|
Post by fred on Oct 4, 2012 15:51:24 GMT -6
Does not a wounding at Ford D open up a couple of other possabilities as to the identity of the person wounded? There is no indication of a wounding at Ford D. Only speculation, only, "What if...?" What we do have is an account of troops there and a horse being shot and bucking off its rider. Other troops got him and took him along. Somewhere between that point and a scimitar-like move to Cemetery Ridge, Marc Kellogg was killed. We know Kellogg traveled on a mule and I suspect George Custer didn't dilly-dally in moving from "D" to Cemetery, so can a mule keep up with troops moving at 15 MPH? Then again, mules are more ornery and maybe Kellogg had some problem controlling the beast amidst all the gathering mayhem. Circumstantial, with a mite of speculation... but it's all we have, so we do the best with that. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 4, 2012 15:59:33 GMT -6
... is it safe to assume that researchers like yourself put white Cow Bull on the same side of the ledger as Curly, Pvt Thompson and a few others Dan, Your use of the phrase, "researchers like yourself," is very kind and undeserving in my case. I am merely a hack who has done more work than some others, that's all. However... your kindness is always appreciated! And the answer to your question is, yes... with a caveat. I don't believe Curley was a liar. He was an improvisor who just said what he was cajoled into saying, just said what he thought the whites wanted to hear, just so they would go away. Even the business about seeing the battle under a stolen, red Sioux blanket was done more-- I think-- because as the telling went on, his listeners' eyes got bigger and bigger. It sort of reminds me of the out-take on TV years and years ago... Soupy Sales, I think it was... a children's program... and as it ended and credits drifted by, someone forgot to turn off the mike. "There, that ought to keep the little bastards for another night!" Something like that. And, no, I don't place much stock in White Cow Bull's nonsense. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
walsh
Full Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by walsh on Oct 4, 2012 19:38:38 GMT -6
Maybe White Cow Bull just wanted to make a name for himself. What Indian wouldn't want the reputation of having killed a leader? or Custer himself? Maybe Lieutenant Sturgis was shot by WCB and that's why his body was never found. It was in the river. I don't see how whoever was shot at the ford could have been saved. The Indians were right across the river shooting at them so it's not like you could dismount under such circumstances and save a comrade unless you want to be killed yourself. If the story is true, my guess is Sturgis.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 5, 2012 6:15:07 GMT -6
I have heard about Sturgis being the Officer shot before, I think he should be in the running for the Officer hit on Ford B, for some reason I don’t think it was any of the Custer brothers, GAC was a brave soldier and so was TC, but I don’t think the HQ would have led such an assault, so if we take E Company as the vanguard, it makes it a two horse race in my book.
Sturgis also wore a buckskin or light coloured jacket that day, and this coat was reputedly found in the village with a bullet hole through it, maybe Sturgis was shot and his body not retrieved, if this was the case then there must have been heavier fire at the ford then we have previously believed, because if one of your commanders fall in action it is more than likely his men would try and save him.
I remember Fred compiling a list of E Company men on a thread last year;
E Company had 38 men, including Smith and Sturgis. 28 were reputedly found in Deep Ravine. That leaves 10. Sturgis was never identified. That's 9 remaining. Six fell on Cemetery Ridge. That leaves 3. Smith was the only E Company man found on Last Stand Hill. That leaves 2. There were a few men found between the end of the LSH ridge and Deep Ravine, the odd two could have been in this area.
