|
Post by montrose on Feb 16, 2011 9:36:43 GMT -6
I think the bluffs illustrate the fog and friction of war.
We have Martini, Kanipe, Boston, Rees, Crows a few hostiles the 4 Co Company stragglers, maybe one or two other stragglers all swirling around. SGT Finckle had fallen behind, though he managed to rejoin his command.
I note that no one saw Brennan and Fitzgerald, who fell out with Thompson and Watson. It looks like these two followed the backtrail to the trains without incident, and picked up Thompson's horse.
The bluff area is fairly wide, so people can pass at a considerable distance. Thompson and Watson climbed down the bluffs. I think Kanipe was quite far from the bluffs, unless I don't understand where you place the gully where the Rees were.
I believe it quite possible that the people that Thompson was hiding from initially were friendly forces.
A lot of the early testimony is on the scale of I saw someone I didn't know at a distance. Names came in I find it suspicious when memory improves over time.
Now actually meeting and talking with someone is much easier to remember. Which is why I don't believe Martini met and talked to Boston.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 16, 2011 9:48:25 GMT -6
I'm trying to follow along here using Gray2/Custer's Last Campaign.
For others wanting to follow along you can throw Gray1/Centennial Campaign in the dumpster because in a footnote on page 261 of Gray2, Gray states that the earlier iteniaries he adopted in Gray1 are unacceptable as he has now adopted Roger Darling's analysis of Benteen's route. (Maybe Fred could convince him to come up with a Gray3 if Gray is still kicking)
For other points of reference:
Gray has Benteen returning to Custer's trail on Reno/Ash creek a 1/4 mile above/east of the No-Name creek mouth. This is where Edgerly sees Boston riding by and not at the morass according to Gray2 at page 264.
Gray has the morass that they watered at on Reno/Ash creek a 1/4 mile below/west of the mouth of No-name creek. A half mile after Benteen hits the Custer trail and from where Edgerly is greeted cheerily by Boston.
Gray has the Lone Tepee on the right/north bank of Reno/Ash Creek 1 mile below/west of the his morass location at the junction/mouth of South Fork and below the White Rocks High Bluffs.
Many others put the lone/burning tepee and morass much closer to Ford A than Gray does. Gray calls this a phantom tepee. To me, the evidence points to more than one tepee.
I still haven't figured out why Boston left the pack train so late.
bc
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 16, 2011 10:03:46 GMT -6
Gray died in December of 1991. Parts of the book strike me as having been clearly written by a dying man because the quality and energy of the writing sag greatly. It is for that I forgive some things that would annoy me more in another author.
I have high regard for Gray, but I think his importance is dim to those who weren't around for what went before Gray2, because it seems so obvious and mandatory to us now......but he was the first to do it to that degree with the interconnections of time and motion. Errors and all, he's still the most important work to battle consideration, the one author that cannot be avoided. Connell's is still the best book overall, errors and all.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 10:25:45 GMT -6
Darkcloud,
I do not believe I am cherry-picking the RCOI; if I am, please point it out and I will either explain my reason or fold. As for the Recorder, his assumption that Boston was already "there" is merely that, an assumption. What basis in fact did he have to make that assumption? None that I am aware of.
As for Luce Ridge being the meeting place of the two brothers, it is almost impossible-- given the circumstances of speed and distance-- for them to have met anywhere before. Also, since no one can verify where they met, the only data we have are the opinions of writers and historians who have accepted the Martini/Boston meeting and interpolate that into a "shortly-thereafter" get together. Beyond Luce is virtually impossible because of the reputed strengthening of Indian numbers. We know of at least 24 warriors east of the river; we hear about 50 or so with Wolf Tooth; and we know that warriors trailed Smith's men as they left the east bank of Ford B. Placing the Boston-George get-together anywhere north of Luce might bring the hammers of Thor down on us. Placing the meeting much before Luce would entail a greater speed than a 13 MPH gallop for too long a distance entirely... and of course, that would upset Conz.
As Ranger's and "zekesgirl's" rides, yes, the route is almost identical with mine. I have traced either their coordinates or their map-- I do not remember which-- and I think the only place we may have differed was where they entered No - Name Creek. I may have been a tad bit farther down the creek than they. There appears to be an easy passage between a couple of knolls and it seems to me that a cavalry command would have headed that way rather than across at another point. The difference was virtually immaterial.
