|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 12, 2011 7:35:57 GMT -6
In vino veritas
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 12, 2011 8:37:00 GMT -6
In wine there is truth John "Doc" Holliday Semper Fi Steve and Scott Dan
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Feb 12, 2011 10:21:26 GMT -6
I still find it of interest that the RCOI clearly provides evidence Boston did NOT meet Martin: both by Martin's testimony (brother-s), the Recorder's followup ('all those around him...' which is not what anyone says describing two people), and Benteen's support in testimony to introducing Martin to the fact his horse was shot, something Martin agreed with at the RCOI. Only decades later did he meet Boston, who told him the horse was shot, and later he returned to Benteen as the informer. If that story had emerged in the gabby barracks before the RCOI, Lee and Whitaker and all Custerphiles would be all over it, since it's the perfect image to damn Reno and Benteen while illustrating the bravery of the Custer family in contrast. It falls too cleanly into handy template not to be used. The ease with which this welded into the tale illustrates how such things happen with cultural templates. Martin came under fire for other things, but never the one for which he himself had provided contrary evidence. DC, When the question about “brother-s” arose, several years ago, may be you remember that we were facing two different versions of the transcript: We could read “brothers” in the first edition of the proceedings by Col. Graham, but “brother” in the newer version, edited by Ron Nichols. Well, I’ve been able to consult the original, handwritten text of the RCOI proceedings (digitalized by author Arthur Unger), and there’s no doubt about the noun being in plural, ”brothers”. Probably Mr. Nichols suppressed the -s when editing the text, presuming it was a mistake of the stenographer; or perhaps it’s just an involuntary error. As to the Boston-Benteen story, actually it DID emerge (or rather re-emerge) at the opening of the Court. The New York Herald had aired it in a report sent from Bismarck on September 20th, 1876; and on January 14th, 1879, the same newspaper decided to republish it “for the information of the Court”. Under the heading “The long delayed investigation”, there followed two lengthy columns “bringing to light […] startling revelations with regard to the conduct of some of the prominent actors in the fight of the 25th of June”; the article ended with an interesting interview to Lt. DeRudio dated January 13th, just before he left Bismarck for Chicago. Here follows the portion related to Boston & Benteen, as previously published in the September ‘76 report: “Captain Benteen, who in defence of the hill won golden opinions for his great courage and coolness, will have, unfortunately, to explain why his battalion failed to appear at an earlier hour on the battlefield. He had returned to the main trail and was following in Custer’s wake before the fight began, and could not at any time have been, during the fight, more than seven or eight miles distant from where Custer fell. About seven miles from Custer’s battlefield Captain Benteen watered his horses at a pool in the road. While the battalion was halted Boston Custer rode up, spoke with several officers and then rode on to the front. He was found dead by General Custer’s side about seven miles from this pool of water.” Recorder Lee must have been aware of this story, but I think he was not “all over it” because its implications were not against Reno, and the Court had convened to investigate the Major's behaviour, rather than the battle and the role of others in the fight. The same applies to Whittacker: He did know the story of Boston, since it was incorporated into his Custer biography; but when on January 28th the Court allowed him to present a series of questions, he did not wield the Boston Custer story –it was harmless stuff for Reno (at least I fail to see how it could be used against him), and could have been instantly rejected for being a serious accusation against a relevant witness. Jose
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 12, 2011 11:41:02 GMT -6
I still find it of interest that the RCOI clearly provides evidence Boston did NOT meet Martin: both by Martin's testimony (brother-s), the Recorder's followup ('all those around him...' which is not what anyone says describing two people), and Benteen's support in testimony to introducing Martin to the fact his horse was shot, something Martin agreed with at the RCOI. Only decades later did he meet Boston, who told him the horse was shot, and later he returned to Benteen as the informer. If that story had emerged in the gabby barracks before the RCOI, Lee and Whitaker and all Custerphiles would be all over it, since it's the perfect image to damn Reno and Benteen while illustrating the bravery of the Custer family in contrast. It falls too cleanly into handy template not to be used. The ease with which this welded into the tale illustrates how such things happen with cultural templates. Martin came under fire for other things, but never the one for which he himself had provided contrary evidence. DC, When the question about “brother-s” arose, several years ago, may be you remember that we were facing two different versions of the transcript: We could read “brothers” in the first edition of the proceedings by Col. Graham, but “brother” in the newer version, edited by Ron Nichols. Well, I’ve been able to consult the original, handwritten text of the RCOI proceedings (digitalized by author Arthur Unger), and there’s no doubt about the noun being in plural, ”brothers”. Probably Mr. Nichols suppressed the -s when editing the text, presuming it was a mistake of the stenographer; or perhaps it’s just an involuntary error. As to the Boston-Benteen story, actually it DID emerge (or rather re-emerge) at the opening of the Court. The New York Herald had aired it in a report sent from Bismarck on September 20th, 1876; and on January 14th, 1879, the same newspaper decided to republish it “for the information of the Court”. Under the heading “The long delayed investigation”, there followed two lengthy columns “bringing to light […] startling revelations with