|
Post by herosrest on Jul 31, 2024 9:15:06 GMT -6
An aerial view of terrain alteration to carry road and path over ravines linkHere Little Sioux's horse played out, the one he had ridden from the first. He was riding ahead of the other scouts when he saw a black horse with a piece of buckskin around his neck from which hung a bell. He threw himself off his horse, caught the Dakota horse, put his own saddle on it, and turned his own horse loose, all of this during his ride up the hill. At the time he looked back to the battleground he also looked toward where he had heard the firing at his left. There he saw, about two miles west, near enough to hear the guns, along the ridge, a high sloping hill, the sides of which were covered with Dakota horsemen, thick as ants, riding all about. At the top some soldiers were lying down and were shooting down at the Dakotas, who were firing back. He noticed many little fires on the prairie where the first fighting took place, much smoke but no blaze. He saw also on the hill at the south, groups of Indians moving off here and there. He noticed that these groups scattered as they got up higher and broke up in every direction, this was about three miles off. He saw also on the battleground Dakotas riding about among the dead bodies shooting at them.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jul 31, 2024 9:26:12 GMT -6
You hold an unfortunately errant comprehension that Custer did not support Reno. Now, that was expressley Reno's take on events and it expressed at Chicago for example, in explanation for retreating to what became Reno Hill. Custer's command did support Reno, although as the commander of the regiment in the field, it was entirely the perogative and absolute duty of Custer to run the show as he saw fit. Rightly, or wrongly, his rank in the field gave him the leeway and right to do as he damn well pleased and this is often held against him. Good luck convincing the army that they got it wrong for the past four hundred years. What did Custer do? He ordered Benteen to support Reno, and as soon as Reno debunked his duty, Custer had absolutely no need to support Reno further. You are plainly wrong and pretty much any officer, in any army, will advise you of the dire consequences of not following a senior officers orders to you.
All Robert Jackson did was shoot a snake. Custer had him stood on a barrel with onr leg, for a whole day. The reason? Custer had ordered that there be no shooting. I wonder what would have befallen Reno for abandoning his post and losing a half his battalion, had Custer actually been where you think DeRudio saw him and joined Reno on the bluffs. What do you think would have happened to Reno?
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jul 31, 2024 9:28:35 GMT -6
Some men were at Weir Peaks. Likely not H, who were along the bluffs behind. Benteen was soon back on Weir Hill with Reno, discussing retreat and then planting a guidon after they did. HE saw Weir coming back being pursued by indians. Indians in gorge, Weir had to retreat back to Reno in a ravine. See Hare, Benteen. He was only near the peaks for a very short time. Sighting of Custer on a hill on the bluffs has been confirmed, a couple times, by other men with Reno. “Some of Renos men told in excited tones how from the valley below they had seen Cpt Yates’ white horse troop…Others had said they had seen Custer and 1 or 2 men looking down from a hilltop”
Thanks for pointing out re: fred it is indeed possible, just as DeRudio stated, and was confirmed. DeRudio Identifying the highest point Custer was on as “pt 7” and locating it exactly is good stuff. Having this confirmed by Martin as 7 AND “Weir’s Hill”, and Benteen, and Edgerly, and numerous others that were there is GOLD. NO ONE ever said you could. Not me, not WMC. You REALLY need to get past this strawman argument, please. You cause needless retort bringing it up every time! ”Benteen did not could not see the battleground from Weir's Hill, which was the highest point. No one could”.Thank you. Clearly didn’t do a good job of it, though it did allow Reno to retreat. Otherwise he failed in his half-ass flank attack. Makes Sense. I can assume he didn't press his flank attack due to indians having a say? Supposedly he lost a couple men at the Ford, and fell back towards GGR.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jul 31, 2024 9:32:08 GMT -6
Thank you. He was only near the peaks.....
Sorted.