This point is valid and it is why I have focused more energy on developing the scenarios from earlier testimony. I discard much that is told later, and that includes white narrative as well as red. That might not please "blaque" so much, but it is a key issue in my work. [The word "not" was originally typed as "now"... an error; sorry!]
There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, your harping on it for what now seems like years. Harp, harp... and that = correct, correct. I see it personally with myself. I discuss Vietnam experiences with my former driver and I see both of us forgetting certain details. He will remind me of things and vice versa. And I say, "Wow, I don't remember that!" That was 1966 and 1967, the equivalent of 1920 - 1921 for the LBH. Yet look at all we have coming in after that date.
I hope this is not the case and if I give that impression, then I both apologize and state that there is no glee in proving him-- or anyone for that matter... except the Swiss idiots... wrong. I also hope that what I will eventually seek to publish is an alternative that others who disagree with Gray can accept. Gray's work will never be thrown into the trash heap and he was a far, far better historian than I will ever be. It is simply my position that he distorted his work because of personal prejudices. I often wonder why a man like W. A. Graham seemed to almost browbeat Edward Godfrey into using that 4:20 memo-time of his as Benteen's arrival on Reno Hill. Graham, who professed to admire Benteen so much... odd.
I also agree with you about John Gray. I would like you to be able to believe I take no pleasure in proving someone wrong. That is especially true with a person like Gray. I wish only that I had his credentials to be taken as seriously as he was, yet I find his scholarship to be somewhat shoddy, not just in his timing but in other areas as well. I do not think he uses all the available data... and in some cases that I am referring to, the data is considerably more empirical than the convoluted narratives of poorly educated men some 45 years after the fact.
And actually, it is important to me that you believe me. Not necessarily so much in my conclusions, but in my methodology. "Montrose" is another whose opinions I respect and whose criticisms I seek. His expertise is more along the lines of the military thinker, but that factors into this thing in a very important way.
I would also say that your "emotional... joy" is real for me. When I developed this snake of mine, I used certain axes as my baselines. I would then come to the realization that I needed to include another event or series of events, i. e., the Rees rounding up the ponies, the Crow scouts shooting into the village, etc. I would work on those events separately, always having an approximate time of their beginning or end. I would grab the map, figure distances, factor in surroundings or surrounding events, figure reasonable speeds... we do not walk a herd of stolen ponies at 2 MPH, nor do we gallop them at 25 MPH... and then try to plug that particular section into the whole.
The "joy" was in realizing I had struck gold. The packs are a perfect example. I had developed the Benteen scenario using the beginning time of his separation from Custer and an ending time of his arrival on Reno Hill. The packs were difficult because they were the tail of the column and Custer halted about 1/4 mile from the crest of the divide.
The first thing you have to do is figure out the formation: colum-of-2s, column-of-4s...? Then, how long is a horse? What's the distance between front-and-back riders? What is the separation distance between companies? How tough is it to start a pack train moving? What formation were the mules in? Some sort of column, or bunched?
Well... I figured most of that out (never thinking to keep the calculations, mind you!!!!!), then came up with a starting time. I factored in distance and took the testimony of several eye-witnesses who claimed that as Benteen's command was turning onto Reno Creek from No - Name, they saw the head of the packs about a mile up Reno Creek. That gave me an end-time because I had already figured Benteen's time for the turn. Lo and behold, the speed needed for the packs to reach that point turned out to be optimal... and it wasn't 1 MPH or 10 MPH. There is not a soul in the world who could argue with that speed. Anyway, not someone who knew anything.
... and I agree with you here, as well. John Gray made it very easy for me. He made it also a lot easier for other LBH "scholars" to claim the mantle.
Br-r-r-r!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 10:41:02 GMT -6
I think Connell's book is the most fun to read and I agree that one must read Gray's second book. I have never read his first. I would also add to that list Richard Fox' book. I do not think anyone can speak with any sort of validity or be taken seriously without having read the Gray and Fox books. While you may not agree with Fox' interpretations of his own archaeology, his overall theory of how the battle progressed is the most sound I have ever read from the perspective of a former soldier. His layout flows perfectly; his theories of dissolution fit in perfectly. It is exactly how a battle of that nature might progress. There are no flaws in the movement table; his reasoning is sound and it is supported by Indian testimony.