regard to the conduct of some of the prominent actors in the fight of the 25th of June”; the article ended with an interesting interview to Lt. DeRudio dated January 13th, just before he left Bismarck for Chicago. Here follows the portion related to Boston & Benteen, as previously published in the September ‘76 report: “Captain Benteen, who in defence of the hill won golden opinions for his great courage and coolness, will have, unfortunately, to explain why his battalion failed to appear at an earlier hour on the battlefield. He had returned to the main trail and was following in Custer’s wake before the fight began, and could not at any time have been, during the fight, more than seven or eight miles distant from where Custer fell. About seven miles from Custer’s battlefield Captain Benteen watered his horses at a pool in the road. While the battalion was halted Boston Custer rode up, spoke with several officers and then rode on to the front. He was found dead by General Custer’s side about seven miles from this pool of water.” Recorder Lee must have been aware of this story, but I think he was not “all over it” because its implications were not against Reno, and the Court had convened to investigate the Major's behaviour, rather than the battle and the role of others in the fight. The same applies to Whittacker: He did know the story of Boston, since it was incorporated into his Custer biography; but when on January 28th the Court allowed him to present a series of questions, he did not wield the Boston Custer story –it was harmless stuff for Reno (at least I fail to see how it could be used against him), and could have been instantly rejected for being a serious accusation against a relevant witness. Jose Interesting research Jose. Have you done a comparison with the Chicago Tribune version? Said version may have been copied to do the original transcript as some say. Thanks. bc
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 12, 2011 11:42:46 GMT -6
I still find it of interest that the RCOI clearly provides evidence Boston did NOT meet Martin: both by Martin's testimony (brother-s), the Recorder's followup ('all those around him...' which is not what anyone says describing two people), and Benteen's support in testimony to introducing Martin to the fact his horse was shot, something Martin agreed with at the RCOI. Only decades later did he meet Boston, who told him the horse was shot, and later he returned to Benteen as the informer. If that story had emerged in the gabby barracks before the RCOI, Lee and Whitaker and all Custerphiles would be all over it, since it's the perfect image to damn Reno and Benteen while illustrating the bravery of the Custer family in contrast. It falls too cleanly into handy template not to be used. The ease with which this welded into the tale illustrates how such things happen with cultural templates. Martin came under fire for other things, but never the one for which he himself had provided contrary evidence. DC, When the question about “brother-s” arose, several years ago, may be you remember that we were facing two different versions of the transcript: We could read “brothers” in the first edition of the proceedings by Col. Graham, but “brother” in the newer version, edited by Ron Nichols. Well, I’ve been able to consult the original, handwritten text of the RCOI proceedings (digitalized by author Arthur Unger), and there’s no doubt about the noun being in plural, ”brothers”. Probably Mr. Nichols suppressed the -s when editing the text, presuming it was a mistake of the stenographer; or perhaps it’s just an involuntary error. As to the Boston-Benteen story, actually it DID emerge (or rather re-emerge) at the opening of the Court. The New York Herald had aired it in a report sent from Bismarck on September 20th, 1876; and on January 14th, 1879, the same newspaper decided to republish it “for the information of the Court”. Under the heading “The long delayed investigation”, there followed two lengthy columns “bringing to light […] startling revelations with regard to the conduct of some of the prominent actors in the fight of the 25th of June”; the article ended with an interesting interview to Lt. DeRudio dated January 13th, just before he left Bismarck for Chicago. Here follows the portion related to Boston & Benteen, as previously published in the September ‘76 report: “Captain Benteen, who in defence of the hill won golden opinions for his great courage and coolness, will have, unfortunately, to explain why his battalion failed to appear at an earlier hour on the battlefield. He had returned to the main trail and was following in Custer’s wake before the fight began, and could not at any time have been, during the fight, more than seven or eight miles distant from where Custer fell. About seven miles from Custer’s battlefield Captain Benteen watered his horses at a pool in the road. While the battalion was halted Boston Custer rode up, spoke with several officers and then rode on to the front. He was found dead by General Custer’s side about seven miles from this pool of water.” Recorder Lee must have been aware of this story, but I think he was not “all over it” because its implications were not against Reno, and the Court had convened to investigate the Major's behaviour, rather than the battle and the role of others in the fight. The same applies to Whittacker: He did know the story of Boston, since it was incorporated into his Custer biography; but when on January 28th the Court allowed him to present a series of questions, he did not wield the Boston Custer story –it was harmless stuff for Reno (at least I fail to see how it could be used against him), and could have been instantly rejected for being a serious accusation against a relevant witness. Jose Interesting research Jose. Have you done a comparison with the Chicago Tribune version? Said version may have been copied to do the original transcript as some say. Thanks. bc
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 12, 2011 12:30:51 GMT -6
Hi Blaque,
You'll be happy to know I'm practicing my Spanish 'r's' with no greater fortune but with such bitter devotion nobody will laugh anymore, at least to my face. More likely the benefit of being olde, but at least a sort of progress.