Now, you know that the Mod frowns upon these heated exchanges so get languid and real, please.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jul 31, 2024 9:33:29 GMT -6
H was last in line along the bluffs, parallel with the river. (Godfrey’s was 3rd). Not far along at all. Other 3 troops were along/behind the peaks and crescent. Till they retreated. Then they were at/near Weir's Hill. Where Benteen had already returned to. AND me and you hogging the threads! Thanks for the reminder! We don't need to re: DeRudio - we know where we... stand. Luckily others confirm it.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jul 31, 2024 11:09:27 GMT -6
Re-do DeRudio........ Lima Bravo, Dog Four... Come in, over! Whoops............ ps. Benteen was the battalion commander. Conveniently forgotten by some, perhaps. HDK companies composed 7th Cavalry's fourth battalion on 25th June, 1876.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jul 31, 2024 15:29:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jul 31, 2024 15:46:42 GMT -6
It was hard to enjoy H's novel after learning the army scouts with Custer did not carry repeating Spencer carbines. Senior scout 'Stab' did have a repeater but the men were issued 'Long Tom' 1873 model, Springfield rifles. I have always wondered whether or not their five mule packtrain carried a box of reserve ammunition. Anysways, É-noosē'ha
|
|
|
Post by mikegriffith1 on Aug 1, 2024 4:17:47 GMT -6
Is this because no historians or Custer scholars support your version of the battle? Go back and read Harper’s segment on this. He didn’t say he planted a guideon.
I again recommend that you go back and read Harper's treatment again, assuming you have his book. You’re quoting Reno to support Benteen?! Yeah, no wonder you never cite scholarly support for your views. You’d have to go back at least three decades to find historians or genuine Custer scholars who support your reliance on Reno and Benteen. Huh? Just huh? Harper’s main point is that Benteen lied about his actions on Weir Point and that Benteen’s statement that he thought Custer’s command was still alive at that point in time contradicts his claim that Custer’s command was dead when Martin arrived with Custer’s written order! You keep evading this central point by using phony strawman arguments about the term Weir Point.
Did you notice Harper’s use of the word “supposed” regarding the planting of the guideon? What do you think that means? Still parsing words and playing word games, I see, even after I explained the usage of the term “Weir Point.” Again, this refers to the area of the elevations named after Weir, the same way that Dr. Kuhlman and others have used the term. I’ve already explained this to you, but you keep pretending that I claimed that Benteen was on the highest ground, when I've argued no such thing. More silliness. You know, or should know, that I was not addressing the issue of exactly where Benteen supposedly planted the guideon. I was making the point that Benteen contradicted himself about when Custer's command was destroyed.
And let's remember that Harper did not believe that Benteen planted a guideon anywhere. Behncke and Bloomfield likewise doubt Benteen's guideon story, by the way. For that matter, Donovan, Stiles, Philbrick, Sklenar, Tucker, and a host of others also doubt nearly every important claim that Benteen made, for obvious reasons. But, you take his word on the guideon and opine that he merely planted it at a lower point. Still more silliness. Again, as you surely know, or should know, I was talking about the contradiction between Benteen's two RCOI statements regarding when Custer’s command perished. But somehow you took this, or pretend to take this, as an endorsement of what Benteen said about planting the guideon, when I was merely quoting him to show the contradiction between his first and second statements about when Custer’s command was destroyed. The only confusion is the phony confusion you have manufactured out of thin air to avoid dealing with the contradictory statements that Benteen made about when Custer’s command was destroyed.
[SNIPPED MORE STRAWMAN POSTURING ABOUT TERMINOLOGY] Ah! So here we have it. So you are another Wagner devotee, repeating dubious arguments that have been rejected by every single historian and genuine Custer scholar who has written a published work on the battle in the last 20 years.
These false-premise questions have already been answered, for decades. You just won’t accept the answers. It is you vs. the 20-year-plus scholarly consensus.
How about this: How about if you name me one historian or bonafide scholar who agrees with the premises of your questions?