If I had only to read two books on this whole shootin' match, it would be Gray's second-- which I would read first-- then Fox'. (I read them first in opposite order; I have read Gray's four times and Fox' six times. And I have two copies of each, both a hard and a soft cover.)
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 16, 2011 15:11:26 GMT -6
Fred,
1. The RCOI has testimony - Martini's - that says brotherS and the nephew were there. The followup question ("all those...around him") is consistent with the Recorder accepting that. There is no contrary evidence to that point, or for decades. The Recorder is not 'assuming' anything, I don't think. A witness swears to it, and without counter evidence, we're stuck with it.
(FTR, I'd also say there is testimony and many accounts about the Indians dressed in uniform and riding cavalry horses in the north where the postulated Ford D might be. That cannot be ignored, and what evidence they left could be and would be conjectured as made by actual soldiers. We can't pretend that did not happen and plow through with new scenarios that do not eliminate those incidents with evidence.)
2. I haven't seen your times or piece, so I'm stuck with Gray's. But everyone so far has Martin and Kanipe arriving in Benteen's face about 10-20 minutes apart, as I recall, and the distance anywhere in Cedar coulee to where Custer would be on the east flank of Weir is not great, so it doesn't seem way off to me that Boston could have done that.
3. I've picked up a different opinion on AZ's conclusions, but do not have anything in front of me to base that on. Also, my memory is biodegrading as we speak and I could entirely be full of it. Has AZ seen your time graphs and melded them with his info? That would be helpful (and annoying for you and him, since I don't have to do it, just dumping it on him...)
4. I don't know how it came to be thought Graham browbeat Godfrey into anything, or could. I think that appeared as an offhand remark in a post and it became a Fact. Godfrey couldn't recall what that a time he'd written down stood for, and he thought it might be something but Graham thought maybe else and after consideration Godfrey thought that correct. I doubt Godfrey would succumb to Graham against his inclinations. Graham, who never went to the field or had been in combat, could be politely disagreed with. Godfrey held fast to his white lie about mutilations and Custer's body, then immediately changed his story when La Custer died. That is, by the way, the sort of sloppy error that a WP classmate noted about Godfrey; he was the Philadelphia officer shot at the Washita whose name eludes me.
5. I'm not posing myself as the someone with the club at the end, but they're out there, and you want to rehearse in front of the jealous, bitter, clinically deranged peers before doing the orals before the faculty, who personally hate you out of spite for your youth and are also nursing world class hangovers from the party the night previous where they were rejected by everone, including those paid to attend. They want to share their pain.
If AZ can live with your speeds and routing, you're not entirely home but you can see Mother at the window with the homemade apple pie. That'll be key for me, and I suspect others.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 16:07:41 GMT -6
1. The RCOI has testimony - Martini's - that says brotherS and the nephew were there. The followup question ("all those...around him") is consistent with the Recorder accepting that. There is no contrary evidence to that point, or for decades. The Recorder is not 'assuming' anything, I don't think. Understood, but again, we have the language issue which could account for the lisping "S." Just a thought. And while the Recorder may have accepted Martini's bluster, the Recorder also accepted DeRudio's comment that it was George, Cookie, and one other at the edge of the bluffs. One out-weighs the other I think. Still... I cannot out of hand reject your theory. Is the glass half empty or half full? I do not know that this is correct. I know that LT Roe or one of the cavalry officers of Gibbon's command (my one major file has corrupted, so I am a little lost for data) came across Indians dressed as troops, but that was farther down the valley. Those same Indians-- or their in-laws-- were also seen by the timber stragglers, Gerard, DeRudio, O'Neill, and Jackson, some time after the Custer fight was over and that was in the vicinity of the retreat crossing or even higher up. If you wish, I will make up an excerpt and e-mail it to you. Your call. Merely give me the precise situation and I will yank it out of the "snake." And Darkcloud, don't be coy; if you really want to see the friggin' thing, tell me. Like I said, you'll only get an excerpt anyway. I have not sent him anything... I don't think. "Montrose" may be the only one. But AZ and I have discussed it and if I am not mistaken, we agree almost perfectly. Terry would also know. I do not remember how this came about, either, but I seem to recall reading about how much Graham spoke to Godfrey about his 4:20 musing and how it could have been Benteen's arrival. A seed planted early enough will eventually grow and by the time Godfrey admitted to the notation being Benteen's arrival, he was well past his best days of reasoning and memory. I would think that sort of thing would warrant immediate rejection, especially since he stuck to his original time frame as late as the third or forth printing of his treatise in 1921. My youth? Dear Lord, you are kind... even though I get the gist of your metaphor. She always did smile when I came home. Cinnamon and raisins. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 16, 2011 16:36:35 GMT -6
1. What Martin is discussing is Custer, his brotherS and nephew, ON the east flank of Weir Point, not at the top along the bluffs, which could refer to activity further south, as seen or not by DeRudio. It's possible that time could be taken while under attack at that distance to stare for a period at individuals who could be made out, but iffy. There is no language issue to confuse with the S between Italian and English, certainly not a lisp, and in any case the Recorder responded as if it were a plural, and blaque's research suggests that's the original. No mention of this meeting for more than a quarter century?
