|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 14, 2013 16:10:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 14, 2013 16:41:52 GMT -6
First, the date is 2007.
Second, Nightengale is a bag of misinformation and seriously lacking in logic. He was the one who had a carbine fired on LSH to see if it could be heard on Reno Hill. In utter silence the single shot was allegedly heard. How this compares to exhausted and terrified soldiers with ringing ears from their own firing plus hundreds of horses and mules and guys yelling isn't clear. Well, yeah it is. Just not relevant to the 'scientific' test.
This alleged site isn't necessarily relevant to the battle. When new ammo was available the Army did not toss out the old, they used it till it was gone. LOTS of units visited the field, there was another battle with the Crow on the field, the field was salted, and - again - the cross dressers rode everywhere. These were the victors who wore uniforms and had Army mounts and rode in formations and fooled Weir, the Cheyenne Camp, and Terry's guys the next day. For a bit, anyway. They also removed the bling they didn't like as they moved about, by accounts. The Cheyenne camp was terrified when they rode in from the East, and many Indians may never have gotten the correct scoop on what was happening.
Don't forget: the tribes did not have a totally accepted language and sign language was ad hoc and confusion is to be assumed to a degree. Not lies, not cowardice, but mistakes at the time not helped by memory over the decades. But we KNOW there were groups of warriors dressed as soldiers from Custer's dead, and some before the battle was totally over.
What in the world would Nightengale mean by 'expert?' For that matter, what does anyone? There are those given to re-enacting who think they themselves are experts, god knows on what exactly. For my money, AZ is an actual expert, although he will vomit when he reads that and smack the image down. Ignore that and allow him to blush and mumble, but he is.
He's a combat vet with military experience who makes his living on the western plains and deserts with horses and weapons as a Peace Officer. He's ridden the field, or a lot of it. He knows something of Indians, as he deals with them, and although they're all different it's still a leg up on 99% of us. He probably has spent time in the saddle comparable to some of the miserable treks of the 7th, and this gives him an appreciation of what they'd focus on with backs devoid of padding between the vertebrae.
There are a few here who are officers and combat vets but not riders who'd not rank as high with me as experts, but still above the mean by atmospheric division.
There are people like me, who have read things. Graphic comics, mostly, but still: reading.
There are fetishists who know the thread count of every piece of uniform and the exact buttons on each and every uniform of parade appropriate soldierwear for the 7th in 1876. They know the trivia about each weapon, and they know the manuals and they know the myths and histories, but they cannot distinguish between them. They were never in combat (defined as under orders, under sanction, under fire) and in many cases, like myself, never served at all. Not expert on the mental world, the actual world, or the realities of war, they remain fetishists, but will try to pretend to more by lie or omission.
Those who are most confident in reeling off the trivia (and come on, much of this is....) are fetishists, and if you can provide two points of distinction between a hysteric morbidly obese 60ish re-enactor and a Trekkie at Comic-Con, you're better than I am. That's not an accomplishment, but just saying.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 14, 2013 18:10:54 GMT -6
Artifacts recovered from this site indicate that a portion of Custer's command fought at this location It is so much sexier to suggest that artifacts indicate battle and not a garbage tip.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 14, 2013 18:26:15 GMT -6
For Christ's sake, people. I didn't ask for a d**n lecture...I just wanted to know if this article was factual or not.
It's really pretty simple. Yes...and here's what was found. No...and here is why.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 14, 2013 18:43:31 GMT -6
Since your query was prefaced by "I found this while browsing the Internet...no idea if it's new news or not", and since the date of the article was right there under the title, you clearly needed a lecture. Will save you time in the future.
Tough, if you don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2013 18:54:45 GMT -6
Factual, that is something you must decide for yourself. My opinion though is that it is in part, but taken as whole cloth it does not stand up very well.
