Will, a former Special Forces officer. You may offer your opinion, but it will not hold as much weight with me as Will’s.
I want to put the record straight regarding the LBH, not any individual. Do I have my favorites? Yes, I do. But not at the cost of truth.
I am aware of this. At one time everyone thought the world was flat… that did not deter Columbus. And while that may be a rather presumptuous comparison, I am not deterred. Not in the least.
I agree with you completely about Gray’s book. It is one of the two best ever written—in my opinion—up to the point where Custer crossed the divide. I like his style; it is easy reading… I have read it four times. Please remember that.
I would have no issue with this, and I quite agree. No caveats. One must make up their own minds, their own opinions.
You lose that bet. My first reference to John Gray comes on page 11 (in my Word, 1.5-spacing, document). He is quoted or referred to again on pages 17, 20, 27, 32, and 42 – 43. Every one of those is either a direct quote or a reference to what he wrote. Every one of those is complimentary and is historical and used to prove or support a point I am making.
On page 49, I take on the issue of timing and I become critical of his analysis work. Here is a direct quote from Gray… and me… from what I have written:
"While many writers have discussed timing issues, Dr. John S. Gray was the first to delineate the sequencing of events in anything close to an empirical semblance of organization. Gray could stake his claim to fame solely on his time/motion/distance studies, the current nonpareil of such exercises, and its inclusion in his final book, Custer’s Last Campaign, helps make it arguably one of the best “Custer” books ever written. To give the man his due the book’s virtues far outweigh any controversy he has generated over these studies, vis-à-vis, his personal prejudices. Many authors hold Gray’s timing scenarios as the gold standard of the battle and base much of—if not all—their theories on this work. One of the problems with Gray’s “times,” however, is similar to his “speeds”: an excess of rigidity. It seems clear he tried to fit each into his own preconceived notions of events, and one of his more serious issues is his dismissal of a George Wallace statement regarding the command’s not being on local time, yet basing the entire premise of his battle scenario on Wallace’s noon divide crossing. Furthermore, Gray anticipated criticism by pre-emptive scoffing at possible detractors, and in a fit of literary bravado, claimed there was “no evidence of any discrepancy between official and local sun times” and that the “result is so obvious as to be embarrassing.” Vern Smalley has also tackled the subject and generally agrees with Gray, using similar key bases as his “x” and “y” axes, and then diverging somewhat from there. Smalley is a former military officer and as such one must respect his attempt at centralization, but his drive for organizing facts to fit a modern military standard also leaves us with too rigid a schedule and does not allow for clock deviations, simple sloppiness, unanticipated and unfolding events, or the practices and exigencies of the era. Greg Michno—while not conceding any accuracy to Gray’s “times”—uses the Gray work as a template for Lakota Noon, allowing for a brilliant narrative and stream of events. (One must admit, Gray saves the most indolent amongst us a lot of extra work, especially work that—when viewed in perspective—tends to be somewhat frivolous.)"
Note the emphasis I have added. I consider that academic bullying and it is neither fair nor professional. To me, Gray sets out to disarm any criticism immediately, then he seeks to overwhelm with a brilliant technical presentation… which is fair… the latter. That comment has always bothered me, for I take it that he has set himself above everyone else and it is almost as though he will neither accept criticism nor discuss it. If I have one issue with John Gray, it is that comment alone, not his dislike of Benteen.
I would hope it does… or will. It is not filled with military arcania (to coin a word) nor is it pedantic. It is written from the perspective of a former officer, but I hope it would teach rather than overwhelm. It is loaded with footnotes—well over 1,000—but most of those allude to testimonies and narratives that I use to support my ideas and my thesis. Will (“Montrose”) has seen several chapters and is probably the best judge I can think of. Maybe he would comment on what he has read.