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Aug 1, 2024 5:18:58 GMT -6
Huh? Just huh? " Harper’s main point is that Benteen lied about his actions on Weir Point and that Benteen’s statement that he thought Custer’s command was still alive"
Agreed on what Harper says here /\ EXCEPT Benteen was not at Weir Point - as Harper states - for long IF AT ALL! If Benteen was NOT there and it was NOT where he was talking about then he did NOT lie about it all. Get it yet?!? As for the rest, you are missing what Harper actually said - it was a long paragraph. "Supposed" actually refer to actually planting one? Or where he actually did? THAT is where the confusion lies. Inclusign Harpers. IOW - You, and Harper, were/are still missing what took place weir. As do others, as even Harper said!And still missing what people who were actually there said, and did and where and when. Benteen was not at Weir Point - as Harper states - for long if at all. " Benteen’s supposed display of the guidon and having collected the troops on the highest point of land have in recent years seriously colored published histories of the campaign, with many historians using these assumed incidents to attribute motives and actions to Custer...the bulk of the evidence is that he was never on the highest ground with or without his company and that he in truth was not at the advanced position for very long at all."EXACTLY!!! THAT is why I am spending so much effort in clearing up the "seriously colored published histories" & confusion we all agree occurs. I did a fine job above highlighting important stuff in my posts above - but there is more. I suggest you read Harper. And find some 1st hand info. Benteen was not lying about Weir Point BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AT WEIR POINT at the time.
Yes he indeed was. He planted 1 there*. Its not parsing. It is helping. You are confused about "Weir Point" vs "Weir's Hill". Like many “professionals”, you too are still lumping them together. They are not the same - at all.
I did a fine job above highlighting some of the important stuff above, but I suggest you re-read the RCOI. And WMC. And Martin. And Edgerly. Et. Al. Learn the differences. Point 7. Point 9. G. half mile. river tight. 1st saw/glimpsed village. Just below DeWolf. Don't use the term as your "professional scholars" do - they are/were wrong. Use it as it was actually used in c1879 etc. and by people like WMC while later talking to various people that were there. There are 2 locations. Only about 1/2 mile between them - but BIG differences.
via WMC, circa 1908-1910... “ It is 1700ft from Reno’s retreat up to Weir's Hill” “From Weir's Hill to the 2 highest peaks the course is directly northwest" "Distance Weir Hill to 1st Edgerly Peak is 2500ftHe didnt say that. Thats MY point. I do and apologized about your mistake when you cleared up that YOU think Benteen actually hadn't planted a guidon at all. Sorry. Of course I disagree, as it was confirmed that he had... AND where he planted it. Please note how THAT fact affects his and others statements.
How about I don't care much what "historians" say - as shown above - they are wrong too often, even Fred (I do like his original sources - though he misquotes them at times. And what's with "3411"? “Weir's Hill” is fine - and actually exists and is period real!).
Can't or refuse to answer the simple questions re Custer's 'attack' and Reno's orders, based on and to clarify YOUR VERSION of the battle. its fine! Just say so. Its ok! Its obvious now you won't. I think we know why! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by mikegriffith1 on Aug 1, 2024 6:41:19 GMT -6
Is this because no historians or Custer scholars support your version of the battle? Nope. Those that do support it, would base their opinions on what happened on what people who were their actually said and did. I prefer to let those there tell us. You do you though!
Go back and read Harper’s segment on this. ' Kay.He didn’t say he planted a guideon. I again recommend that you go back and read Harper's treatment again, assuming you have his book. Ah got it - he said "guidons flying".
Reno confirmed he planted a Guidon. As did Benteen.
I do - right here on my kindle. read it several times re: this, but I'll go back again to see if I missed anything. Or you are just wrong again.You’re quoting Reno to support Benteen?! Yeah, no wonder you never cite scholarly support for your views. You’d have to go back at least three decades to find historians or genuine Custer scholars who support your reliance on Reno and Benteen. Yawn - dont care what "scholars" say all that much. They are wrong too often. Clearly. You really think they are that smart? Pretty much they have access to the same material these days you and I do.
Curious what you think they have that you don't?
Actually curious too why they need to refer to each other so much time after time after. 1 mistake just re-gurgitated over and over. Can't they think for themselves either?Huh? Just huh? Harper’s main point is that Benteen lied about his actions on Weir Point and that Benteen’s statement that he thought Custer’s command was still alive at that point in time contradicts his claim that Custer’s command was dead when Martin arrived with Custer’s written order! You keep evading this central point by using phony strawman arguments about the term Weir Point. Did you notice Harper’s use of the word “ supposed” regarding the planting of the guideon? What do you think that means?