The only down side in trying to identifying this Officer is that Sturgis was not identified on the battlefield and Smith was, although Smith was not found with his men, the jury is still out for me.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 5, 2012 6:29:16 GMT -6
Maybe White Cow Bull just wanted to make a name for himself. Walsh, First of all, it is nice seeing you back here. Hope everything is fine with you. That is a very clever observation about Sturgis and as far as I know, you may be the only person I know who brought up his name. The reason I rule him out, however, is for the simple reason of recognition. Like we do in modern warfare, Indians keyed in on those they believed were leaders. This would be particularly so in the rather mundane world of standard military uniforms. American army field uniforms have always seemed to me to be a cut below the glamor of others... the Germans, the English/Irish/Scots (in particular), the French, etc. So when you have a group of some 40-odd men arriving on gray and white horses and they all look the same-- except for one-- the Indians might naturally assume that one was the leader. In actuality, that was indeed the case. Jack Sturgis was reported to have worn the blue "fireman's shirt" (that is the type with the button-flapped-front and white piping) that seemed to be so common and popular amongst officers of the day (and I am sure it was not regulation). DeRudio and McClernand claimed to have seen his blood-spattered buckskin jacket in the village, so it appears he was indeed killed, though never identified. Then again, many were not. In addition, Godfrey remembered Sturgis wearing his blue reg army blouse. Algernon Smith often wore the low brogues with white gaiters, plus he wore a white hat, and if he did still have on the buckskin blouse or jacket, then he would have stood out, indeed, and would have made a fine target for Indians across the river. One other thing to consider... even though I do not have a very high opinion of White Cow Bull's tales, he was apparently a pretty fine shot and along with Big Ankles, Big Foot, Sandstone, Sleeping Rabbit, and Spotted Elk, was reputed to have been one of the Indian sharpshooters atop SSR. Of course, that could be apocryphal... but who knows? My money is still on Algernon Smith. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 5, 2012 9:09:13 GMT -6
Hello Fred, as I said earlier, I agree with you over the move north, but if any Officer was shot here, there would have to be opposition in the area, so was there any fighting at Ford D, did the Indian accounts give us any notion of a clash there, or did Custer just move back south unopposed.
I know there is a few who don’t go along with this move by Custer, and that the battle was similar to a rout, but as you said (and again I agree) there was only light opposition at first and the main attack came after a slow build up, this came to a head after Custer had left to go north.
This is for Dan;
If it were a rout from the offset, I think the way various formations got over run would be different, don’t forget how many of Keoghs wing were found on LSH, why was the total so low, if it was a rout would Custer be able to give orders to Keogh to form up any defence lines, why was L Coy found on Calhoun Ridge with both its Officers, why were the bodies of C Coy found further down near the river, and finally how come I Coy came to grief with their commander surrounded by his Sergeants.
Bottom line is, if this Battalion got whacked and was forced to LSH via Calhoun Hill, surly the percentage of Keoghs men found on LSH would have been higher. If men were deployed into Platoons and dropped off to try and stem the flow of warriors, why then was L Coy found dead with both of its Officers on Calhoun hill, if a platoon was dropped off there, surly only one Officer would be left behind not two, seems to me like all of L and I Coy’s died in situ and the same with most of C Coy, the bulk of E Coy too was found dead all together.
Here is one explanation (and it’s a long shot).
when I said yesterday about Keogh sacrificing his wing to allow Custer to reach the high ground after the ford B foray, what I meant was, if this foray was attacked and forced to wheel east, Keogh being stationed on the high ground could have deployed his force to cover this move, once engaged his wing was forced on the defensive, and once Custer got over to Custer Ridge, he and his men tried to follow but where over run before they could mount up, Keogh could have deployed L Company to help out Yates wing to disengage at the ford, C Company could have also been sent to cover this retreat, and L Company just got caught with its pants down. Once over on LSH GAC got stopped by warriors who (as DC put it) shot them down as they came into view.
This is not what I think actually happened, what do you think Dan.
