Post by tbw on Jun 12, 2010 14:33:26 GMT -5
Unlike, ahem... someone else whom shall remain nameless upon this board, I am a gentleman. And prefer much the debate about the issues of the topic than the trivialities associated within the sub unit of other domains of spectrum's so broad and incomprehensible that should it be misunderstood, the intent then not be fathomed. Therefore, when confronted with a paradox in time, which happens all to frequently as one discusses the LBH battle, the issue becomes, ever increasingly, "the source". For example: "The source" for the misunderstanding associated with a supposed attack/feint at MTF, if any should care to research it for themselves, can be found in Walter Mason Camp's own writings. Most care not that "I" state this, but prefer to use "their" own judgment as to what they "believe" happened. Unlike most, who have studied and perused many a work concerning this matter, most of what 'came after' was published as fact, and many an author and 'supposed researcher' to this day has made this grave error, over and over again.
Weir Peak was brought into this conversation. I made the statement that "no one went there." Where in "your research" of "primary resources" did anyone ever state that they did go to "Weir Peak"? And before everyone dives into their mega-volume sub-basement set of massive library documents, let me relieve you of a small portion of that effort. How accurate was Maguire's Map at the RCOI according to those who testified? Think before using it as a "primary source," or for that matter, what they said there. Just as many documents about it exist outside the "official version", which in reality, was not official, but merely chosen as official, for other reasons, most of them as nefarious as someone choosing to view Fox News or MSNBC today.
One assumes, perhaps wrongly so, that when one asks a question about "what can be seen of Custer's battlefield from 'Weir Peak'", the intent of this question then assumes the myth that has become fact in most peoples minds, just as MTF has become Custer's Waterloo moment of stupefying idiocy: This defining moment at Weir Peak then should answer what Reno and Benteen's men observed on Custer field as they advanced down towards that position on Weir's advance. But I respectfully request again, who said it was "Weir Peak" that they had "advanced to"? Did any of the men, or for that matter Indians, ever state that it was "Weir Peak"?
Most, no not all, but most who study this battle, try as they might, try to use their own logic and math when attempting to identify positions and land forms as described by the participants. But get the primary location 'wrong' that one is measuring from, and one gets the destination wrong as well! Fred Dustin [Benteen - Goldin Letters pg 116] "In sifting the wheat from the chaff, it is necessary to exercise patience, discrimination and toleration. A story as a whole may be unreliable, but it may furnish a few corroborative facts that might not otherwise be obtained. Thompson's alleged story is an instance in the matter of his horse giving out between where Custer's battalion left Reno's Creek and Reno's Hill. Even that incident might have been discredited had not the Rees seen such an event; they, of course, did not know Thompson, but saw a soldier as described." Even Dustin knew that 'where these Ree's observed or could have observed Thompson' wasn't anywhere near where he had just described. That far back and he gets captured by Benteen's men or the pack train: OR too far forward and he see's what he said he did? Just one of the many times this all too often occurs, and none thinks about.
Goldin [Benteen Goldin letters, pg. 130] (Benny Hodgson) I have no information as to where he was finally buried by McDougall but imagine it was, like many of the others, under the picket line where the ground was trampled down by the horses after the shallow graves were filled in. This may account for the placing of the Hodgson marker where it is, although it (the marker) was at some distance from where any of the dead were buried (including Hodgson!)...(pg. 125) the present location of the Hodgson marker is not near where he was buried if on the hill, but is at or near the point where Reno made his first halt after the retreat and where he was later joined by Benteen...(pg. 130) aside from McIntosh and Reynolds there were no markers placed in the bottoms near the scene of Reno's stand or at the river where so many of our men fell, nor on Reno Hill. I first visited the fields in 1924 and in 1926 and found quite a heavy growth of scrub timber and brush at the point where the crossing was made. So far as I have known no real effort has ever been made to locate those bodies at the crossing, but I believe it would be possible even at this late date (June 1934) to discover traces of them if the effort was carefully made." An interesting observation, think someone would have noticed during one of those "photo shoots" and numerous trips there after? But no one ever did find a human skull or bone at that position, was it because of the following...
