|
|
Post by Moltke on Jul 2, 2018 10:21:40 GMT -6
In reading a book on the life of Dr. Henry R. Porter (by L.G. Walker, Jr.) I was specifically curious about his statements on the aftermath of the battle and the body identiy process since he was the lone medical survivor and live a long time after the battle. I ran across one of his testaments on the early shooting around Reno Hill concerning heavy fire and Indians closing in closer. He tells of a soldier who ran out, killed an Indian, scalped him on the spot, and this had quite an effect on warriors approaching from then on. After that, it became much more of the shooting from a distance more in line with what I understood most of the Reno Hill fight to be. My question is if this soldier is known to us, and is the account verified by others? Was he awarded anything for this? It seems like he's pretty lucky to have survived.
Also, noteworthy is the Porter directly refutes the claim that Tom Custer's heart was cut out by Rain-in-the-face. I see many books continue to mention that this indeed did happen to Tom Custer in response to a grudge held against T.C. from years before. Is Porter's account not trustworthy, or is it just a case of he said, she said?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 3, 2018 15:00:17 GMT -6
M,
These were Victorian times, Brisbin also said very little postmortem damage to the dead on the Custer portion of the battlefield. No stick in GAC's penis if there in fact was one!
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 4, 2018 0:59:57 GMT -6
As for Tom Custer, he was said to be one of the worst mutilated men on the field. May be an exaggeration, but I`m sure multiple accounts say he was among other things disemboweled. That`s a pretty messy thing, and with his exposed insides laying out for a couple of days it seems strange to me that anyone would think f checking if all his organs where around.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 4, 2018 14:11:42 GMT -6
If anyone wants to know exactly what the condition of the dead were like at LSH then get the booklet: "A Scene of Sickening, Ghastly Horror" . . . it's a no-holds-barred description of the dead found at the site.
As for the penis up GAC's penis . . . that was a taken from a letter written by Godfrey. See "Indian Fights and Fighters" by Cyrus Brady.
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 5, 2018 0:47:30 GMT -6
As for the penis up GAC's penis . . . It`s really early here and I try not to be as childish as I am, but now coffee came flying all over the keyboard. All the best, Noggy |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 5, 2018 14:21:19 GMT -6
It would be fool-hardy to say nothing was done to Custer after his death. While there is Cheyenne oral history saying several women recognized Custer and to leave him alone that wouldn't have stopped Sioux Indians from giving GAC the "special" treatment. To to say Custer was found in a state of repose, almost asleep, would be ludicrous. Even if he wasn't mutilated, laying in the sun and heat with insects and scavengers roaming the field it's hard to believe anyone would not be affected and/or disfigured.
The arrow up the penis could be a reminder to Custer that even though you may have had your way with Cheyenne women you won't be able to enjoy your afterlife because your "manhood" was ruined.
The Indians had unique ways of getting their message across . . . and this could be one of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 6, 2018 14:05:46 GMT -6
LBH is the only battle I know where one combatants d-ck (sorry for being vulgar) can be discussed. No wonder we never will get finished with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 7, 2018 13:50:20 GMT -6
It wasn't suppose to be just about GAC's penis . . . it's about what condition Custer's body was in after the battle . . . either laying in repose like he was sleeping or had been mutilated along with most every one else.
Even if GAC didn't get the "special treatment", scavengers, insects, and the heat and sun certainly would have made his remains not so pleasant to look at.
I believe that it was bad enough Custer and his entire command was dead, but to have the Boy General mutilated, chopped up, disfigured would have been just to much for the Nation to bear . . . let alone what affect it would have had on Libbie.
|
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jul 8, 2018 5:30:47 GMT -6
czhrs,
I find it very interesting that so many people get so upset by even thinking about us having this type of discussion, even some142 years after the battle. And whilst in some ways one can understand that that was how people felt at the time, albeit that the attitude smacks of class prejudices, and by that I mean that it was thought acceptable to talk about the type, and the variety of mutilations that were inflicted on ordinary soldiers, same sort of injuries on officers tended to be covered up.