That's good to know about the plural, and while I total up the purchase price of national radio time to proclaim that (yet again/finally, readers' choice....) I was right about something (Also? Insufferable.) I think it supported by the followup question's phrasing. Thank you for looking it up. As Markland knows, my personal research is limited by laziness, booze, lack of interest, and hatred of Denver, people, most cows, and spiders. And now bedbugs. Also? Lutherans and Southern practicioners of the Arian heresy. Don't get me started on badmitten.
But, it's not the Boston-Benteen meeting that concerns me, but the Martin-Boston meeting, because I don't think it happened and Martin had told nobody about it. THAT's the story I think Lee and Whitaker would have draped with garland and shook the rafters with and everybody would be thrilled to hear from the participant. Heroic Boston dashing over the ridge to Martin's admiring gaze, brow furrowed by duty. Benteen's role in my concern is limited to his support of Martin's first and truthy tale of not knowing his horse was shot till Benteen told him. Later, it became Boston that told him, later Benteen again.
Not actually relevant to the charges under consideration but damning none the less to the Victorian public and the host of mostly idiotic demands by cliche: ride to the sound of firing, get their first with the most, attack if nothing else occurs to you. This is the poem, written after, that sort of catches the Hussar/'special child' mentality of the military, or at least the cavalry, whose goal seemed to be who could most closely approximate the brilliance of a horse.
Vitaï Lampada
THERE'S a breathless hush in the Close to-night -- Ten to make and the match to win -- A bumping pitch and a blinding light, An hour to play and the last man in. And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat, Or the selfish hope of a season's fame, But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote "Play up! play up! and play the game!"
The sand of the desert is sodden red, -- Red with the wreck of a square that broke; -- The Gatling's jammed and the colonel dead, And the regiment blind with dust and smoke. The river of death has brimmed his banks, And England's far, and Honor a name, But the voice of schoolboy rallies the ranks, "Play up! play up! and play the game!"
This is the word that year by year While in her place the School is set Every one of her sons must hear, And none that hears it dare forget. This they all with a joyful mind Bear through life like a torch in flame, And falling fling to the host behind -- "Play up! play up! and play the game!"
Scary.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 12, 2011 16:12:02 GMT -6
If Boston stopped when Benteen was at the morass, then he and Martini may not have met depending upon the timing. Boston didn't know where Custer was so he had to follow the shod trail going by the lone tepee, crossing again to the south side of Ash Creek at Eshleman fords, and then circling by Girard's second knoll down by ford A before going up Mathey's knoll. That whole area is also covered in trees and brush in places.
Martini coming back by way of the bluffs already knew he didn't have to follow the old trail as he could see Benteen from the bluffs. It is likely that Martini cut across the flat area and crossed the North fork probably around where the pack train later crossed it or even further east towards the morass.
There would really be no reason for Martini to be looking back over towards ford A where Boson was following the original trail. It all depends upon what time and what route you have Boston leaving.
bc
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 12, 2011 16:39:01 GMT -6
See, this is where the pain begins. I think Martin testified that Boston was already with Custer before he himself left with the note. The plural: two brothers and nephew followed by "All those around him...." I've mentioned before how much relies in these scenarios upon Boston meeting Martin after he leaves because the tale just self welded into the canon without much thought. It's a great image and a great story. When Boston is already there, with about ten to twenty minutes difference depending on speed and all, what does this do to people's scenarios? That Kanipe didn't see Boston either - because Kanipe is a fraud, left earlier than recalled or imagined, or whatever - might be explained by routing and growth. But Martin testified that Boston was already there, and the Recorder accepted it. "All those around him....": two brotherS and a nephew. digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&entity=History.Reno.p0372&id=History.Reno&isize=MHe was earlier asked if he was expected to meet anyone. No, was his answer. You'd think the subject might occur to someone aware of that tale.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 13, 2011 9:29:43 GMT -6
About seven miles from Custer’s battlefield Captain Benteen watered his horses at a pool in the road.
