|
Post by Tricia on Sept 15, 2005 21:24:48 GMT -6
The Ford "D" theory has both its passionate supporters and nay-sayers. What were Custer's objectives, if he was still in control of his battalion? What, if any, goals would have been delineated should GAC been already injured? And do actions at Ford D negate any other on the field? If there was an action at Ford D, was there a kind of final defense on Cemetery Hill?
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by One Tin Soldier on Sept 15, 2005 22:44:40 GMT -6
Leyton, i've changed my mind so many times. I honestly don't know.
I think that Custer was at least wounded at MTF. It looks that way from the evidence. Of course there isn't any positive proof one way or another. In any case wounded or killed someone else had to be making the decisions. That would mean either one of 3 choices. 1) Captain Tom Custer. 2) Captain Myles Keogh and 3) Adj. Cooke
Keogh and Cooke both had more experience than Tom. but Tom was sort of his brother's keeper. If you know what I mean. When Curley referenced Custer at or near Calhoun. That Custer was ~ Tom. Which one does wonder what condition Autie was in at that time.
Points could be made for any one of them to be in command. And from the looks of it ~ it may very well have been Keogh. And perhaps that was what the officers conference at the supposed "reunion" was all about ie. to determine the next in command. Again I don't support the "reunion" theory.
If you look at it the traditional way with Custer being lets say "out of action" for want of a better word. It kinda makes more sense, doesn't it. Calhoun is left defending Calhoun hill. Keogh who is now in command situates himself in the middle of the Ridge. Cooke perhaps on LSH, and Tom taking up the flats below the cemetary. The Best they could do at that time.
As for ford D. It may have been possible. But if it was. I truely believe it was "only" a last ditch effort by Tom or George if still alive. The origional orders were to attack the village, not capture the so called "non-coms." That's why I believe that if anything occured there, it was a "Last ditch effort" to save themselves.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Sept 16, 2005 1:21:28 GMT -6
No matter how many times I think about it, I can't picture a battalion with a wounded Custer in tow, moving away from help. And plenty of warrior accounts point to light fighting for quite awhile.
Basically, any Custer wounded at MTC points to a complete and utter lack of leadership from seasoned officers, who had had plenty of combat experience in the Civil War. And if the battalion was on the defensive from that point, the companies being so spread out just doesn't make any sense.
To the south, we have the packtrain and Benteen. To the north, we have no help. And if Custer was hurt at MTC, the entire battalion would still be in fine shape, as far as numbers go. I'd like to consider it, but Yates and Keogh and Tom Custer and Smith all had a lot of ACW experience, and I highly doubt they had to have a meeting to determine rank. I'm sure they all knew who had seniority, if only from wing assignments.
Plus, why wasn't Keogh found at LSH? The rest of HQ was there, as were several officers from other companies. Yet Keogh is found with his men, a fair distance away.
And what "orders" pertained to attacking a village? How do you attack a village? The goal seemed to be to return the Sioux to their reservations, to capture prisoners and their property, to round them up. It is one of the few reasons I can see for Custer moving north. The village seemed to be there for the taking, but it might have been a hollow victory for Custer to burn the village but let the bulk of the Sioux and Cheyenne get away. Also, taking a village with 1500 undefeated warriors running around nearby isn't exactly a good idea. They weren't going to sit there and watch as 200 soldiers took inventory and burned down their lodges. At the Washita, the burning of property occurred after the majority of the opposing force was dealt with. But there is a part of me that thinks taking the village itself was good enough. And that part makes me think Custer might have gotten eyes bigger than the proverbial stomach. He had the village at his mercy, but he wanted the non-coms. He wanted to keep them in the vicinity so he'd have more to show for his victory than just burning lodges, so he headed north to head them off.