Yes, I know we have a number of detailed descriptions concerning the state of Custer's brother Tom, but I wonder just how much has to do with the back story as we would say these days, in other words the almost romantic notion that Rain in the Face had sworn to get his revenge for being arrested and then imprisioned by Tom, by killing him, and then, after having torn out his heart, eating it. It’s a preposterous story, but it may have caught the public imagination at the time, and not only that, it could be used by the state to justify dealing with these savages once and for all.
Even though we’ve become exposed, through numerous news channels and sites likeYouTube, to some of the most gruesome things that human beings are prepared to do to each other: and, I would argue, have become almost inured to such sights, when it comes to Custer's mutilations, many people still reel back in horror and reach for their Victorian clothes and attitudes. Look, as far as the Indians were concerned, he was an enemy, one of many who’d come to kill their wives and children, and whilst some may have recognized that he was one of a number of soldier chiefs who were fighting that day, I doubt very much if any of them recognised him personally.
I should say incidentally, that this Victorian attitude to the battle still prevails in most of the art work that’s being made. The figures still conform to an Victorian idea of what a last stand should look like, so that just like Arthur and his noble nights, they are all either standing around, or kneeling, leaving themselves totally exposed to incoming fire, whilst the Indians, who are all painted up and wearing war bonnets, charge around on their ponies. Now if you were to try, as I have, to paint something that’s a bit closer to the truth, i.e. that you can hardly see anything because of the dust and blackened smoke, and that those few solders you can see are so dirty and covered in smoke, you can’t tell one from the other, then you’ll come across the same attitude you get with regards Custer's mutilations, “of course he wasn’t mutilated, they had too much respect for, him, so they left him just as he was, lying there untouched like a sleeping angel. “
Regards Shan
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 8, 2018 7:10:23 GMT -6
Disfiguring an opponent was a long-accepted practice among Indians, in fact many Indigenous Cultures did the same. Let's not forget what many Whites did to Indians after a battle, i.e., Sand Creek and many other instances.
Mutilation is one of many "side stories" to the LBH, albeit one of the more lurid ones but hardly the most important. The battle was over, the Indians won and the losers got what they deserved (in the Indian's mind, anyway)
As a side note, one could understand why many soldiers feared being captured and or running if Indians got to close to them. You couldn't surrender . . . if you were captured and/or wounded on the field the Indians would have made sure you regretted coming after them. That could be one of the reasons the Reno command fell apart and panicked. Same could be said for the Weir "Retreat". Instead of facing charging Indians they ran, just like Reno's command, but hardly anything negative was said about that. Instead Reno get's blamed for Custer's defeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moltke on Jul 9, 2018 20:23:14 GMT -6
On the surface I remain skeptical that Custer would have been left less touched than various other troopers, but for the fact that so many accounts seem to hint that it was so. I know many think it was just efforts to save Libby from hearing about the condition, but such a concerted effort even long years afterwards make me believe that perhaps he was left alone for some reason. Recognition from any of the warriors or village seem unlikely given his haircut changing his most identifiable feature right?
But, pulling back to my question, and tying in with (as many have pointed out there) disfiguring was hardly unique to the Indian postmortem practice, do we know who the soldier who ran out, killed, and scalped an Indian right there in front of everyone on Reno Hill? It's a curious action, and just wondered who it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jul 10, 2018 2:06:14 GMT -6
But, pulling back to my question, and tying in with (as many have pointed out there) disfiguring was hardly unique to the Indian postmortem practice, do we know who the soldier who ran out, killed, and scalped an Indian right there in front of everyone on Reno Hill? It's a curious action, and just wondered who it was. Didn`t Bill Cody become (even more of a) super star when scalping an Indian warrior? the whole "First scalp for Custer" thing? The man who supposedly shot Long Road was Pigford from M Company. If he himself did not scalp him, I`d guess it was another member of that unit. Alle the best, Noggy |
|