Now Fred, it’s my time to take cover and as Chuck once said ‘’put on my Kevlar’’.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2012 9:58:45 GMT -6
Kevlar is for woozies. Real men use tissue paper.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 5, 2012 13:24:41 GMT -6
possible to stop This is for Dan; If it were a rout from the offset, I think the way various formations got over run would be different, don’t forget how many of Keoghs wing were found on LSH, why was the total so low, if it was a rout would Custer be able to give orders to Keogh to form up any defence lines, why was L Coy found on Calhoun Ridge with both its Officers, why were the bodies of C Coy found further down near the river, and finally how come I Coy came to grief with their commander surrounded by his Sergeants. Bottom line is, if this Battalion got whacked and was forced to LSH via Calhoun Hill, surly the percentage of Keoghs men found on LSH would have been higher. If men were deployed into Platoons and dropped off to try and stem the flow of warriors, why then was L Coy found dead with both of its Officers on Calhoun hill, if a platoon was dropped off there, surly only one Officer would be left behind not two, seems to me like all of L and I Coy’s died in situ and the same with most of C Coy, the bulk of E Coy too was found dead all together. Ian. Ian, Im sorry my friend you have a few questions and I am not computer literate and unable to break each down and answer as others can. I will give you my scenerio and hopefully it will answer some for you. I dont know if Custer ordered it or Capt Keogh did it on his own hook, either way the rear of the column was being threatened by warrors coming from the South. Keogh sent company L to form a skirmish line, fire a couple of volleys (Heard from Reno Hill) and the warriors would scatter. Companies I and C were still mounted, after the volleys company L would remount and they would catch up with Custer. Keogh never thought this would be a prolonged fight. The volleys had no effect, none, the warriors kept coming. They ditched their ponies and came forward of foot. Keogh now saw warriors coming from the camp and pouring into the ravine. he realized this would jeopardize L companys flank and rear. He sent C company to check it. Unfortunatley unknown to Keogh the warriors werent just starting to go into the ravine but hundreds were already in it. When C companys boots hit the ground they were attacked almost instantly by an overwhelming force and panicked. This is some what supported by either Thompson or DeRudio who stated the company came down and ATTEMPTED to form a horseshoe perimiter but were driven back Panic is more contagious than any disease. Once started it is almost impossible to stop. L company sees C company running,and dispite the efforts of the Officers and Im sure some NCOs L company joins the run towards I company. Capt Keogh and his Ncos (Found dead with him) try to stop it, but it is no use. The men flee towards Custers position and are cut down. Soldiers in long pants and Cavalry boots are no match to run with an Indian wearing a loin cloth and moccasins. By the way the bodies were found there was no even hint at any kind of military organized retrograde. This was a pure and simple rout. One Officer stated it was if you took a handful of corn and threw it on the earth. Those few that made it to LSH had another 5 minutes to live. Ian I dont want you or anyone else to think that I in any way think these soldiers werent brave men. I dont in any way mean to dishonor them.These are the same 7th Cavalry troopers that showed their courage and fighting ability on Reno Hill.These men just didnt have a chance. Once Custer headed North to do whatever the hell he thought he was going to do with 210 men against a 2 mile long village, their fate was sealed. There is no other way this could have ended. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 5, 2012 13:42:09 GMT -6
You're stating as fact that which cannot be known. This is disagreement about volleys being heard. Some said yes, others no, one said sorta but not quite. We don't know where the firing emerged from. Some thought it came from the village or right near it. People by the river are said to have heard the early firings by Custer's men but somehow not the later firings by Godfrey's.
This is Fan Fiction, where you get to imagine characters doing things thought appropriate. I really think it important to restrain that as much as possible. Newbies see "benteen" saying:
"I dont know if Custer ordered it or Capt Keogh did it on his own hook, either way the rear of the column was being threatened by warrors coming from the South. Keogh sent company L to form a skirmish line, fire a couple of volleys (Heard from Reno Hill) and the warriors would scatter. Companies I and C were still mounted, after the volleys company L would remount and they would catch up with Custer. Keogh never thought this would be a prolonged fight." He not only doesn't know who ordered it, but if it was ordered at all, never mind what Keogh thought.
It's wrong when I do it, when fred does it, when anyone does. It's important to say "there is a theory bolstered by thus and so that suggest that........." These boards are up for near ever.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 5, 2012 14:11:05 GMT -6
Dan and Ian,
First of all, Dan, the volley firing did not come from Calhoun Hill... it came from Luce and Nye-Cartwright. There was no archaeological evidence of any volley firing on Calhoun, but there was evidence found on the two ridges. Now I know how tenuous some think this cartridge-finding business is, but if we can determine Calhoun set up a skirmish line or two, and there was a thick linear formation of artifacts found on the ridges, we can make reasonable assumptions. And that is all we can do with this entire battle! We can only interpret evidence; it isn't definitive, but we must play the percentages.
