|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 28, 2014 16:49:31 GMT -6
This would be more adding two and two together, rather than discussing my personal research on the topic per se, and I wanted to post several times before I approached the subject. I didn't want to look like a tasteless bottom-feeder.
The discussion of Custer's mutilation (the physical kind, not his character) tiptoes around the issue of its presentation. We know that the General's body was stripped to his socks. His gunshot wounds have been reported without describing too much detail (he does not appear to have bled from the head wound, he had evidence of bleeding from his chest wound).
His body was found near that of his brothers. It was perhaps draped across the bodies of other fallen soldiers. There was some ritual NA mutilation, such as a Sioux knife cut across his thigh, and a missing finger. An apocryphal story about sewing awls piercing his eardrums surfaced at some point.
Most luridly, W.S. Edgerly is believed to be the source (decades later) for the macabre tale of an arrow shaft apparently being shoved up Custer's penis.
Pardon my unseemliness, but my dark curiosity about this issue has caused me to wonder at times how this was accomplished. Was the arrow inserted front first, with a good deal of wooden arrow shaft and feathers remaining visible? Was the arrow's triangular metal head still attached, causing some amount of flesh damage?
Was the arrow shoved in from behind, past Custer's prostate, and then up the penis shaft?
I have a point here, so to speak.
I will quote from the diary of Pvt. Thomas Coleman, who participated in Custer's hurried initial burial.
"Comes the most heartrending tale of all, as I have said before Custer and five companies went below the Valley to cut them off as he Supposed but instead he was surrounded and all of them killed to a man 14 officers and 350 Men. Their bravest General of Modern times met his death with his two brothers, brother-in-law, and nephew not 5 yards apart. Surrounded by 42 men of E Company. Oh what a slaughter -- how many homes made desolate by the Sad disaster. Everyone of them was scalped and otherwise Mutilated. But the General he lay with a smile on his face."
And so began the legend of Custer's Smile. In death he had the visage of a contented man, it was said.
The smile must've had something to do with rigor mortis, some have claimed. It was pure invention for the sake of Mrs. Custer, others have argued.
Let me propose here that what Coleman was delicately trying to say was that the corpse of General Custer displayed what appeared to be an erection.
It is not unknown in the annals of crime for homicide victims to be posed by the killer(s) in some hideous or demeaning manner, perhaps for shock value. From the LBH battle itself there is the Dornan horror story.
I submit to this board that not only was Custer's body mutilated in the aforementioned way, but it may have also been "presented" in a sexually suggestive pose or tableau amongst the other naked soldiers.
One can use one's imagination.
Among other reasons, this may be why the NAs were never eager to claim direct responsibility for any specific soldier killings, and why they never described events in terms of evidence that only the killers would know.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 17:23:21 GMT -6
If you believe what Coleman said literally, then I would not suppose you have a heck of a lot of problem with Pater Pan, Tinker Bell, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny either.
And he was a Lieutenant Colonel.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 28, 2014 17:46:32 GMT -6
Coleman is wrong in near everything you quote of his. Reed may not have been found at all, but most say he and Boston were 100's of yards away. His brother in law, Calhoun, was not within 500 yards (well, maybe), much less 5. Not sure there's a "legend" about the smile, as by the 28th they'd all be smiling with the skin pulled back.
There certainly has been creepy heavy breathing interest in Custer's penis; his jock strap has been on display at the museum, something he shares with few other, if any, famous leaders, and people have looked for excuse to discuss it under various guises on Custer boards. The problems with such are:
1. There is no evidence beyond vague references to vaguer rumors. Nobody says they saw his genitalia.
2. What would be the import to soldiers or Indians in that supposition of death pose? Indians defiled the dead so they wouldn't get to be whole in the next life, I've read. What would this do? If they'd diced it up, would you still find it interesting and worthy of discussion? Cut off in his mouth, as other bodies were found, would you care to chat that up? Is it just the possibility of the erection that entrances? 3. Unlikely any Indians knew who he was at the time anyway. If they did, what would this communicate? To whom?
4. Most accounts seem to think the side wound bled a lot and the head wound killed him, but as you say, opposite accounts appear.
5. Given the nature of body desecration by the Sioux, what importance under any circumstance would you grant this? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 28, 2014 18:46:58 GMT -6
There would be no rigor left on that battlefield. It lasts around 24 hours normally but can be sped up by heat. You might want to read up about body decomposition to give yourself an idea on what a horror it must have been for the burial details and why the bodies were so hard to identify. Also decay might explain "Custer's smile" if it existed
Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 19:16:56 GMT -6
Beth: As I understand it the rigor process starts at the moment of death, and ascends in an arc like pattern for 12 to 14 hours, reaching its peak and then starts to descend until approximately the 24 hour mark when the process of decay commences in earnest. Is that correct or was Conan Doyle spoofing me?