I will say this. You would need to know more than “Custer was killed” to understand it.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 22, 2011 14:20:11 GMT -6
With regards to my interests and my reserch etc, look, we don't want to bore the rest of the posters with a colourful mini saga detailing who I am and how I got here, but if you want the leave a message on the members details page, I'll be happy to reply and bore you to death. Shan Good to see you posting again David. As Gordon Harper didn't find you boring I doubt that helford will either. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Feb 22, 2011 14:31:02 GMT -6
As for Nelson Miles... phooey! Benteen had less respect for Miles than he had for Custer: “Too much circus, too little brain.” I have never found anything about Miles that would contradict that sentiment, including his streak of altruism. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, as a matter of curiosity, can you point me to any written record in which Benteen expresses respect for anyone? More specifically, his respect for anyone senior in rank to himself, especially any such officer who was younger in age than he was? Hunk
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 22, 2011 15:45:32 GMT -6
Well... since I have a pretty good idea where this is headed, I will play the game by my rules with a one-time post, allowing anyone who is interested to make his or her own decision about the man. This should tell most what Fred Benteen was like. I find it rather like a beauty contest... the "Miss America Pageant" has 50 contestants. I am sure each one gets at least one vote. So... surf's going out... wade through it:
The Frank L. Anders—R. G. Cartwright Correspondence, volume 1, pp. 95 – 96: Anders to Cartwright, February 7, 1948.
[Godfrey was Anders' godfather.] In 1927, Godfrey told Anders "without mincing words that up to Benteen's death he was the finest type of accomplished cavalry officer that the United States army ever had. He specifically did not except Custer. He said to me 'I was never a Custerite.'.... He said that Benteen was utterly reliable, trustworthy, had a keen sense of humor, a very fine natural sense of distances, areas, number of men in formations, either large or small and that he was especially fine in strategy and tactics. That his ideas of striking distances never failed to hold good. He was especially good at the judging of the capability of man or beast on a campaign, and that he was especially good in the conservation of the troops under his command. Godfrey, in a direct question that I asked him why the Custer – Benteen hatred he made the answer that they were too [sic] good cavalrymen in one regiment and that they radically differed in every way as to administration, training, care of men and horses, tactics, strategy and campaigning.”
Hugh Scott, Some Memories of a Soldier, p. 454.
"I found my model early in Captain Benteen, the idol of the Seventh Cavalry on the upper Missouri in 1877, who governed mainly by suggestion; in all the years I knew him I never once heard him raise his voice to enforce his purpose. He would sit by the open fire at night, his bright pleasant face framed by his snow-white hair, beaming with kindness and humor, and often I watched his every movement, to find out the secret of his quiet steady government, that I might go out and govern likewise... If he found this kindly manner were misunderstood, then his iron hand would close down quickly, but that was seldom necessary, and then only with newcomers and never twice with the same person."
Walter Camp wrote:
“Benteen was an officer of long and honorable experience, and a fighter of the bulldog type. He was every bit as able… as Custer himself. In battle he was alert and cool, and quick and clear of perception. Like Custer, he could take in a situation instantly, without study, but he was not headlong. This was the difference in the two men. He was not what would be called a dashing man, although when it came to fighting, Benteen was there to stay, even to the last ditch if necessary, but he burned no bridges behind. He possessed the admirable trait of caution, and he took account of reserve. “… Benteen, the bravest of the brave, was too large a man to be influenced at such a time by considerations of personal enmity. [232] “In my opinion, could Benteen have but known Custer’s predicament he would have taken matters into his hands much earlier than he did and tried to at least direct [away] some of the force of warriors against Custer. It was not until the incompetence of Reno had more fully shown itself and that the fear of a great disaster to the seven companies had been whispered in Benteen’s ear by one of his closest friends, a commissioned officer, that Benteen took hold of the whole situation with a firm hand.”
From a letter written by Benteen to Godfrey, dated January 3, 1886, at Fort McKinney, W. T.:
Dear “God.” … To commence, Don’t you think that Reno has been sufficiently damned before the country that it can well be afforded to leave out in the article the proposition from him to saddle up and leave the field of the Little Big Horn on the 1st night of fight. Don’t think that I would do it, but that he did so propose, there is no manner of doubt. “But the greatest of these is Charity”!