Benteen and Reno diobeying orders for instance, made as a factual statement, does not reflect the record. To disobey an order there must be direct intent to disobey. I don't believe anyone can say that happened. People have and can say that both Reno and Benteen did not carry out the orders they were given. It may seem to some that this is the same thing. Placed in context of events though, I believe what happened is more along the lines of being overcome by those events where judgment calls and not blind obedience are the order of the day. I cannot tell you what to decide then. I can only say I don't think they did, which is one area where I disagree with the author. There are several more, but like everything else about this battle, you must read widely, flag inconsistencies in the accounts, then decide for yourself what you think.
Was your sojourn at the Military College of South Carolina and the United States Air Force Academy an exercise in being told what to think, or was it to learn how to think? I would bet quite a sum on the fact that it was the latter.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 14, 2013 19:14:02 GMT -6
Was your sojourn at the Military College of South Carolina and the United States Air Force Academy an exercise in being told what to think, or was it to learn how to think? I would bet quite a sum on the fact that it was the latter. That's right, QC...and my guess is that you were no different in your career than I in mine. When I asked a question, I expected an answer. Not a tap dancing exercise. When I was asked a question, I gave a direct and no BS answer. As a subordinate, that's what I had been taught to say...you know the drill..."yes sir, no sir, no excuse sir" As a superior, I expected the same in return. I ran across this and wondered about it since I had not heard of it mentioned before. As a LBH novice, there's a lot that I haven't heard of. What I see here is less of an attempt to answer the question and more of an attempt to address the questioner. Bad form.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2013 19:32:53 GMT -6
AK: I would be most happy to attempt to answer anything that I can about this article, if you keep in mind that most would be opinion. If it is a question of is this a fact, and that I believe it is I will reference my sourcing.
On the whole I believe the article to be not well researched boilerplate that one might find in a Google search. I believe it to be somewhat less of an historic and litterary treasure than Philbrick.
When anyone gives a direct answer to a question on LBH, there will always be some who consider it BS or tap dancing
You must though help me out. What about this article would you like verified? What would you care to see refuted? I don't shoot in the dark when it is better to have a light turned on.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 14, 2013 19:40:03 GMT -6
We are not on the parade ground here buddy.Stow the yes sir no sir three bags full sir. It's a discussion board;check the thread/section heading;an invite to discuss.Discuss your theories of the battle or those others have pro-offered Post it and it is public property. PS You are not superior here.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 14, 2013 19:49:32 GMT -6
AK: I would be most happy to attempt to answer anything that I can about this article...You must though help me out. What about this article would you like verified? What would you care to see refuted? I don't shoot in the dark when it is better to have a light turned on. All I was looking for was a comment about whether or not the incident is factual or not. Yes, the article is almost 6 years old, but given that folks still discuss books with earlier publication dates than that, I'm not sure I see the point of its date. There's not enough info in the article to know what, who, or where. My query was essentially to ask for additional info. True? If so, what do we now know? Bogus? If so, toss the article into the crapper and move on to something else.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2013 20:04:57 GMT -6
If you are speaking specificly about those particular artifacts, I just don;t know. I did not see the map on page 45, but from the sounds of it the finds were somewhere near Ford D/Gravel Pit area. I know Fox was in that area, but Fred is the guy to ask about Fox's doings.
It would also depend on what kind of artifact it is. Just because it is from a cavalry weapon, or is a piece of cavalry equipment does not mean that cavalrymen fought at that specific place on 25 June 1876. It tells you only that at one time the item in question belonged to the cavalry or the U S Government writ large. In essence finding a individual artifact tells you very little.
The most helpful artifacts are those that are found in logical groupings. Case in point. Just because a WWII vintage protective mask was found along a roadside in Normandy does not mean that US soldiers were in action at that particular spot. It might. But it also might be some US soldier trying to lighten his load, threw the useless piece of crap away while walking down that road on the way to battle ten miles away. It might mean some German picked it up at the Vierville Draw and carried it for a while, then threw the mask away and used the case to carry his lunch in,. It might mean that it fell off a truck.
So without some understanding, of more depth than the article went into I don't think anyone would venture anything like a definative battle scenario changing solution. The one exception is that if an artifact find in a particular place verifies previously know facts.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 14, 2013 20:39:38 GMT -6
Alfakilo,
I would not put too much stock in the article, especially since it was written by Nightengale. DC is pretty much correct in what he said.