You are missing what Harper actually said - it was a long paragraph. And you, and him, were/are still missing what took place weir. And what people who were there said, and did and where and when.
I suggest you read Harper. And find some 1st hand info.Still parsing words and playing word games, I see, even after I explained the usage of the term “Weir Point.” Again, this refers to the area of the elevations named after Weir, the same way that Dr. Kuhlman and others have used the term. I’ve already explained this to you, but you keep pretending that I claimed that Benteen was on the highest ground, when I've argued no such thing You are confused about Weir Point vs Weir Hill. They are not the same - at all. I suggest you re-read the RCOI. And WMC. And Martin. Learn the differences.
Don't use the term as your scholars do, use it as it was actually used in 1879 etc. There are 2 locations.More silliness. You know, or should know, that I was not addressing the issue of exactly where Benteen supposedly planted the guideon. I was making the point that Benteen contradicted himself about when Custer's command was destroyed. I get it now. No longer care all that much - we get it, as we went over this again and again.And let's remember that Harper did not believe that Benteen planted a guideon anywhere. Behncke and Bloomfield likewise doubt Benteen's guideon story, by the way. For that matter, Donovan, Stiles, Philbrick, Sklenar, Tucker, and a host of others also doubt nearly every important claim that Benteen made, for obvious reasons. But, you take his word on the guideon and opine that he merely planted it at a lower point. So YOU say he said. I suggest you re-read Harper, again - since what these guys tell you to think obviously means everything to you. Et. al. remeber - Garbage in garbage out. Trust no one!Still more silliness. Again, as you surely know, or should know, I was talking about the contradiction between Benteen's two RCOI statements regarding when Custer’s command perished. But somehow you took this, or pretend to take this, as an endorsement of what Benteen said about planting the guideon, when I was merely quoting him to show the contradiction between his first and second statements about when Custer’s command was destroyed I apologized about your mistake when you cleared up that you think Benteen actually hadn't planted a guidon. Sorry.The only confusion is the phony confusion you have manufactured out of thin air to avoid dealing with the contradictory statements that Benteen made about when Custer’s command was destroyed. You still don't get it. See above re: Point vs Hill.[SNIPPED MORE STRAWMAN POSTURING ABOUT TERMINOLOGY] Ah! So here we have it. So you are another Wagner devotee, repeating dubious arguments that have been rejected by every single historian and genuine Custer scholar who has written a published work on the battle in the last 20 years. These false-premise questions have already been answered, for decades. You just won’t accept the answers. It is you vs. the 20-year-plus scholarly consensus. How about this: How about if you name me one historian or bonafide scholar who agrees with the premises of your questions?How many times??? I Don't care what "historians" say even Fred. They are wrong too often.