From the “The Benteen Manuscript.” The third day’s march brought the command to Muddy Creek, “where, on coming into camp I heard the voice of my old friend Col. Myles W. Keogh hailing me, saying, come here ‘old man, I’ve kept the nicest spot in the whole camp next to me, for your troop, and I’ve had to bluff the balance to hold it, but here it is, skip off,’ so I ‘skipped,’ putting my troop in the vale the gallant Irishman had held for me.” It was close to twilight at the time. [164 – 165, 178]
Benteen threw French’s company—dismounted—at right angles with the river to screen Weir’s withdrawal, then Reno arrived. He instructed French to pull back slowly, but the whole operation did not work out as well as Benteen had expected. The fact the Indians did not make the most of their opportunity, however, plus a staunch defense by LT Godfrey—“carrying out his instructions more faithfully and in a more soldierly manner”—Benteen had enough time to get a defensive line forward. [172, 181]
Benteen described the position on Reno Hill and had high praise for Dr. Porter: “… the stout heart and nervy skillful hand of Dr. Porter… was equal to the occasion.” [173, 181]
Carroll, John M., ed., The Benteen – Goldin Letters on Custer and His Last Battle.
[October 20, 1891] Mostly personal information. Interesting note about Benteen’s old “mess,” and the death of Owen Hale in 1877 leaving Benteen as the last survivor of seven. [196] “Capt. Owen Hale was the last of our old ‘mess’ of seven, to bite the dust, and I alone remain to think of them; I mean the mess association, and cherish their memories in that regard.”
Godfrey wrote Benteen in 1886 about an article he was planning on writing about the battle. Benteen replied that he should exercise caution, remembering “charity.” [198]
He also says he was never friendly with Reno or Weir, but never really knew why. [199]
Benteen seemed to be a strong admirer of George Wallace. [See 205]
A measure of Benteen may be: “I’ve been a loser in a way, all my life by rubbing a bit against the angles—or hair—of folks, instead of going with their whims; but I couldn’t go otherwise—’twould be against the grain of myself.” [206]
[February 22, 1892] Benteen admits that he would answer questions this day as he did at the RCOI, “and shield Reno quite as much as I then did; and this simply from the fact that there were a lot of harpies after him—Godfrey not the smallest of the lot.” [212]
Benteen set the dispositions on the hilltop, Reno never consulting him at all: “I had little regard for his opinion in any manner, shape or form…” [216]
He also said Weir did nothing special other than an insubordinate spirit. [217]
[March 19, 1892] Benteen comes right out and says it here: “… the fact is known that I was scarcely on good terms with Reno…” [219]
Apparently there was something of an altercation between Weir and Benteen around the 4th to 6th of August 1876. Weir made some remarks about Custer and Reno at the LBH and Benteen called him a “damned liar” in front of several officers. Things cooled down and the next time they met, Weir shook Benteen’s hand. Weir had once been Benteen’s “first lieutenant.” [219]
[October 11, 1894] Benteen says here that Custer was quite an ordinary soldier, neither a great man nor a great warrior. [229]
[October 19, 1894] At the LBH, “… had I anything to say in the matter, I should have recommended for brevets, first, Hare, then Varnum, and lastly, Godfrey, yes, Wallace, too, before Hare, then I think I should have stopped.” [229 – 230]
[September 14, 1895] Benteen once again showed his liking of Hare and his dislike of COL Sturgis: “Hare should have been brevetted for L. B. Horn… Sam D. Sturgis should have been tried by G. C. M. for the Clark’s Ford Canyon idiocy.” [232]
[October 12, 1895] Again, the fondness for Hare and Wallace. [233]
Benteen thought very little of the Seventh’s field grade officers of 1877: “… what a crowd of chumps the 7th Cavalry had among its field officers in 1877[.] Sturgis, Otis, Tilford, Merrill and Reno. Could a finely-toothed comb, well dragged have pulled out of the whole army a sorrier set?” [234]
[January 11, 1896; out of sequence] Benteen explains he had known Sturgis and Merrill as far back as 1861, and he “knew their full value” then. [238]