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Sept 16, 2005 6:48:46 GMT -6
ford d move probably existed only in the mind of stands in timber , in grinnel fighting cheyennes , cheyennes told of ford b medicine , then they say custer retreated on cemetery and waited , i think they intended nye luce ridge , there custer waited to much and could not go back because to many warriors were arriving from reno east of river and other crossed mt ford infiltrating in mt coulee , so custer decided to go to battle ridge that looked good for waiting support and check north , maybe then moved to cemetery aerea to check the field of battle but i think never went until ford d , what to do ? at that time cahloun was fighting hard and custer could see this , they had to defend themself , and maybe he never went even to cemetery aerea , indian account referring to that area could be speaking of the last 40 soldiers who tried to escape , with indian accounts you never know the moment that things happened , but i change idea almost every day , nothing is certain
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Sept 16, 2005 7:28:05 GMT -6
Plus, why wasn't Keogh found at LSH? The rest of HQ was there, as were several officers from other companies. Yet Keogh is found with his men, a fair distance away. I agree. Also, if Custer had been killed, Keogh would have assumed command. Therefore, Cooke would have gone with him. Cooke's body was found with Custer on LSH. Custer's chest wound was fatal. From what I've read, the head wound seems to have been post mortem. I don't think a "wounding" is possible here.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 16, 2005 10:10:19 GMT -6
Crab, Treasuredude, I agree too (for what that's worth!). Both the Cooke factor, and the continued light firing after MTF -- which suggests a unit that felt everything was still under control -- argue against Custer being killed or wounded at MTF. Plus, if we place any credence in Curley whatsoever, it would be very strange that if any such thing happened he wouldn't consider it worth mentioning! From his account of what happens at Calhoun Hill, it seems pretty clear that all Custers are alive and well at that point. (Hey, maybe the buckskinned 'leader' was Bouyer? We get that casual mention of him being 'too badly wounded' to escape with Curley; and it could make sense to send the scout to the river first, to judge the nature of the crossing ...)
Like you, I can't see any sense in dragging a wounded Custer, or his corpse, in the opposite direction from any support. And I certainly can't see an intelligent man like Keogh leading the battalion into the sort of mess they eventually got into. Interesting to ask ourselves what he WOULD have done in those circumstances, though. Continued the attack, leaving a small contingent to guard Custer? Or retreated towards Reno? Somehow I doubt the latter; they had a mission to carry out, they weren't yet in any trouble, and Reno was already engaged. My guess would be that he'd either have charged the village straight away, or might have held the MTF position as his centre, maybe posting skirmishers to east and south, while waiting for Benteen's support. By holding MTF, he'd have prevented the mass of warriors from crossing to block Benteen's access/his own retreat. I'm just guessing. But the fact that none of that happened suggests to me that it wasn't Keogh in command. (All his CW generals praised his 'coolness' as well as dash, gallantry, intelligence, etc; 'coolness' isn't the first word that springs to mind for the way things were conducted on the Custer part of the field.)
What objectives would be achieved by a Ford D crossing? It can only have been the non-coms, surely ... and I think Crab's read it right, Custer got greedy. There's a lot of substance to the thought that destroying the village would have been enough. It still mightn't have forced Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse onto the reservations, but might well have had that effect on some of their supporters, perhaps ...
Here's a clue from H. M. Stanley's 'My Early Travels and Adventures' (pp 68-69). He's talking about the Hancock campaign, and the burning of the village on the Pawnee River :
"The following is a true list of the miscellanea which were consigned to the flames this morning: 251 lodges, 942 buffalo robes, 436 horn saddles, 435 travesties [not sure whether he means that in the sense of 'costumes', or has mis-heard 'travois'], 287 bead mats, 191 axes, 190 kettles, 77 frying-pans, 50 tin cups, 30 whetstones, 212 sacks of paint, 98 water kegs, 7 ovens, 41 grubbing horns, 28 coffee mills, 144 lariat ropes, 129 chairs, 303 parflecks [parfleches], 15 curry combs, 67 coffee pots, 46 hoes, 81 flicking irons, 149 horn sthingys, 27 crowbars, 73 brass kettles, 17 hammers, 8 stewpans, 15 drawing knives, 25 spades, 4 scythes, 8 files, 19 bridles, 8 pitchforks, 15 teakettles, 90 sthingys, 15 knives, 10 pickaxes, 1 sword, 1 bayonet, 1 U.S. mail bag, 74 stone mallets, 1 lance, 33 wooden sthingys, 251 doormats, 48 rawhide ropes, and 22 meat stones. The loss of these articles will be severely felt by the Indian tribes -- Cheyennes and Sioux. It wil require 3,000 buffaloes to be killed to procure enough hides to make their 'wigwams'. The whole outfit of an entire wigwam costs, on an average, one hundred dollars."