I have access to much of the same material they do - maybe more these days. I do not need THEM to tell me what people there actually said and did! (I find it curious why you do)
Can't or refuse to answer the simple questions re Custer's 'attack' and Reno's orders, its fine! Just say so. Its ok!The false premises of your "simple questions," along with your questions themselves, have already been answered many times over. You just don't like the answers, so you dismiss them and then pretend that your questions haven't been answered and that you still have a case. Your rejection of Gordon Richard's answers to your questions is an example of this. Also, it should be kept in mind that every one of your questions requires one to take Reno and Benteen's word about Custer's orders, about how they understood Custer's orders, and about what they knew of Custer's intent. Your nonsense about Custer supposedly "leaving Reno in the lurch" requires one to ignore the fact that Reno's command would have been just fine if Reno had not foolishly fled from the timber in the first place, not to mention the fact that, as even Edgar Stewart conceded, Reno arguably halted his charge in the valley too soon. We both know that you won't name a single published historian or genuine Custer scholar who shares the views presented in your "simple questions" because there aren't any. No such historian or scholar in the last 20 years has argued that Custer left Reno "in the lurch," or that Reno had no idea what Custer wanted him to do and did not know where Custer was, etc., etc. Again, you have to go back into the 1990s and earlier to find historians and scholars who agree with your version of the battle. Now, as for your continued hair-splitting over the term Weir Point and point/peak vs. hill, etc., the actual issue is the contradiction between Benteen's first and second RCOI statements about when Custer's command perished, and not where Benteen allegedly planted the guideon. In his first statement, Benteen said that once he arrived in Weir's area, he planted a guideon "at the highest point" so that Custer's command could see it, and he said that at the time--when he planted the guideon--he thought Custer's command was still alive, which would obviously mean that Custer's unit was destroyed after Benteen allegedly planted the guideon. However, when recalled to the stand, Benteen made the astounding claim that Custer's command had already perished when Martin arrived with Custer's written order. Moreover, if we read the sentence that preceded Benteen's claim about planting a guideon "on the highest point," we see that he was describing an area that consisted of "river bluffs" and "another ridge," not just a single elevation or just two high points: A. The troops were by file on a line of river bluffs and, as I have stated, another company was formed at right angles on another ridge. I planted a guidon at the highest point that looked over that country.Did you catch that? Again, there was "a line of river bluffs" and "another ridge," and Benteen allegedly planted a guideon at the highest point in that area., the area that consisted of the line of river bluffs and the other ridge.
Humm, could this be why Dr. Charles Kuhlman used the term Weir Point to describe this area of elevations? If you really think that Harper did not doubt Benteen's guideon story, I can only shake my head and wonder how you could possibly infer such a thing. Personally, I don't think Benteen planted a guideon anywhere, high, low, or in between, but it wouldn't prove much if he did plant a guideon. I think he made up the guideon story to make it seem like he was trying to aid Custer's command. I don't believe that Benteen merely "thought" Custer's command was still alive when he reached Weir Point. I am certain that Benteen knew for a fact that Custer's command was still alive at that time. He just didn't want to admit this because he wanted to support Reno's disgraceful fiction that Custer's command was destroyed before the move to Reno Hill. You won't find a single historian or scholar in the last 20 years who believes this fiction because they accept the numerous credible accounts of hearing heavy firing to the north after Reno arrived at Reno Hill, and because they know that numerous Indian accounts make it undeniably clear that the Custer fight did not even become serious until after Reno fled from the timber. One big difference between you and the scholarly consensus is that you still take Reno and Benteen's word on nearly everything, whereas the scholarly consensus recognizes that Reno and Benteen lied through their teeth on nearly every major issue and on quite a few minor issues.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Aug 1, 2024 7:05:44 GMT -6
This is very important. It is not hair-splitting. It is HIGHLY VERY important - which is MY point which I feel you are just not getting. (Nor was Harper apparently.) Everything I have been discussing re: what Benteen says is referring to what actually did happen and where.Yes!! That is it! that is great! The ridge is "Martin's Ridge". The highest point is "Weir's Hill". Sharpshooter's Hill/Ridge is there too. See them here: btw - Kuhlman was wrong since he did confuse them. Others have also. Go figure. Wallace A. He {Reno} prepared to take part in it. My company was sent to a high point to the right. Another company came up on my left and assignments were made. The command then occupied two almost parallel ridges with no way of defending the space between them. Q. The command was separated there? A. Not exactly. It was in two lines with the end next to the Indians open and the command was given to fall back to a better position. Where it came from I don’t know. Q. What was the interval between you and the company on your left? A. Ten or 15 yards. Q. It was a continuous line? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did any part of the command actually engage the enemy? A. I know there was heavy firing on Captain Weir’s company, and I know Captain Godfrey’s company acted as rear guard when the command fell back and they got a heavy fire. There was no firing on the point I occupied at that time.