[January 19, 1896] Benteen tells Goldin Custer disobeyed his orders. [241]
[February 10, 1896] Benteen learns of Gibbon’s death. “Gen. Gibbon was not only a brave and faithful soldier, but he was far, far better than that. He was an honest and conscientious man, which often brought him in conflict with the staff of the army… Gibbon wouldn’t stand in silence—a fact which affected his promotion very seriously…” [245]
[February 12, 1896] [This is one of the longest and most detailed letters Benteen wrote.] Benteen joined the Seventh Cavalry at Fort Riley in 1866. This was the first time he met Custer. [247]
When Benteen called on Custer, the latter did nothing but brag about his Civil War exploits. That rather turned Benteen off. [247]
Benteen tells Goldin of many of Custer’s financial dealings, most of which seemed to be pretty shady. [248 – 256]
[February 14, 1896] Benteen again lambastes Custer, giving proof. [258 – 260]
[February 17, 1896] Benteen tells Goldin that only Moylan, still alive, would know of Custer’s illegal dealings. He expressed knowledge that Libbie Custer, Fred Calhoun, and Maggie Calhoun would not know anything of Custer’s deals or of his affair with an Indian girl. [258 and 260 – 261]
Benteen says Libbie Custer was as cold-hearted a woman as he ever knew. [262]
“You know enough of me to know I’d have gone through to [Custer] had it been possible to do so. At same time, I’m only too proud to say that I despised him as a murderer, thief and a liar—all of which I can prove.” [271 – 272]
[February 19, 1896] Benteen said, “… the regiment was in terrible shape from the very beginning,” Custer being the cause of it. He also said, “The anti-Custer faction—if there was such a faction—were the people in regiment which had all of the hard duty to perform, and who did it nobly, because they loved their country and the ‘Service.’” [273]
[February 20, 1896] Benteen said that as “poor a soldier as Reno was, he was a long way ahead of Merrill.” [275] [Little did Benteen know, but Merrill would die only one week after this letter was written: 27Feb96.]
Benteen also wrote, “Reno was a far better soldier than Sturgis, and that isn’t much praise.” [275]
[February 22, 1896] Without directly saying so, Benteen seems to feel COL Sturgis unfairly cashiered Reno: “the most frivolous of charges.” [277]
Benteen said both Phil Sheridan and Winfield Scott Hancock liked Benteen. [278 and 279]
At the same time, Benteen did not at all care for GEN J. B. Fry: “… a finicky, cynical no end of all ’round damn fool, with an unlimited amount of brass, and little else, though he thought he was an author, genius and all ’round grand man.” [279]
Benteen was very close to Benny Hodgson. [285]
[March 23, 1896] Again, Benteen berates GEN Miles. Also says Miles always had a grudge against the Seventh Cavalry. [292]
Benteen had great respect for GEN Terry. Terry was also Miles’ boss. [294 – 295]
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Feb 22, 2011 15:56:33 GMT -6
Helford, that entire book can be downloaded from Google Books at tinyurl.com/48j3r8vClick on the book image and on the following page, select PDF Download (actually, just the word PDF with a down arrow symbol.) The book deals with much more than Ft. Wallace. It goes into all the Army departments and the various posts. The Dept. of the Platte starts at p. 402 for instance. Also look through the first 200 pages as those deal with mortality/1000, food, clothing, etc. Welcome to the board, Billy
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 22, 2011 16:12:56 GMT -6
1. Gray. I like Grays books. I admire his detailed research. I spent half my time reading his footnotes. I do not disagree with many of his conclusions. He grows to great lengths to try to wedge theory into facts.
From the military perspective, I have many reservations toward his view of the officers in the campaign. Every officer is either very good or very bad. The very good officers can do nothing wrong, the very bad officers can do nothing right. I am including his views of Terry, Crook, Gibbon et all, not just the 7th.
The work suffers from a lack of understanding of the nature of military operations. War has the normal fog and friction of war. It is messy. It is a challenge to make decisions under uncertainty.