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 28, 2014 19:50:58 GMT -6
RE: Custer's Smile Now, that's entertainment!! The mutilation information is out there now thanks to Edgerly or whomever. We do live, unfortunately, in an increasingly coarse society and this story has been used by media for a few years now to draw attention to the Custer myth. I believe it is included in the literary works of contemporary writers such as Donovan and Philbrick. Respected online periodicals such as Salon have had a field day with it. It has entered the Pantheon of Custer lore, however awkward that may be for serious students of the man. Also, I think the reaction to it speaks reams about the hold Custer still exerts on popular culture and our collective imagination. One thing I was trying to do with my post was illustrate that, even today, two seemingly unrelated scraps of information about the battle from obscure sources can be placed together to create a shocking and completely unexpected (if unpleasant, in this case) vision of what the reality was on the ground June 25, 1876. Sort of the way vintage stereoscopic pictures of the battlefield reveal eye-popping 3D terrain depth otherwise invisible when viewed by more traditional means. I'm obviously stirring up trouble at Mrs. Custer's tea party. The other point I'm establishing here -- in a my own vulgar Irish way, apparently -- is that NA testimony regarding the battle, in virtually all cases, never includes the kind of raw eyewitness detail that places the speaker at the scene of an actual death or brutal mutilation. So it is all suspect!
~~~I'm not sure what the "Lt. Colonel" comment means. Thomas Coleman was a private, or at least that was his rank when he wrote "I Buried Custer". George Custer was officially a Lt. Colonel, of course, but could be referred to informally, or addressed, by his brevet rank, Major General, which many people did and continue to do. W.S. Edgerly was a Brigadier General when he purportedly revealed the genital mutilation story to a writer friend. ~~~ To read responses to my posts, it is becoming clear that no historical source is to be believed if it doesn't comport with the responder's sensibilities. It's amusing, really. The search for military battlefield truth, mitigated by modern NSFW political correctness. I'll graciously leave it to the Moderators of this forum to freely edit or remove any content I submit if it is deemed to be inappropriate to the board, and I sincerely apologize for unintentionally ruffling anyone's feathers. Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 28, 2014 20:13:51 GMT -6
I'm not an expert in any way, I just watch a lot of shows on ID that are about Forensic science and when I find a subject interesting I tend to go whole hog into reading about it.
That said, AFAIK normal rigor is exactly as you describe, however decay starts at the moment of death. Rigor can be effected (either slowed or sped up) by a large number of factors like but not limited to temperature, body fat, even cause of death.
As for Conan Doyle, perhaps he worked with the best information available at the time, although we are talking about a person who believed in fairies.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 20:14:37 GMT -6
George Custer was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Regular Army of the United States. He had previously been a Major General of Volunteers. That commission expired when he was mustered out of Volunteer service in 1866. What rank he would have been placed on the retired list had he lived is of no consequence. He was serving in and paid at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, therefore he was a Lieutenant Colonel and not a Major General at the time of his death.
If you worked at a company where you were once the president and you were busted down to janitor, would you still be entitled to being addressed as Mr. President?
Your last three lines are excuse making for your own inadequate research and thought process. For example:
The cartridges found in the period 1920-40 on the N-C-B-L Ridge complex. Let us say for a moment that each and every one of them was planted, for exactly the reasons you elude to. That in no way supports your hypothesis that no action took place there. First off it is the logical and tactically correct corridor of travel, high ground as opposed to the lower MTC which is an ambush waiting to happen. Second it is known that some troops, probably Keogh, engaged Wolf Tooth's band, and that data is separate from any cartridge case finds. There was a time lapse of 44 years between the battle and the first of those cartridge finds and during that time the place could have been picked clean. Absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of absence.
Don't try to play sand lot ball in my ball park friend.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 28, 2014 20:16:39 GMT -6
I will quote from the diary of Pvt. Thomas Coleman, who participated in Custer's hurried initial burial. "Comes the most heartrending tale of all, as I have said before Custer and five companies went below the Valley to cut them off as he Supposed but instead he was surrounded and all of them killed to a man 14 officers and 350 Men. Their bravest General of Modern times met his death with his two brothers, brother-in-law, and nephew not 5 yards apart. Surrounded by 42 men of E Company. Oh what a slaughter -- how many homes made desolate by the Sad disaster. Everyone of them was scalped and otherwise Mutilated. But the General he lay with a smile on his face." Next to Peter Thompson, Thomas Coleman's diary is the worst excuse for "primary" source data one can find. Coleman kept a diary of the 1876 campaign and recorded much earlier times than LT Wallace’s official times. He claimed to have buried LT Hodgson on June 27, 1876, east of the LBH under a cedar tree on a knoll overlooking the river. Wrote that Custer always intended to cross the LBH at Ford D: “(Custer) ordered ‘Reno to charge the village at the upper end and he would go down and ford it at the lower end in order to cut them’” [Liddic, Vanishing Victory, p. 147]. First of all, Coleman had nothing to do with burying Benny Hodgson. That was done by FAR James Moore and PVT Stephen Ryan under the supervision of Tom McDougall. Next, Custer's command consisted of 13 officers, including himself, and 197 "others," including four civilians. Certainly nowhere near 350 men. Next, Tom Custer was found about 15 feet or less from George and Boston and Autie Reed were found around 100 yards below George. There is also no indication George was found smiling. I also find it very interesting all these enlisted guys knew exactly what Custer was planning, yet none of the officers seemed to know. Finally, neither E Company nor F Company had 42 men and the only E Company soldier found anywhere near George Custer was the E Company CO, Algernon Smith. After Reading Coleman's account, one wonders if the man was actually at the battle at all. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 20:17:17 GMT -6
Thanks Beth. He was also a medical doctor, who studied under the best forensics man of his age Doctor Bell in Scotland, I forget which university.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 28, 2014 20:40:11 GMT -6
Since he was Scottish, I suspect it would be Edinburgh.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 20:48:07 GMT -6
I think you are correct. Conan-Doyle really wanted to be a writer of serious history, that is one reason he "killed off" Holmes in The Final Problem, only to have the public scream for more, thus he brought him back in The Empty House against another arch enemy and confederate of Professor M, Colonel Sebastian Moran. Understand the history he wrote was quite good but I have never read any.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 28, 2014 21:03:00 GMT -6
Mulligan You need to follow montrose's advice and read more of what has been said before. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but evidence is vital and you will find plenty of it used here. What evidence have you that the condition of Custer's penis is of any relevance to....anything really?