The way the Indians describe it, with E & F (assuming that's who it was at the ford) being directed by gestures to go north-east, it sounds very much as if Custer, from his viewpoint, has spotted the non-coms heading for Squaw Creek. He changes his mind about simply charging the village, and decides he can have it all if he rounds up the non-coms too. After all, he's already established that the warriors aren't fleeing; now he'll stop the non-coms from fleeing too. He can afford to do this, he thinks, because Boston's brought the happy news that Benteen's just minutes away. E & F, down on the flats, don't know what's going on, but respond to the bugle calls and pointing; it's not till they all get to Calhoun that Custer can explain the change of plan. That's how I see it, anyway.
What happens next is what baffles me. You know, I'm more and more coming to suspect that at this point there could have been a difference of opinion: Custer determined to do this regardless, others pointing out that their line of retreat's rapidly filling up with Indians and there's no sign of Benteen coming any closer than Reno Hill. Is it possible that Custer could have done a Weir and flounced off north with two companies, leaving the rest the choice of following him into the wild blue yonder or staying put and doing the most sensible thing they can? And that they just have to set up as defensive a position as they can to hold the way open for him when he finally realises he needs to come back?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 16, 2005 10:19:56 GMT -6
If anyone's wondering what 'sthingys' are, the automatic censor seems to think that 'sp**ns' -- as in 'things you stir your coffee with' -- is a dirty word!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Sept 16, 2005 11:02:31 GMT -6
Elisabeth, I have no clue what the "word" in between the S--S means. I have fixed it so that you can safely type spoon now without the censor police correcting you. I haven't seen the automatic censor click in since the first discussions of Washita!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 16, 2005 11:30:57 GMT -6
Thanks, Diane -- that's a relief! I hated the idea that there might be a dirty word I don't know!!
|
|
|
Post by Realbird on Sept 18, 2005 18:58:09 GMT -6
I voted for the theory that Custer was attempting to gather hostages. As such, the excursion at Ford "D", was part of a military "feint" to accelerate an already, mass exodus of Indian non- combatants north.
This maneuver also removed pressure from Reno as the warriors, overwhelmingly, responded to the new threat to their women, children, and old folk.
Custer's wounding a this ford, I believe, was prompted by the book by Miller which professed to show the Indians side of the battle. The buckskin clad officer who, allegedly, fell into the River was probably Lt. Smith who was transported to LSH, wounded.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Sept 18, 2005 19:37:25 GMT -6
Realbird--
Was the action at Ford D a true "feint," an act of desperation (why does that seem to be such a theme here), made by a battalion that was stalling for time, i.e., Benteen's arrival, or a true attempt to garner hostages, only to be rebuffed? Now my take on Ford D (I've gotten it all from LBH summer interpreter Mike Donahue) is that HQ did not go there, so GAC could not have been wounded there. Of course, I'm probably wrong!
