|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 5, 2015 5:09:20 GMT -5
1921, Mrs Custer, "General George A. Custer and the battle of the Little Big Horn" is what Graham (53) say's includes Godfrey's 1892 Century Magazine article. Thanks for the Finkel link. I don't know if I am understanding you. "General George A. Custer and the Battle of the Little Big Horn" is writing by Godfrey. Yesterday I was reading a note from Godfrey to Graham in a State history archive. Unfortunately I can't remember which so I will have to backtrack it on my browsing history. A quick summary of the message between the two men was the Godfrey had read Grahams work and found no objections. Godfrey mentions that there are only 4 survivors at that point and he didn't think they would have any objects to Graham's work but that Godfrey felt that Mrs. Custer's feelings should be taken into consideration. I don't know the statement from Godfrey was made because Mrs. Custer had objected to a quote in his Century Magazine Article so he didn't include it in his book The quote in question was Moylan's. "Gentlemen, in my opinion General Custer has made the biggest mistake in his life by not taking the whole regiment in at once in the first attack” Custer realised this as well, hence instructions.. orders really, to the pack train and Benteen, to hurry along. Unfortunately, Reno decided to retreat. As the recriminations developed into what they did, it became something of an armchair general's discussion of blames and disobediences ad nauseum. In honesty, Mrs Custer simply stood by her man and so to did Patterson Hughes in respect of Alfred Terry. Reno helped keep things bubbling along in being unable to keep himself out of the press. Some of it was pretty bad and he was a hot headed fool when imbibing. Matters took a turn for the worse when Terry died and his service eulogy ascribed him blame for the LBH debacle. Off it all kicked again, with a damning of Custer by Patterson Hughes who was re-energised in his efforts. It's quite an undercurrent which has never yet, been fully gathered into print. 105738885.pdf (75.3 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Oct 5, 2015 16:34:05 GMT -5
That's amazing a second claimant to one dead horse. I wonder why/how Godfrey conjured up the raft idea? Scrape marks of materials drug to water??? So you have a match there. Just don't know why someone would shoot the horse and leave the saddle. If your building a raft you deed a lot of cordage and parts of saddle and bridle would be used. You would not be motivated to kill the horse unless for raw hide and sinew. On the Finkel end that horse saved his life and if it was hurting you might just take the chance of being found out to end the suffering of your friend. Still reading Gibbon's actually just stopped where they are making rawhide from the dead horses to built the travoises, noticed the other Gibbon in the table of contents. Thanks much! |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Oct 5, 2015 17:06:19 GMT -5
I don't know if I am understanding you. "General George A. Custer and the Battle of the Little Big Horn" is writing by Godfrey. Yesterday I was reading a note from Godfrey to Graham in a State history archive. Unfortunately I can't remember which so I will have to backtrack it on my browsing history. A quick summary of the message between the two men was the Godfrey had read Grahams work and found no objections. Godfrey mentions that there are only 4 survivors at that point and he didn't think they would have any objects to Graham's work but that Godfrey felt that Mrs. Custer's feelings should be taken into consideration. I don't know the statement from Godfrey was made because Mrs. Custer had objected to a quote in his Century Magazine Article so he didn't include it in his book The quote in question was Moylan's. "Gentlemen, in my opinion General Custer has made the biggest mistake in his life by not taking the whole regiment in at once in the first attack” Custer realised this as well, hence instructions.. orders really, to the pack train and Benteen, to hurry along. Unfortunately, Reno decided to retreat. As the recriminations developed into what they did, it became something of an armchair general's discussion of blames and disobediences ad nauseum. In honesty, Mrs Custer simply stood by her man and so to did Patterson Hughes in respect of Alfred Terry. Reno helped keep things bubbling along in being unable to keep himself out of the press. Some of it was pretty bad and he was a hot headed fool when imbibing. Matters took a turn for the worse when Terry died and his service eulogy ascribed him blame for the LBH debacle. Off it all kicked again, with a damning of Custer by Patterson Hughes who was re-energised in his efforts. It's quite an undercurrent which has never yet, been fully gathered into print. That's why Universities give Pile it Higher and Deeper degree's and I'm sure you know another officer then say's Hughes (?) is Terry's son in law and wrote the wishy-washy order given to Custer { if I recall correctly} . Sorry if I can't properly cite it so others can check my statement from memory alone. I am not a Reno man but I add two caveats: 1.) The Indians agreed with Reno that the timber could not be held and were launching their counter attack from the ditch at the same time Reno withdrew. 2.) The Indian "entrenchment" was not anticipated by Custer who expected Reno to arrive at the South edge of the Village as he, Custer, struck the East side perhaps linking up and pinning much of the Village to the cliffs. The natives apparently were unaware of the ditch. Reno no doubt caused most of his own problems by his drinking and his arrogant and disrespectful "defences". Yes he may have been a better soldier than Custer but he should have known it was a non starter without proofs, maybe Girard was a thief etc. but no proof, not a shred of evidence. Basically Reno arrogantly expected every one to take his word as that of god. He also lied (denial) about his own drinking when all knew he had a problem. He alienated all and was his own worst enemy. That said, I marvel at the speed he acted on the bottoms at the LBH. In the Civil War people could cope with those levels of stress but a short time and then they become useless or crack. I don't blame him his later failings just that he chose to lie about them. |
|
davewilma
New Member
I recommend a full size topo map of the battlefield to aid study.
Posts: 6
|
Post by davewilma on Dec 1, 2015 14:57:20 GMT -5
The Army always tells soldiers they will be shot for certain infractions. I knew a vet of the 82nd ABN in Northern Europe who believed he would have been shot for falling asleep on guard duty.