[Pg 133] Dustin: "I certainly hope that Reno's position in the bottom, his line of retreat to the bluffs and his stand there will be included in a reservation, and proper markers placed before it is too late. The maps published are faulty. For instance, Reno's line across the bottom is made to appear about three times too long, his second line far from where it actually was; his line of retreat across the valley too long..." And Reno Hill? Before Dustin moved on to request such information from Goldin, he instead discredited Godfrey's work in his Century article about Custer's position in going down the right bank.
One of the letters dated May 12, 1934 from Goldin to Dustin is "missing from the collection". In this missing letter, Dustin had asked Goldin in the previous letter these questions:
1) In your fight on the hill and in the bottom you had about 50 men killed, but my question is, where and when were those on the hill buried?
2) The night of the 26th, after the Indians left, Reno changed the position of the troops somewhat, and had them again entrench, moving nearer the river as I understand. Now the question is: how far did you move, and has not this last position been somewhat confused by writers with the first one?
We have partial answers to what Goldin told Dustin through the other letters, as I presented them here. But there is one element missing. Dustin, pg. 127: (Hodgson) "HIs burial later by McDougal was noted in my last letter. I presume that what you related about the contractor for the headstone concerning that of Hodgson was correct. It has always seemed to me that as nearly as possible the markers for those in Reno's command should have been set up where they fell, or at least we know that the dead marked the line from where the dismount was made, then in the edge of the woods, and from these to the river and up and on the bluff above, as well as your last position where eighteen or twenty more fell (or later died of their wounds).
One finds it most distressing that "the contractor" had misplaced not just one "headstone", that of Lt. Hodgson, but others as well, as indicated by the "missing letter". Where Hodgson's headstone was placed "was at some distance from where any of the dead were buried" wasn't then anywhere near where he was buried, and this was because of a "contractor" error. Question is, how many more headstones were mis-placed? And with this, and perhaps because of it, how many supposed "locations", such as "Weir Peak", "Reno Hill" - were mis-placed?
If you haven't guessed by now. I call everything into question, and leave no stone unturned to find the answers. I don't assume - that because several well known authors and supposed researchers keep on saying Medicine Tail Ford over and over in meditated - medicated jargon, that for them its the Holy Grail to understanding this battle, and that it was the holier of holy's than it was. I don't assume likewise that Weir Peak nor for that matter Reno Hill held any great significance, other than the fact that Reno Hill may, and I again am not saying it did, may have been Reno's "final" position on the bluffs. Other than the bodies that lay upon Custer's field, nothing was ever set in stone. And if I have to take a hammer and shatter that stone, I will. So be forewarned: If I challenge you, be prepared to back up your statement of "Place" and or "Time" with the facts as stated by the participants themselves. Otherwise, someone, somewhere 'inserted such lingo into our tainted drinks' and it has about as much credibility as saying that Gen. George A. Custer fought at Guadalcanal, Okinawa, the Philippines and also served in Viet Nam. Time warp romaticism? Or Fact?
Weir Peak was brought into this conversation. I made the statement that "no one went there." Where in "your research" of "primary resources" did anyone ever state that they did go to "Weir Peak"? And before everyone dives into their mega-volume sub-basement set of massive library documents, let me relieve you of a small portion of that effort. How accurate was Maguire's Map at the RCOI according to those who testified? Think before using it as a "primary source," or for that matter, what they said there. Just as many documents about it exist outside the "official version", which in reality, was not official, but merely chosen as official, for other reasons, most of them as nefarious as someone choosing to view Fox News or MSNBC today.
One assumes, perhaps wrongly so, that when one asks a question about "what can be seen of Custer's battlefield from 'Weir Peak'", the intent of this question then assumes the myth that has become fact in most peoples minds, just as MTF has become Custer's Waterloo moment of stupefying idiocy: This defining moment at Weir Peak then should answer what Reno and Benteen's men observed on Custer field as they advanced down towards that position on Weir's advance. But I respectfully request again, who said it was "Weir Peak" that they had "advanced to"? Did any of the men, or for that matter Indians, ever state that it was "Weir Peak"?