2. Roe on the 26th, Weir on the 25th, Cheyenne/Sioux women on the 25th. Three separate accounts. Others mention it in passing.
3. Let's see if AZ finds any light between your views. If he does, I'll burden you with a request and make payment for the mailing if you cannot just send it as an email attachment or pdf.
4. Just saying planting a seed and browbeating aren't really the same thing. And it was Barneze/Barnett(?) who was at WP with Godfrey who thought him sloppy. Godfrey may have made several later decisions about what his notes meant.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 16, 2011 21:52:13 GMT -6
Darkcloud,
You may be referring to Barnitz... Albert Trorillo Siders Barnitz... but Barnitz was not at West Point, so I am at a loss right now. I will dig deeper.
There are some issues with Godfrey and he is not quite the bright, shining light everyone thinks. LT Eckerson was with Godfrey at Cedar Creek, M. T., in the spring of 1877 when they chased Indians who had robbed the U. S. mail. Apparently, Godfrey failed to pursue them and Benteen claimed Eckerson said Godfrey was a coward. Also, Benteen had issues with him from time to time and called him, “… rather an obtuse fellow, and like the traditional Englishman, it takes him a good while to see the nub of a joke.” It seems he was rather humorless, maybe a bit too staid.
As for the "excerpt," just let me know. It isn't a problem to put it together and it is a simple Excel program, so I can e-mail it any time.
I will have to go over the RCOI business again, just to see if I "interpret" it any differently... you know, context and all.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Feb 17, 2011 11:38:41 GMT -6
I'm totally wrong, Barnitz did not go to West Point. So much for relying on memory. Here's your hat, what's your hurry?
But I have it in mind that at some point he served with Godfrey previous to the 7th and formed an opinion of him that Godfrey was kind of lazy and not likely to cut anyone reaching blindly into the knife drawer.
I'm not comfortable with research or writing bound for publication by another, and I've passed on previous offers by others for the same reason. If AZ is in agreement there would be no point for me anyway, knowing far less. If a difference, I'd be willing to see if I could find the issue, even if not likely to resolve it.
It's not a lack of interest, it's that I don't want to be silently absorbing another's work and thoughts and have it appear as my own at a later date (it happens) or, worse, read something very close to my own we arrived at separately and be unable to so claim if there's a paper trail I read it elsewhere. It's why actors physically recoil when amateurs hand them screen plays and end up defending the use of two words in a sentence by a character "clearly stolen" from that idiotic screenplay handed them in an airport.
I've read things by people I've interacted with and seen my phrasing and expressions in print not under my name and with no credit or mention, even if such phrasing played a key role in summation or in character presentation. Not stolen exactly, and no intent to screw me and in any case no monetary value, but it precludes use by me for similar effect in my own stuff because it looks like I stole from them.
Also, vanity.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 17, 2011 12:56:24 GMT -6
That be in Barnitz's book at page 158 from his diary entry of June 3, 1868 after they have served together in the 7th for over a year.