One of the issues I have with Gray is excessive measurement justification analysis (MJA). He has to grow to great lengths to explain away testimonies and facts that do not fit his theories. I tried counted the MJAs, gave up in the 200s.
There is a point in LBH studies where we will never have certainty. That means at some point you must go with probability analysis, the most likely course of action.
2. Donahue/Philbrook, modern scholarship. One of the issues in LBH writings is that authors feel obligated to take a stand on aspects of LBH, and not even inform the reader that the issue is in controversy.
So Reno is drunk in main text. In a footnote is a mention of a witness, and even that may not link original sources.
3. Fred's book. Fred explains the controversies. He supplies his reasoning and his sources. The reader is fully informed to make his own decision.
There are not many books that do that. I can think only of Graham at the moment. I think Gray tried to do that, but was working backward from theory.
Fred's work will give you the data to understand his analysis. He provides both sides of the major controversies. I believe it will carry the reader to a better understanding of the battle than other other work written in the last forty years.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 22, 2011 18:11:00 GMT -6
I can only hope the last part isn't true, after all we all need kind words and appreciation it's the water we drink from when we find ourselves in need. hi again Shan, ..very considerate of you, but you know what the Internet is like. We have to live with it. I won't let you bore me, which is a shame. Perhaps another time, hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 22, 2011 18:15:20 GMT -6
Helford, You raise several points. Benteen dawdling. The Benteen dawdled theory didn't start with Gray. It started before Gray was born. Whittaker and Rosser raised these issues within weeks of the fight. ...Thank you for your replies and I understand your responses to the points I made. ''Benteen dawdling. The Benteen dawdled theory didn't start with Gray. It started before Gray was born. Whittaker and Rosser raised these issues within weeks of the fight.''I didn't know that. Poor Mr Benteen, maligned from the word go. ''One of the issues I have with Gray is excessive measurement justification analysis (MJA). He has to grow to great lengths to explain away testimonies and facts that do not fit his theories. I tried counted the MJAs, gave up in the 200s''...yes it is an issue I agree, sometimes I just think it's a little too much, lilke, oh here we go again.... trouble is, he makes it sound convincing, well to me he does - but that wouldn't be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Margaret on Feb 22, 2011 18:19:03 GMT -6
Helford, that entire book can be downloaded from Google Books at tinyurl.com/48j3r8vClick on the book image and on the following page, select PDF Download (actually, just the word PDF with a down arrow symbol.) The book deals with much more than Ft. Wallace. It goes into all the Army departments and the various posts. The Dept. of the Platte starts at p. 402 for instance. Also look through the first 200 pages as those deal with mortality/1000, food, clothing, etc. Welcome to the board, Billy ....thankyou so much for that link. Is there anything not on the net these days? Well, at least I did get my copy back in 1998. It looks a nice book to download, I have a companion book, sort of, to go with it, so thank you for pointing me in that direction, and for the welcome, although I don't expect to be here too long but it's good to talk to you in any case.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Feb 22, 2011 18:31:19 GMT -6
Helford, that entire book can be downloaded from Google Books at tinyurl.com/48j3r8vClick on the book image and on the following page, select PDF Download (actually, just the word PDF with a down arrow symbol.) The book deals with much more than Ft. Wallace. It goes into all the Army departments and the various posts. The Dept. of the Platte starts at p. 402 for instance. Also look through the first 200 pages as those deal with mortality/1000, food, clothing, etc. Welcome to the board, Billy ....thankyou so much for that link. Is there anything not on the net these days? Well, at least I did get my copy back in 1998. It looks a nice book to download, I have a companion book, sort of, to go with it, so thank you for pointing me in that direction, and for the welcome, although I don't expect to be here too long but it's good to talk to you in any case. You might as well stay...this place is like the Hotel California; you can check in but you can't leave. Don't beat your head against the wall after hitting the locked exit doors. But your post reminds me to update my site with a list of the public documents I have copied and scanned or just downloaded. That is now number 233 on the list I am ignoring Billy
|
|