As for Ford D... we have a few Indian accounts of soldiers showing up in that area. We have similar accounts of Indians fording there and following the troops.
In 1992-- I think it was-- Doug Scott and Peter Bleed received permission from local land owners to metal detect their land. This land was adjacent to the park boundaries off the Battle Ridge extension and along the service road from the park's entrance gate. This is the area Richard Fox and I believe Custer traveled on his way to Ford D. Scott and Bleed found evidence of both soldiers and Indians in the area of the BR extension, leading in the direction of Ford D. That means, essentially, the troops passed that way, but did not do so unopposed.
Now there is a gap between what was found and the ford. So we need to make more assumptions. If we chose a route and we find evidence troops used part of that route, then we add in evidence-- verbal accounts-- that troops showed up at one of the termini, then we can make a reasonable assumption troops used that route to show up there. It can't be proven-- at least so far-- by archaeology, but when you add in the verbal accounts, you can paint the picture.
Again, is it definitive? No. But what else have we? Everything else is mere theory with no real support, circumstantial or otherwise. That is the problem with theories.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Oct 5, 2012 14:47:56 GMT -6
I seem to remember that one of the Crows, I think it was Curley, describing a trooper, maybe a man who was carrying a flag being shot and falling in the water at the ford. He then goes on to say that he saw two soldiers jump off their horses and pull him out, and then sling him across his horse. Earlier in that same statement he also mentioned the soldier who lost control of his horse which then carried across the stream to almost certain death. As a by the by, this may well be the dead man who was seen close to a dead horse on the East bank
Two points. Either Curley was somewhere within the vicinity to have actually see this, or else, he picked up this information from somewhere, or someone else. Now I know we all have problems with Curley, I do myself, but, let's not be hasty and throw the baby out with the bath water. I think you're absolutely right Fred, once Curley found that people, especially white people were prepared to listen to him -- and remember, in the company of white people many Indians felt like second class citizens, he began to improvise and dress things up. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't bits and pieces of mangled truth caught up in those webs of fantasy. Little snippets that get discarded with everything else because some people throw everything he had to say straight into the waste bin
Personally I've always thought that he must have picked a few nuggets of information years later when the warring tribes were encouraged to get together in order to try and bury the past. There were several such events, organized by the government I presume, which, although awkward and fairly unsuccessful, must have nevertheless included a number of Sioux and Cheyenne men who had fought in the battle. Naturally one would imagine that there was a great deal of boasting and puffed up pride on display, but for a man who was sometimes cast as the sole survivor of Custers command, apart from having to endure the insults as the man that ran away, I think can be little doubt that he would have been very interested in finding out as much as he could from his erstwhile enemies, if for no other reason than the possibility that he might be able to incorperate a few of the accounts into his own stories.