Beth Interesting! I am going to have to do some research now. Luckily I just finished lunch! Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 21:25:05 GMT -6
It has as much relevance Mac as Simpson's Donkey, on second thought, less. But does the chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? Was Slim Dusty the real Prime Minister of Australia? And finally, is Fosters actually brewed in Saint Louis? These are the real questions that haunt mankind.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 28, 2014 21:49:09 GMT -6
Doyle wrote no history, but historical novels. He believed in psychics and communicating with the dead and many un Holmes like interests. He's a very good writer. I think it amazing that at this moment there are three major Sherlock Holmes franchises in play: Sherlock on PBS, Elementary on CBS, and the movies with Downey. They are all very different from each other and the original yet hold to the general themes and character traits. They don't compete with each other and I think it speaks to the strength of the original character's construction. He's the best known literary character of the last 130 odd years and the spin offs and gifts to the language are impressive, while not rivaling Shakespeare.
-
1. No, Mulligan, neither you nor your chosen subject are shocking or original but it IS borderline creepy. There's no thrill in your chosen subject - it's an olde tale in most general books on the battle - just annoying in its total irrelevance, being buttressed nowhere by anyone saying "I saw an arrow had been shoved up Custer's penis." Everything's in the third person and pretty vague. Could well be true, of course, but what in the world does it suggest or inform about? They mutilated enemy dead as near everyone does, and genitalia were a target.
2. No, it never drew attention to the the Custer Myth, which had rather a strong beginning without anyone asking "...but what about his penis." Anyone reading about it would only read it in a Custer themed presentation and would already be there. Someone saying, and then many someones saying "...there were tales that an arrow had been shoved up his penis.." does not strengthen the case. Could all be from one source saying he'd heard the tale.
3. I think Custer's attractions have died off from the 1950's although battlefield visits skyrocketed after SOTMS and the 1980's fire and archaeology.
4. No, you're not informed enough to stir up trouble, you're merely the latest to want to discuss this juvenile topic that appeares with regularity every two years. Indian accounts ARE suspect, but because they're mostly third hand at best. There is NO NA testimony. The best we have are accounts OF accounts. They didn't speak English. There is plenty of eyewitness detail in the accounts, true or not, but a shocking lack of fascination with description of genital mutilation sure to please their caretakers in later years somehow doesn't condemn them.
5. "One thing I was trying to do with my post was illustrate that, even today, two seemingly unrelated scraps of information about the battle from obscure sources can be placed together to create a shocking and completely unexpected (if unpleasant, in this case) vision of what the reality was on the ground June 25, 1876." Not unless the scraps have been vetted and supported. In this case, it's one scrap of info that is the basis of all else. The stereoscopic 3d I found less than eye popping, but whatever.
6. "W.S. Edgerly was a Brigadier General when he purportedly revealed the genital mutilation story to a writer friend." A story he'd heard. He didn't see it. This illustrates my point, which sinks your ship. The "purportedly revealed" is your go-to source?
7. "It's amusing, really. The search for military battlefield truth, mitigated by modern NSFW political correctness." You're majorly unread on the topic, and nobody is offended by discussion of sex, of which many examples among the boards. They tended to be relevant, however.
8. Although you want to posture as a martyr for truth and anti-censorship and appear as someone who read the Playboy Adviser every month, your problem is you can produce no source that says "I saw this god damned arrow in Iron Butt's dick." Without that, there is no primary source to it. Still, this: why is it in any way important? Nobody censored you or even threatened it. But there is no evidence for it beyond, as said, vague references to vaguer rumors. If that is incorrect, what do you have? And if you have it what would such proof illuminate? We know there was genital mutilation, it was standard, but your specificity of interest is rather weird. What would be the point of that time consuming mutilation?
|
|