So we ask: Where did Benteen say he actually planted a guidon? And when? On the highest point, and AFTER Weir retreated. The highest point was point 7. It is not at Weir Peaks pt 9 - where he wasn't even there, if at all, long enough to do so. He said Reno came there, and we know Reno never went to Weir Point. He went to the highest point AKA Point 5/7/Weir's Hill. The guidon was NOT planted, nor was it ever stated to have been planted, at Weir Point.A. I planted a guidon at the highest point that looked over that country. Some of the officers say that the battlefield was in sight, but I know positively that it was not, having gone over it two or three times sinceQ. State whether at that highest point you saw any evidence of fighting or hear the sounds of any firing.A. I saw no such evidence nor heard any firing.Q. When you met Trumpeter Martin did he report to you on which side of the river General Custer’s column was?A. Not at that time. He did after we had reached that highest point at the figure “7".DeRudioQ. Where was that?A. It was on the highest point on the right bank of the creek just below where Dr. DeWolf was killed. {he marked it pt 7}MartinQ. That place from which you saw the village and children, dogs and ponies - was it the highest point down the river below where Major Reno made his stand?A. Yes sir, the highest hill the very highest point around there.Q. Can you point out on the map in what direction General Custer went after he got to the point 7? {7=highest point DeRudio saw GC}A. General Custer struck to the right then struck a ravine and went down to the river.“Custer first halted on Weir‘s hill and took a look at village…"Reno Q. Do you remember about a guidon being placed at a point termed Captain Weir’s hill? A. It was done.Benteen, Letter to Col Goldin,1892 "While enroute to the highest point on the river bluffs in that vicinity, Major Reno kept his trumpeter pretty busily engaged in sounding the 'Halt' for the purpose of bringing my command to a stand. However, I paid no heed whatever to the signal, but went to the highest point of bluffs, the battalion being in columns of fours. ON arriving at elevation, I then had my first glimpse of the Indian village from the height. Still I saw enough to cause me to think that perhaps this time we had bitten off quite as much as we would be able to well chew.
Then I got the guidon of my own trooop and jammed it down in a pile of stones which were on the high point, thinking perhaps the fluttering of same might attract attention of Custer's commands if any were in close proximity.
Reno had gotten up to the point where I was. However, I ordered French to put his troop in line on a bluff near, which was at right angles with the course of the river, and then for the purpose of showing where our command was, if there were any other bodies of our troops in sight."
Herendeen I claim that what is called Weir’s Hill is the highest point on the ridge in that vicinityGlad we all now know where this was. NOTE: Reno never went to the peaks. See Hare.
That's fine if you think Harper was saying that, and that he was right. You do you. I say he wasn’t. What if he was as confused as you? Did he ever mention Weir’s Hill? Its a real location - see Herendeen and WMC and RCOI. Why is what Harper might have said so important to you anyway? He wasnt there, and he was wrong other times too. I like witnesses & confirmation. We have it! WHY the on-going confusion about the high points, you may ask? "After the US Army took control of the Reno-Benteen site in 1930, a 5-mile road, now called Battlefield Road, was created connecting it to the Custer Battlefield (Greene, 69). Battlefield Road does not follow an historic alignment, and the lack of sensitivity paid to the historic landscape during its construction between 1938-40 caused damage to the primary landscape. As noted in Jerome Greene’s Stricken Field, an administrative history of the monument, construction of the two lane gravel-based roadway (twenty feet wide with five foot shoulders on each side) “materially affected the original condition of the battlefield and possibly altered interpretive conclusions about the site” due to “the lack of period sensitivity regarding historic landscapes”. (Greene, 69) Construction of a reinforced concrete culvert over Medicine Tail Creek resulted in a significant realignment of the creek channel from its probable 1876 configuration. At Weir Point, a formerly modest dip in the terrain where Reno and Benteen’s forces gathered to watch action on Custer Hill was drastically altered with a road cut.Finally, grading of the road terminus near the Reno-Benteen memorial likely flattened significant battle-related landforms. (Greene, 69)"
Greene "Similiar construction seems to have demolished several hillocks that appeared on the 1891 topographic map of the field"Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Aug 1, 2024 8:05:08 GMT -6