Was this written in 1876 or 1976? We know there is a road next to a morrass today but what road was there in 1876?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 13, 2011 9:35:07 GMT -6
I guess I'd like to read that 1876 article in toto. Don't even know who the author was. Is it on the net somewhere?
bc
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 13, 2011 9:51:45 GMT -6
I don't think the 'road' and 'pool' issue is anything more than newspaper enhancement both for word variation and to emphasize how blatant was Custer's trail for ease of people to rescue him. Road doesn't necessarily mean more than 'trail' except in size. They were not paved or maintained for most human existence. The 'road West' didn't refer to more than Oregon/Santa Fe trails in speeches back east. Pool would be an assumption if someone said they watered their horses.
The morass on Grays map looks to be about 4.5 miles to Reno Hill as Jet Crow flies, which is 4 miles and 100 feet to Custer's body, so I can't say that this is way off by the guesstimates of guys there.
Prediction: the article will feature unnamed officers and sources, and will be a standard compendium of stuff we've already read. Is it in Custer Myth? Will look.
If anyone finds reference to Martin meeting Boston before the RCOI or even within a decade of it, that would be crumbling to my theory.
For the nth year running, nobody jumping aboard the Boston Was Already There team bus. Really, if you just let go of Martin's Dramatic Meeting and assume for a drunken moment I'm correct, life becomes simpler and LBH far more recognizeable. It's all of a piece with the replanting of the markers and else.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 13, 2011 10:00:21 GMT -6
DC
I agree that newspapers are not a good source for quotes. I have personal experience where the quote is opposite of what I stated. Also as you predict for authors of books, newspaper reporters exhibit the same traits.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 13, 2011 11:41:18 GMT -6
But.....
No opinion whatever on Boston-Martin? None?
Nobody?
Someone?
Hello?
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 13, 2011 14:06:04 GMT -6
Darkcloud,
OK you get the booby prize, me, Ill give you an opinion. No I don't think Martini met Boston Custer for the following reasons mostly his own words under oath at the RCOI
1- He makes no mention of seeing him
2When at the time they saw the village and he was given his message, he states they saw only children , dogs and ponies. No Indians at all. Yet when he gets to Benteen he states they are" skedaddling" (Not a word Benteen would make up) This is supported by Lt Edgerly who states in his testimony that" Martini was laughing and saying Reno charged the village and was killing everyone,man,women, and children. (these statements were a complete and total lie on the part of Martini)
3- His times don't seem to gel with me (although I'm not good at them) He states it took an hour and a half to get to Benteen, but then only 45 minutes to get back to Reno. Does that mean he was 45 minutes away from Reno when he got the message
4-He states Custer brothers and nephew were with him there on the hill.This tells me he knows the difference between a brother, a brother in law, a nephew etc If he said brothers, that's what he meant
5- I don't like to use books with no source. but Philbrick states in The Last Stand pg204 that Benteen points out that his horse was hit. Martin saw that, UNKNOWN to him, his horse had been hit by a bullet
6- Based on the above, I dont believe Martinis narative any more than I do Thompsons (Although I do respect Thompson as a brave soldier)
My own personal belief, although I never dwell-ed on it, is that Boston Custer who was assigned to the pack train, left it to go to his brother, the moment he saw that the pack train was following Benteen and not his brother ,and got there well before Martini was sent. Who was going to stop him? Just my opinion
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 13, 2011 15:05:18 GMT -6
So. If true, then we have Boston around Benteen in the area of the morass at about 1430. Boston didn't actually stop, but kept going and kept up conversations as he went. How long to getting to Weir Point? Boston was NOT found next to his brother but way west down the slope, as I recall. Autie Reed may never have been found.
By Gray, Boston with Benteen between 1430 and 1440 ish. "Trots" on. Martin left later than credited, meaning Custer wasn't blistering north overall, although there may have been hurry ups and waits.
I agree Boston operated under special dispensation, as did TWC, and nobody thought it wrong or annoying back then, but the way it was.
It may not be true that Martin necessarily lied, and what Edgerly recalls was the gist and added info formed by hindsight. Edgerly's recollection of the farrier issue (Indians 15 feet away and all) is less believable than Martin's confused and contradictory tale (which is normal, I'd think).
We have trouble with maps and photos of what the land was, and to imagine these guys had such incredible memories to keep this land separate in mind from gazillion miles of land not unlike it for years is not realistic.
|
|