I did not read the whole thing-- too long, knowing who the author is. If it was by Fox or Scott or harmon or Bleed, I would have read it, but Nighengale is a flake. One of the locals, who by virtue of proximity is an "expert."
The crap about Benteen and Reno doing nothing is just that... crap. The half-hearted attempt by Weir... more crap. And if memory serves me correctly, the top of LSH was not and has not been extensively leveled. Anyway, Nightengale is blowing smoke here. For your information:
Walter Camp/LT Geo. S. Young—E/7I—Walter Camp wrote Young a letter and in it he asked if the hilltop had been leveled or changed. “Several officers of the 7th Cavalry who were there when the dead were buried tell me that the extreme end of the ridge, where the body of Gen. Custer lay, was considerably higher than any other part of the ridge, being, in fact, a little round knob or peak not more than 20 feet wide on top, but not exactly level on top; that Capt. Tom Custer’s body lay at the highest point, the General’s body the third from it and a little lower down; that three dead horses lay across this so-called little peak or rise.” Camp letter to Young, October 5, 1911; On The LBH With Walter Camp, 122 – 123.
James Brust/Brian Pohanka/Sandy Barnard—"It has been said that the top of Custer Hill was higher and more narrow at the time of the battle, and that grading over the years… has lowered the hill significantly…. Captain Sanderson, who supervised the construction of the monument in 1879, made no mention of grading the hilltop in his report. When Lieutenant Roe's detail erected the granite monument in 1881, they did dig a hole eight feet on a side... then excavated the mass grave an additional 10 feet in each direction.... Roe likewise made no reference to grading the hilltop. It is not unlikely that he did so to some extent, but given the detailed descriptions in his report, if significant grading had been part of his activities, he probably would have mentioned it." Continuing... "Lieutenant George S. Young, who was in charge of the reburial of the Fetterman/Fort Phil Kearny soldiers in 1888, told Walter Camp, 'I buried these bodies near where the Custer monument now stands and I am sure no leveling was necessary and none was done by me.' Young's testimony is of particular importance, for... he was part of the Terry-Gibbon column and was on Custer Hill immediately after the battle.... Young thought that no marked grading had occurred atop Custer Hill... 'As I recalled it, the ridge was amply wide for the purpose without doing any great amount of work....' Finally, Captain Owen Sweet… told Walter Camp that no grading or change in the ground on Custer Hill had taken place between those years." Continuing… "Viewed from the angle at which Barthelmess took his photo, the contour of the Custer Hill knoll has changed little since the mid-1890s. The earlier comparison photos likewise do not show major changes in the shape of the hilltop…. [There] is strong evidence that the top of Custer Hill is not much wider now than it was at the time of the battle.... Although grading had to be done to create the parking area and the roadbed east of the monument and south along Battle Ridge, study of early photographs does not support the notion of major reshaping of the top of Custer Hill." Where Custer Fell, 150.
Richard G. Hardorff—In 1876, "Custer Ridge was then a hogback, its length interrupted by several hillocks, its narrow summit not even wide enough to accommodate a wagon. The northwestern end… terminated in a knoll. Rising 6 feet above the adjacent ridge, the slanted top of this elevation was some 30 feet in diameter. On the very top of this little knoll... Custer and 9 of his men perished." Hokahey!, 71.
Two Eagles/Richard G. Hardorff—Cu Brulé—A question was posed to Two Eagles about why no soldiers were killed on the top of the hill:] “They were killed on top of the ridge. (Two Eagles explains that the top of the ridge was very level, and at the finish, and for some little time before, he was just a trifle north of west from [Last Stand Hill].)” Sewell Weston interview, 1908; Lakota Recollections, 148 – 149.
O'Neill, T., PVT—G—The end of Custer Ridge—where the monument stands—ended in a blunt peak. “It was neither level nor sharply peaked like a hogback. South of this ridge ran to a sharp peak, like a hogback.” Camp notes, October 13, 1912; On The LBH With Walter Camp, 187.