Now, you know that the Mod frowns upon these heated exchanges so get languid and real, please. Yes, she does. In case you guys haven't noticed, you've driven everyone else away from the boards. Please take your debate to PMs or emails. Diane
|
|
|
Post by mikegriffith1 on Aug 1, 2024 9:16:48 GMT -6
Wrong. I based the questions on Gordon Richard's flank comment - that is why I quoted it. YOU have NOT answered anything there. Or I am sorry if I missed it. HR has addressed them. Are you good with his responses? They were serious questions re: to clarify and understand points you had made. And Richard quote - which I highlighted. I will say 'knowing' Custer had attacked and been repulsed while Reno was still fighting/skirmishing, 'that he failed in his attack'. Why? HR said it did not fail. OK. Was it supposed to be in support? I asked you what Reno's orders were, as you didnt like his Report or the RCOI versions. Or what say even Hare supposed. So what were they? You also havent answered why Custer's flank attack failed. Why? I dont like to speculate - but was it because Reno retreated? Too many indians? He didn't expect resistence? The ford sucked? I think they failed. HR doesn't think the attack failed. Do you agree with HR? The attacks were happening at the same time. So? No. I don't name historians because I dont care as much as you about what THEY think. Why you do so much is curious. Anyway - they are questions I ASKED YOU! If you can't answer them fine. Adjust them or not if need be - that is fine too. Great. Although I don't really have a version of the battle. I ask questions which you so far choose not to answer. I am not so impressd by "scholars in the last 20 years" or ever - as you. This is important. is not hair-splitting. It is HIGHLY VERY important - which is MY POINT I feel you are just not getting. (Nor was Harper aparently.) Everything we have been discussing re: Benteen says is referring to what actually did happen and where. View AttachmentEverything after that has been discussed like 6x now. It astounds you. We get it. Benteen was wrong. Thats great. Where did Benteen say he actually planted a guidon? And when? On the highest point, and AFTER Weir retreated. The highest point was point 7. It is not at Weir Peaks - where he wasn't even there long enough to do so. It was AFTER Weir retreated from Weir Peaks. The guidon was NOT planted, nor was it ever stated to have been planted, at Weir Point.View Attachment A. I planted a guidon at the highest point that looked over that country. Some of the officers say that the battlefield was in sight, but I know positively that it was not, having gone over it two or three times since Q. State whether at that highest point you saw any evidence of fighting or hear the sounds of any firing. A. I saw no such evidence nor heard any firing. Q. When you met Trumpeter Martin did he report to you on which side of the river General Custer’s column was? A. Not at that time. He did after we had reached that highest point at the figure “7".
DeRudio Q. Where was that? A. It was on the highest point on the right bank of the creek just below where Dr. DeWolf was killed. {he marked it pt 7}
Martin Q. That place from which you saw the village and children, dogs and ponies - was it the highest point down the river below where Major Reno made his stand? A. Yes sir, the highest hill the very highest point around there. Q. Can you point out on the map in what direction General Custer went after he got to the point 7? {7=highest point DeRudio saw GC} A. General Custer struck to the right then struck a ravine and went down to the river. “Custer first halted on Weir‘s hill and took a look at village…"
Reno Q. Do you remember about a guidon being placed at a point termed Captain Weir’s hill? A. It was done.Curious why do you care so much what Kulman says? He has lots of issues too. He had Custer no where near the river. Do you agree? That's fine You do you. I like witnesses. Thanks for this sincery. And I do understand why you would see that. It does make some sense. I just will have to disagree. He told his wife he did. He told the RCOI he did. and Reno confirmed he did - and where. But I do get your issue with not believing them. I AM Ok with their statements here. And others. Not sure of the whole scholar thing, as not sure if my list of things read includes ALL of them - but I will take your word. They do give great over-views and things to further ponder. ESPECIALLY when they conflict with each other. Agreed. Benteen did not tell his wife that he planted a guideon. You are inferring this from his wording, but he did not say anything about planting a guideon or doing anything with a guideon. The passing reference to "guideons flying" could simply mean they had guideons with them when they rode to the area that Benteen described in his RCOI testimony. As I've said, I don't really care if Benteen planted a guideon or not. I did not even raise the issue of whether or not