He wrote: "Lieut. Godfrey .... is still in Company "E"- but Lieut. [John M.] Johnson has just arrived - tegether with Lieut. Gibson. I have not seen them yet, but my cooks are now preparing a supper for them - and probably Lieut. Godfrey will now be returned to duty with the company. I do not think that his assistance would be material! He is somewhat lazy, and a little slovenly, and not at all systematic, although he makes some pretentions in that way. I have now got my company into admirable trim, and everything goes on swimmingly."
At page 172 from July 15, 1868 letter to Jennie he discusses him getting married. He writes "I do not admire him much. he is of very little account in the company. He is very slovenly and lazy, and unmilitary, and I would not give one good non-commissioned officer for half a dozen Lieutenants like him. ..." Barnitz goes on about having to give him explicit orders with a copy in writing and warn him to carry them out to the letter. He states he doesn't see where Godfrey's West Point training has benefitted him.
At page 173 from his July 16, 1868 journal: ".... I placed Lieut. Godfrey in arrest this evening for disrespectfully reporting the Troop &c. ..."
At page 173 from his July 20, 1868 journal: "Released Lieut Godfrey from arrest this ev'g, and directed him verbally to attend all roll and stable calls for the present, and until otherwise ordered, and to inspect the kitchen at dinner call."
At pages 178-179 in an Aug 10, 1868 letter to Jennie: " I am getting along very nicely with Lieut. Godfrey now. We had a little "wrestle" together, as Lieut. Robins would say, in which Lieut Godfrey did not prosper, and since then he has been as good, and as attentive to duty as it is possible for an officer to be. He seems to respect me exceedingly since then, and our relations are very amicable indeed. The fact is Lieuts Godfrey and Johnson had entered the service, presuming a great deal upon their West Point education, and prestige, which was not really very beneficial to them, when put to the test, and it was necessary to teach them their true position before they could become entirely available as subalterns."
Sounds like Barnitz taught them a few things the old fashioned way in fist city.
bc
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 17, 2011 13:16:27 GMT -6
Darkcloud,
I understand clearly how you feel and I respect you for it. The offer was not to get your "review" of it, per se, but to further ruminate about the points we were discussing. AZ hasn't seen it, either, but I believe he and I-- and "zekesgirl"-- went over several of the "particulars" over on the other board and if memory serves me correctly, my work backed up his observations and he supported my speculations. That was fairly convincing for me, for we share a similar respect for both of them.
As for whatever I am fortunate enough to get published, if ever-- and believe me, these are all shots in the dark; my credentials are far from earth-rocking, especially in this day and age of cheapening bona fides-- every single soul who has assisted me in whatever form will be mentioned, acknowledged, thanked, or in some way slapped on the proverbial back for their contributions. All you'll have to do is make sure I spell your name correctly.
I noticed my friend, "BC," has proven you correct after all. Barnitz, while not having attended the Conz School For Galloping Eructation, was indeed the one you were referring to. Thank you, Britt. That saves me an afternoon of squirreling around.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 17, 2011 13:20:17 GMT -6
Info on Albert Barnitz can be found in Utley's book, Life in Custer's Cavalry, from Barnitz's diaries and letters in 1867-1868. Apparently Barnitz's lifetime diaries and letters are in a collection.
Barnitz wrote a book in 1857 and attended Cleveland Law college in 58-9. He joined the 2nd Ohio Cav in 61. Fought against Quantrill and other anti-jayhawkers in Kansas and Missouri in 62. They moved to the army fo the potomac under the 3rd Cavalry division. In the spring of 64 he had a horse shot out from under him and later wounded by a minie ball. When he returned to duty in the fall of 1864, Custer was the new division commander and they fought togther in the Shenendoah and the campaigns until Appomattox. He had brevets for Major and Lt. Col. of volunteers and later received a regular army brevet for Col. from the Washita.
Barnitz was badly wounded at the end of the Washita battle just before Elliott left on his chase. Apparently Godfrey and Barnitz became friends because the book ends with Godfrey's letter to Jennie on Dec 5, 1868 from Camp Supply: "... Your husband has every indication of recovering. ... The wound was made by a ball from a Lancaster rifle (supplied by the Interior Dept.) fired by a Cheyenne warrior. The ball entered his left side on a lne with the left groin and about four inches above the navel; coming out on left side of the spine cutting the top of his pants. The wound is one that rarely occurs without cutting the intestines, and that was what was at first appeared to be the case. Happily recent indications have shown that not to be ..."