I think someone was shot at the ford, and I would guess that it was an officer for all the reasons Fred lays out. On a contentious note, it could be argued that the ford stories may have got mixed up in the telling: remember the Indians weren't using, or indeed familiar with the name of the landscape features that are embossed in all our brains, so that what we assume to be descriptions of the events at Medicine Tail for instance, may have actually happened at ford D and vicy verso, the man reportedly shot and bucked off his horse could be a description of something that happened at ford B and not D. But, given that we will never know one way or another, I'm in agreement, Smith or Sturgis are the likely candidates in this case.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Oct 5, 2012 15:21:56 GMT -6
You're stating as fact that which cannot be known. This is disagreement about volleys being heard. Some said yes, others no, one said sorta but not quite. We don't know where the firing emerged from. Some thought it came from the village or right near it. People by the river are said to have heard the early firings by Custer's men but somehow not the later firings by Godfrey's. This is Fan Fiction, where you get to imagine characters doing things thought appropriate. I really think it important to restrain that as much as possible. Newbies see "benteen" saying: "I dont know if Custer ordered it or Capt Keogh did it on his own hook, either way the rear of the column was being threatened by warrors coming from the South. Keogh sent company L to form a skirmish line, fire a couple of volleys (Heard from Reno Hill) and the warriors would scatter. Companies I and C were still mounted, after the volleys company L would remount and they would catch up with Custer. Keogh never thought this would be a prolonged fight." He not only doesn't know who ordered it, but if it was ordered at all, never mind what Keogh thought. It's wrong when I do it, when fred does it, when anyone does. It's important to say "there is a theory bolstered by thus and so that suggest that........." These boards are up for near ever. Dark Cloud, My post is not meant to be a statement of fact, it is an opinion and can be nothing more than that. No one in this forum, from the most ardent, dedicated, researcher, down to an enthusiast like myself can or will ever know for a fact what happened to Custers command. Therefore by nature any thought, hypothesis or theory can only be an opinion. Everyone in this forum knows that. To say before each statement "In my opinion" etc is in my opinion unnecessary. Everyone knows its an opinion. You have a valid point about "newbeis" but what newbies. I see one now and then, and they leave far too quickly.And in my opinion some may not be "newbies" at all, but rather these morons that jump in with a new name just to take a shot at someone mostly you or Capt Fred and then leave. If you feel however that it is important to state "In my opinion" before each statement, no problem, I always want to be cooperative. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2012 16:31:46 GMT -6
OK: I am probably going to piss Fred off again, but here goes.
Without being specific as to location, because the location does not matter for the sake of argument, how can anyone say we have archaeological evidence of volley fire at one location (LNC Ridge) and none at another (Calhoun Hill). Now I am not going to get into a discussion with DC about when cartridges got there, that is not the point. The point is three or four rounds in close proximity multiplied by a line of a certain length (skirmish line) in either location does not determine that volleys were fired from either. It means three or four or five rounds were fired at that location. A volley is fired on order at the same time. Cartridge evidence only indicates that at sometime shots were fired from a given location. Nothing else can be determined. They may have been fired in volley, or they might just as well indicate firing at will. Unless someone thought to leave a note saying this is where I fired three volleys, who in the hell knows.
So if we are worried about newbees that is the kind of statement, alluding to confirmed archaeological evidence, that some smart ass like me can and will pick apart.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 5, 2012 19:05:24 GMT -6
Building on the above. Cartridge evidence is somewhat inconclusive and I think it is a mistake to make to many conclusions based upon that evidence alone. Cases in point
If a line of cartridges are found in an array that resembles a skirmish line at point A and cartridges are found in something that resembles a skirmish line at point B, say 100 yards away. Given that these cartridges are identified as coming from the same group of weapons, we might rightly conclude that this skirmish line moved backwards or forwards, thereby giving us some idea of the flow of battle. Near conclusive evidence
If on the other hand a cartridge is found at point A and a cartridge from the same weapon is found at point B, all it tells us is the same weapon fired the cartridge. It says absolutely nothing conclusive about the flow of battle. It tells us the same weapon was fired twice. It tells us nothing about who even fired the weapon. Totally inconclusive evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 5, 2012 20:21:43 GMT -6
Don't mean newbies signing to the site, and I agree with you about the few who sign up. Still think there's only 11 of us but ten of you have 43 to 79 User ID's.
If someone is just checking in to learn something, we only see them as a Visitor, and there may be a lot of those in the 600 daily visits. Have no clue who. In any case, there are times of the year when the thing is inundated and weeks where beautiful women could skinny dip, because nobody is here.
The surety in tone is just baseless. We don't have a clue, and every once in a while that should be clearly stated. Not every sentence, but more than we do.
And again: the fact that we don't know leads to saying 'it's what we have' and somehow 'we've got to work with what we have' and pretty soon we're stating logical assumptions based on interpretations of dubious fact as 'what happened.' All with amazing detail. There are probably combat reports of known actions nowhere near as detailed as some of these expanded theories of the LBH battle.
|
|