he did so. I don't think he did, for a number of reasons, but I really don't care one way or another. From the beginning of this discussion, my focus has been on (1) the contradiction between Benteen's two RCOI statements about when Custer's command perished, and (2) Reno and Benteen's ludicrous claim that Custer's command was destroyed before Reno got to Reno Hill. As numerous historians/scholars have noted, Reno told his lie about the timing of Custer's destruction to make his actions on Reno Hill seem irrelevant, and Benteen told his lie on the subject to make his actions after getting Custer's written order seem irrelevant. Lt. Lee picked up on this strategy early on at the RCOI and did not buy Reno and Benteen's fiction, even though he didn't have the benefit of the Indian accounts because very few of them were even known at that point, much less published. People can read Harper's book and decide for themselves which one of us is avoiding the plain meaning and intent of Harper's arguments. You are of course free to continue to repeat Reno's claims that he thought Custer would support him from behind, that he did not know Custer's intentions, that Custer abandoned him, and that he did not even know where Custer was, but readers in this forum should be aware that those claims have been rejected by every single historian and reputable Custer scholar who has written published works on the battle in the last 20 years. Yes, of course, historians and scholars are not infallible. But, my goodness, when every single, solitary historian/scholar in the last 20 years has reached the same conclusions on certain issues, most people would be very hesitant to brush aside those conclusions and would take that consensus seriously. This is not a case where you have even a small minority of experts saying A and all other experts saying B. This is zero experts saying A and all experts saying B.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 1, 2024 10:15:16 GMT -6
Discussions of what senior and junior subordinate officers knew and what they told, is a pesky problem which evolved quite specifically into the Chicago Inguiry. Expecting Reno or Benteen to stick their heads into Whittaker's noose, is ludicrous and more so given that there was little army interest in trotting the whole matter out. It deserves a book of its covering the ins, outs, ups and downs of those three years because there is a lot to present and equate into reality. A specific, is, who knew what, when. Well, that is a matter of record since..... erm...... Ed M CClernand put pen to paper serving as EO with 2nd Cavalry under Gibbon, and then Terry. It is a worthwhile read and settles beyond all questions the location of Maj. Reno's skirmishing in LBH valley. Quote: 'I was not only among the first to visit the fatal field where Custer fell, but I also superintended the making of a considerable portion of the map thereof that will be found with the report of Lieutenant Maguire, Chief Engineer, Department of Dakota; printed with the report of the Chief of Engineers of the Army for 1876. It is, perhaps, the best map that has been made of the field. I started the survey immediately upon the completion of our short march with Wallace and Hare to the foot of “Reno’s Hill,” and instructed my assistant, Sergeant Becker, as to the ground to be covered. He commenced the work at once and had covered about one-third of the territory concerned, when my superior, Lieutenant Maguire, said to General Terry that he thought the mapping of the battlefield should be under his own (Maguire’s) supervision.' This is from a much later narrative of the thing but gives a worthwhile insight, The Army of the United States: Historical Sketches of Staff and Line Edited by Theophilus Francis Rodenbough, William Lawrence Haskin “Two horsemen were seen dashing down the valley. They were officers – Wallace and Hare, if the writer’s memory is not at fault, - sent by Reno to tell of their desperate fight, and how the Indians seemed determined upon their extermination, until Gibbon’s column appeared on the bluffs the day before. ‘Where is Custer?’ was then asked. They replied: ‘The last we saw of him he was going down that high bluff towards the lower end of the village. We do not know where he is now.’ They were told, ‘We have found him.” -- Chapter II (1866-91) History of the 2nd Cavalry, by CPT Edward J. McClernand, 2nd US Cavalry. Here is the lovely which dismisses the Reno Benteen witterings as the twaddle it was. Given that (which is this) what would anyone expect of them in the situations which threatened their futures. This report, in entirety, all the hundreds of pages - is quite fascinating. So, contemplate Wallace and Hare, at Chicago. Same thing - What to do - they were subject to conflicting oaths and protecting careers and regiment. All perfectly normal stuff given Benteen's baseball bat and Reno's bar room brawling. They were soldiers after all.
|
|