Sheridan, M. V., LTC—(L)—Custer and his officers were found on “a rough point or narrow ridge not wide enough on top to drive a wagon on. It was not a position where successful resistance could be made. Across that ridge were 5 or 6 horses apparently in line, and looked as though they had been killed for the purposes of resistance….” RCOI, 1879; RCOI, 549.
Roe, C. F., LT—F/2C—Roe said the Custer ridge was level, originally, not rising to a peak. No grading had been done by 1878. Camp interview, December 8, 1910; Custer in '76, 250.
Young Hawk—Ree scout—Referred to the hill where Custer fell as a flat-topped hill. 1912 interviews; The Arikara Narrative, 108.
Terry, A. H., BG—“The monument is located on the point of the hill, six feet from where the remains of General Custer were found.” Official report of the re-burials and the placing of the monument, October 9, 1881. Report of the Secretary of War, No. 1, Part 2, Vol. 1, pages 97 – 98, The Custer Myth, 372.
Kanipe, D., SGT—C—“Asked Knipe if ridge where monument now is was so level and wide… Says no, says was narrower and Custer laid on very peak of it.” Camp interview, June 16 – 17, 1908; Custer in '76, 95, FN 15.
While there is no universal agreement here, it seems fairly clear the top of the hill was leveled only very slightly and that only to accommodate the base of the monument.
One last point if it helps. Nightengale is one of those peripheral people who put pen to paper once, saying about all he has to say in one garbled article. To be honest, I am surprised Wild West ran that thing. It is like something by Weibert-- you know, Boyer offing ol' Irondrawers in Deep Ravine-type thing. He is about as far from a researcher or historian-- amateur or otherwise-- as one gets.
Hope this helped.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 14, 2013 22:13:17 GMT -6
Alfakilo, I would not put too much stock in the article, especially since it was written by Nightengale. DC is pretty much correct in what he said. Fred The mention of the alleged finding doesn't seem to have much connection to the rest of the article. Other than to set the stage for an article about the LBH, I'm not sure why the author mentioned it. DC offered some alternatives to how these artifacts came to their location. If any of these have since been identified as being the source for the artifacts, then that was the answer that I was looking for. But DC didn't make that association. For me, the mention of this is an unfinished story. Has there been any resolution to this? Was the finding ever published? Was its source ever decided upon? That's what I was hoping to learn. I'll take everyone's opinion about the author's creds as a LBH authority...but his credibility really isn't the point here.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 14, 2013 23:48:17 GMT -6
You posed no question to answer beyond 'does anyone have info on this?' The article doesn't provide much info, starting with location, and I offered possible alternatives to the battle itself.
There is no way to tell which if any of the possibilities are true, since all an artifact provides is itself, from which manufacture date and weapon type might be divined plus location of the find. That's it. When it was fired and at who by whom is a total guess.
There are stories of picnics from the trains, which started not many years after the battle. When the kids collected cases Mom would draw the line and the kids would drop them. Not hard to see that becoming an "Indian position" or, if coincidentally all .45-70 cases, a cavalry one. Plus Superintendent salting where people would find them. Like, near the tracks. Just a hunch.
There's no way to tell and it's pointless to pretend there is. Yes, there are a lot of opinions. No, there's no proof or anything close. This is the Heidi Fleiss of battlefields and some of the local landowners through the decades bear a passing resemblance to Charley Sheen with their findings. Could, of course, all be true.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 15, 2013 8:14:41 GMT -6
You posed no question to answer beyond 'does anyone have info on this?' The article doesn't provide much info, starting with location, and I offered possible alternatives to the battle itself. That was my question, to be sure. The article says is that a discovery had apparently been made and that results were being withheld until some sort of conclusion was reached. In my readings so far I had not seen this event being discussed...so I posted the topic hoping that someone would know of this and fill me in on what happened. You have provided possibilities and I'm appreciative of your description of the many ways this could have happened. It may well be that what ever was supposedly discovered was nothing more than unrelated material that wasn't a part of the battle scenario as imagined by the author. Perhaps I will write the magazine and ask if there ever was a resolution to this. AK
|
|