He later retired for medical reasons in 1870.
bc
|
|
|
Post by bc on Feb 17, 2011 15:22:39 GMT -6
Regarding Godfrey, in 1870 Gen. Sturgis recommended Godfrey to appear before the Hancock Board that was reducing the officer corps at the time. Sturgis stated Godfrey was inefficient and complained that cavalry life interfered with his domestic comfort and convenience. Sturgis later withdrew it. This was about a year after Godfrey was married. (page 261 of Utley-Barnitz book.)
At page 174 on July 21, 1868, Barnitz noted: "Lt. Godfrey reported "his presence" to me while I was bathing my face, and declined to receive the report of the 1st Sergeant, which of course has resulted in some "unpleasantness!"."
I'm not sure what Barnitz was referring to with the unpleasantness. This would have been the day after Barnitz and Mathey had been to the Arapahoe and Kiowa camps on the Arkansas near Fort Larned with 400 lodges, 4400 NAs, and 4 or 5000 ponies and mules. This was about a week before Agent Wynkoop was to issue 350 to 375 rifles with ammo to the NAs as part of their annuities.
bc
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Feb 22, 2011 12:31:19 GMT -6
Martin’s testimony at the RCOI about General Custer being accompanied by his brothers atop the bluffs while surveying the village, lends more credibility to the recollection of Trumpeter Hardy, of A Co., who told Camp that “Boss Custer was with the five companies when Reno separated, and Boss said he was going to where the fighting would be” (Hardorff’s CC&LBH, p. 81). Perhaps Hardy had some kind of acquaintance with Boston, since he remembered that Boss had brought two Indian ponies to the expedition, and let trooper Hardden of D company ride one of them on June 25th.
On the other hand we have the recollection of Lt. Edgerly about having met Boston when they returned to the trail; and also the statement about having seen Boston while watering made by O’Kelly’s unnamed officer, most likely Cpt. Weir, with whom the newspaperman apparently made a close acquaintance –I deduct this from the fact that it was O’Kelly, rather than Whittacker, the receptor of the famous “Weir affidavit” (if it ever existed).
Bearing out the statement of Edgerly and the hearsay evidence of O’Kelly, we have more of the latter coming from the recollections of Richard A. Roberts (brother in law of Captain Yates & friend of Reed & Boston, from whom he separated at the Powder river depot). At the return of the regiment to FAL, Roberts was told by a K company trooper (perhaps Pvt. Mielke) that Boston went past them on their march down the trail, and checked his mount to ask him for a sip of water.
Assuming none of the above men were mistaken in their recollection (no mean feat by itself!) Boston would have catched up with his brothers before they mounted the river bluffs, but after he had passed by Benteen’s column back on the Reno Creek trail. According to Darling, Custer & Reno had passed about 16-20 minutes earlier by the point at which Benteen’s battalion hit the trail. This means that Armstrong & Tom had a 20-minute time advantage on Boston, which he would have been able to compensate by riding faster and benefitting of the time lost by his brothers at the Lone Tepee site. Gray thinks that the command didn’t halt one second at that point, but I disagree. Varnum remembered that Custer grew impatient at this place; he gave instructions to Reno to lead out since the scouts were reluctant to do so; and, before moving out, the latter ordered French to detach a 10-man advance party to open the way. All this had to take a few minutes at least. Perhaps this delay and his fast galloping (plus the watering of Custer’s battalions at the North Fork) allowed Boston to join the command in time to be seen in company of his brothers by both trumpeters, Hardy & Martin.
If the above suppositions are true, it’s probable that Boston informed his brother that Benteen had returned to the trail just ahead of the packs; which would explain Cooke’s instruction to Martin, as quoted at the RCOI, that in order to meet Benteen all he had to do was to ride back along the trail; and, likewise, Custer’s instructions to Benteen to bring up the pack train would make more sense, since GAC would have known that the packs were just behind Benteen, trailing his battalion.
Jose
|
|