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Sept 19, 2005 6:12:50 GMT -6
were are the indians who faced custer at ford d , all indian accounts clearly speak of ford b , maybe companies positioned on cemetery but i think never went at ford d , what to do ? at that time they were in defence custer could see and hear the fight on cahloun
|
|
|
Post by Realbird on Sept 24, 2005 18:55:28 GMT -6
Realbird-- Was the action at Ford D a true "feint," an act of desperation (why does that seem to be such a theme here), made by a battalion that was stalling for time, i.e., Benteen's arrival, or a true attempt to garner hostages, only to be rebuffed? Now my take on Ford D (I've gotten it all from LBH summer interpreter Mike Donahue) is that HQ did not go there, so GAC could not have been wounded there. Of course, I'm probably wrong! Regards, Leyton McLean
I believe that you are probably right! Headquarters, I believe, did not respond to the ford. Curley's testimony is often disregarded "in Toto" because of contradictions in his testimony. Much of this mis-information resulted from incorrect interpretations and an, understandably, human desire to relay to an insistent audience what they wanted to hear. However, much of Curley's testimony can be corr orated by cross testimony. The "buckskin" clad leader who was shot and tumbled from his horse at Ford "D" was probably Lt. Smith (commander of "E" Troop) who did dress in that fashion during this battle. The Cheyenne warriors firing from the east side of the river assumed that the efforts to retrieve the wounded soldier, by his men, meant that he was the "Leader" of the expedition. Lt. Smith's body was, subsequently, discovered on LSH. Miller's book would have you believe that the fallen soldier was Custer. Richard Fox and John S. Gray mutually opined that the action at the ford was a "feint", I agree. Not because they said so but, because this assumption is logical and makes sense. i If this assumption is correct, why so? Please review the following quote: " Since Custer could not have detached Yate's battalion (which included Smith's platoon) to destroy the village via Ford B, why did he detach it at all? There is an obvious alternative mission: to pretend to attack, as a feint or threat, for even a semblance of an attack on the Indian woman and children should draw the warriors from Reno's endangered battalion, allowing it to regroup in safety."Page 360 - GrayThis, as we now know, is exactly what occurred. Demoralized, hunted, and mentally debilitated, Reno's forces were spared certain death by this tactical employment initiated by Custer.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Sept 24, 2005 22:48:01 GMT -6
Realbird: Are you confusing Ford B with Ford D? Ford B being MTC, Ford D being a northern ford beyond Last Stand Hill.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on May 20, 2013 8:32:29 GMT -6
There were a few on this thread that thought Custer led his men into the Ford "D" area as a 'feint'. The proposals behind this feint while somewhat plausible doesn't really explain it to the satisfaction of all why he should've gone to such lengths to have done this so far from his nearest support. Again it was stated Fox and Gray thought the ford "D" movement some kind of 'feint', the poster posted this message to support this. "Since Custer could not have detached Yate's battalion (which included Smith's platoon) to destroy the village via Ford B, why did he detach it at all? There is an obvious alternative mission: to pretend to attack, as a feint or threat, for even a semblance of an attack on the Indian woman and children should draw the warriors from Reno's endangered battalion, allowing it to regroup in safety."Page 360 - Gray
First, its always been assumed Reno's battalion was the feint. This because of the manner moved to contact, then dismounted and proferred not to keep charging, and the way he handled his troops, exiting when he should of stayed and held longer. Something he seems doomed to be chastised for because of what happened way off down river. But was it any different for those so assigned to follow Custer?
2nd, as usual with the proposals of feints above, most, as in nearly all students of this battle, don't go far enough to rationalize the similarities enough to know the truth of the matter. Reno went down and dismounted to fight the Indians. He did this because the days of the charge on this size of village and number of warriors couldn't have been charged and fought on horse, especially if they were not fleeing, they were'nt. Now what expectation could've been made of Custer and his men of a similar charge at the other end? Six risky revolver shots, so romanticized in tv shows and movies wasn't the best way to sustain any charge where the foe wasn't on the run. And had either wing done that, they'd have been throwing the revolvers at the Indians in self defense, ala Reno, once they'd ran out of ammo. That. Or do what? Try as some point before all said six shots, from all syncronized firing, had been expended to favorably dismount - yeah right - and form a skirmish line - what % do you bet they couldn't have - amidst the Indians and fight in skirmish formation.
If Custer's move all the way down there was for the purpose of a feint, and maybe even Reno's too, and as Benteen said, he expected Custer to come back to him. What would have happened? This just considering Custer's action downstream was a feint - for the time being - if Benteen had gone on to Weir point and had set up a defense there and Custer hadn't been cut off down stream and had been able to have gone back to Benteen there.
The problem always has been a contingent plan of safety had things gone south. From one little phrase, might come revelation, especially if the Indians, that many, in that size of village, wasn't going anywhere AND Custer either knew it OR had at the very least a contingent fall back plan to that high ground. Reno used it, not once, but twice.
|
|