Are there any statistics on the death penalty for desertion in the Indian Wars? I assume that crimes like murder would be punished according to custom.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 5, 2015 18:55:23 GMT -5
The Army always tells soldiers they will be shot for certain infractions. I knew a vet of the 82nd ABN in Northern Europe who believed he would have been shot for falling asleep on guard duty. Are there any statistics on the death penalty for desertion in the Indian Wars? I assume that crimes like murder would be punished according to custom. Rather famous one of Custer shooting a handfull and essentially getting courtmartialed. Everybody wanted in and as soon as they saw what it was like wanted out. 50% desertion rate |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 22, 2017 12:24:32 GMT -5
 You will observe two well known Finkel/Finkle images and an unknown picture of the guy as background. The background image was taken at the monument at LBH. Say 'Cheese!'. |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 22, 2017 14:08:41 GMT -5
It ain't Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Feb 22, 2017 14:23:33 GMT -5
View AttachmentYou will observe two well known Finkel/Finkle images and an unknown picture of the guy as background. The background image was taken at the monument at LBH. Say 'Cheese!'. HR, If you are really interested, there was a man in the forum Joe Kelly "Bandbox Troop" who knew a lot about this. He hasnt been on for quit a while (Hope he is OK) but his posts are still up there. Be Well Dan |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 22, 2017 14:30:25 GMT -5
 This picture is more likely to have Finkel in it. |
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69 
|
Post by dgfred on Feb 22, 2017 20:53:39 GMT -5
Dang... that is a lot of horse bones regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 24, 2017 8:18:39 GMT -5
Hi Benteen. I'll look the stuff up. The Finckle Finkel query is one which annoys some with interests in the history.
Withoyt doubt that is him in the monument image so he was there with Roe or possibly the refacing episode where the stone face was reworked before 10th Anniversary.
For myself he is the best of the imposters but nailing it down is next to impossible but now the new evidence may yield worthwhile results. There is a problem in that record and accounting for the refacing of the badly damaged monument before 25 06 1886 prior to 1886 is non existant.
Walter Camp was curious about it but his enquiries came to little other than indicating official ambiguity.
There is a story here and one worth telling. In that vein of imposters there is a subliminally strange story on this breaking now - Jack Barsky
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2017 10:02:46 GMT -5
I think the positive IDs by those finding his body is the best evidence.
I don't agree that those two pictures are necessarily the same person for a small fee you can have a lab match them up for you. Myself I think it would be a waste of your money.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 24, 2017 13:05:51 GMT -5
I disagree on ID and assuming the image is Roe's mission, which would be July of 1881, he is around age 27. I am unable to qualify the later refacing of the stone, mission to the battleground but it had been accomplished by 27th June 1886 for 10th Anniversary. He would then have been 37 in the image. Being there with Roe, who was a font of knowledge LBH, it would not have been difficult (I surmise) to get information about events of the battle from a participant - albeit one who arrived with Terry. Going with Roe and Camp's notes - 'While lying in camp on north side of Yellowstone opposite mouth of Rosebud in August 1876, it was reported in Gibbon's camp that the body of a cavalry soldier and his horse were found on south side of Yellowstone, not far from that stream and not far from Rosebud. At the time no one seemed to doubt the story, and it was commonly supposed to have been the remains of a man escaped from the Custer fight. (Try the scale and see what the direct distance. Probably 80 or 85 miles.) Interview, December 8, 1910 Walter Camp field notes, folders 43 and 46, BYU Library. So Roe could have discussed this matter and probably openly upon enquiry and it marks a stark resemblance to the tale given by F.F. (Finkel/Finkel) F.F. did state that he had been there (the battleground). As offered, this was true but he was not present in 1876. There was no F. Finkel/Finkle on the 1876 musters. If anyone can access inventory of Roe's 1881 mission from Fort Custer.... kissy, kissy. We know that F.F. worked wood so perhaps he was employed at Ft. Custer. Perhaps he assisted Roe's construction of a crane made from timber cut along the river which was used to place the five, six and seven ton stones. Roe headed a detail of Company C, Second Cavalry, under Second Lieutenant Alvarado M. Fuller, to raise the monument. Roe's account "Custer Battlefield Monument" appeared in The Army and Navy Journal, September 17, 1881, and contains a description of the erection of the battle monument. Here is the article, third column page 145 (linked) Read more: thelbha.proboards.com/thread/2761/case-benteen?page=49#ixzz4ZcvinCXKRead more: thelbha.proboards.com/thread/2761/case-benteen?page=49#ixzz4ZcruaMDC |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 25, 2017 7:13:50 GMT -5
HR
If you are saying the photos are not Finkel then they have no significance for me. I thought you were stating they were Finkel and we know there is a picture of Finkel that could be matched. You seemed to be fascinated by the refacing of the monument. Why?
Benteeneast
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 25, 2017 7:48:19 GMT -5
HR If you are saying the photos are not Finkel then they have no significance for me. I thought you were stating they were Finkel and we know there is a picture of Finkel that could be matched. You seemed to be fascinated by the refacing of the monument. Why? Benteeneast The image is of Finkel at the monument. Fascinated might not be OTT. The original work's design was simple and uninspiring and poorly done as became quickly apparent with damage due to precipitation and frost. It appears to have suffered during putting in place but then seven tons swinging on a derrick is not exactly fun and games. There are very few images of the original work with 90° and damage at the waist joint and edges besides what appear to b bullet holes from pot shots. The work done in making the damage good was masterly, very well executed and produced (to my mind) a work of exsquite delicay and subliminal beauty. It is a true work of art and modern art at that. A remarkable monument. It was transformed. Those who did it - deserve recognition. link |
|
I suspect that this thought troubled Walter M. Camp. Certainly, the stonework was refaced to erase frost damage and bullet pockmarks. Finkel is in an image of the monument which probably dates to July 1881 since by 1886 he was homesteading.