Most, no not all, but most who study this battle, try as they might, try to use their own logic and math when attempting to identify positions and land forms as described by the participants. But get the primary location 'wrong' that one is measuring from, and one gets the destination wrong as well! Fred Dustin [Benteen - Goldin Letters pg 116] "In sifting the wheat from the chaff, it is necessary to exercise patience, discrimination and toleration. A story as a whole may be unreliable, but it may furnish a few corroborative facts that might not otherwise be obtained. Thompson's alleged story is an instance in the matter of his horse giving out between where Custer's battalion left Reno's Creek and Reno's Hill. Even that incident might have been discredited had not the Rees seen such an event; they, of course, did not know Thompson, but saw a soldier as described." Even Dustin knew that 'where these Ree's observed or could have observed Thompson' wasn't anywhere near where he had just described. That far back and he gets captured by Benteen's men or the pack train: OR too far forward and he see's what he said he did? Just one of the many times this all too often occurs, and none thinks about.
Goldin [Benteen Goldin letters, pg. 130] (Benny Hodgson) I have no information as to where he was finally buried by McDougall but imagine it was, like many of the others, under the picket line where the ground was trampled down by the horses after the shallow graves were filled in. This may account for the placing of the Hodgson marker where it is, although it (the marker) was at some distance from where any of the dead were buried (including Hodgson!)...(pg. 125) the present location of the Hodgson marker is not near where he was buried if on the hill, but is at or near the point where Reno made his first halt after the retreat and where he was later joined by Benteen...(pg. 130) aside from McIntosh and Reynolds there were no markers placed in the bottoms near the scene of Reno's stand or at the river where so many of our men fell, nor on Reno Hill. I first visited the fields in 1924 and in 1926 and found quite a heavy growth of scrub timber and brush at the point where the crossing was made. So far as I have known no real effort has ever been made to locate those bodies at the crossing, but I believe it would be possible even at this late date (June 1934) to discover traces of them if the effort was carefully made." An interesting observation, think someone would have noticed during one of those "photo shoots" and numerous trips there after? But no one ever did find a human skull or bone at that position, was it because of the following...
[Pg 133] Dustin: "I certainly hope that Reno's position in the bottom, his line of retreat to the bluffs and his stand there will be included in a reservation, and proper markers placed before it is too late. The maps published are faulty. For instance, Reno's line across the bottom is made to appear about three times too long, his second line far from where it actually was; his line of retreat across the valley too long..." And Reno Hill? Before Dustin moved on to request such information from Goldin, he instead discredited Godfrey's work in his Century article about Custer's position in going down the right bank.
One of the letters dated May 12, 1934 from Goldin to Dustin is "missing from the collection". In this missing letter, Dustin had asked Goldin in the previous letter these questions:
1) In your fight on the hill and in the bottom you had about 50 men killed, but my question is, where and when were those on the hill buried?
2) The night of the 26th, after the Indians left, Reno changed the position of the troops somewhat, and had them again entrench, moving nearer the river as I understand. Now the question is: how far did you move, and has not this last position been somewhat confused by writers with the first one?
We have partial answers to what Goldin told Dustin through the other letters, as I presented them here. But there is one element missing. Dustin, pg. 127: (Hodgson) "HIs burial later by McDougal was noted in my last letter. I presume that what you related about the contractor for the headstone concerning that of Hodgson was correct. It has always seemed to me that as nearly as possible the markers for those in Reno's command should have been set up where they fell, or at least we know that the dead marked the line from where the dismount was made, then in the edge of the woods, and from these to the river and up and on the bluff above, as well as your last position where eighteen or twenty more fell (or later died of their wounds).
One finds it most distressing that "the contractor" had misplaced not just one "headstone", that of Lt. Hodgson, but others as well, as indicated by the "missing letter". Where Hodgson's headstone was placed "was at some distance from where any of the dead were buried" wasn't then anywhere near where he was buried, and this was because of a "contractor" error. Question is, how many more headstones were mis-placed? And with this, and perhaps because of it, how many supposed "locations", such as "Weir Peak", "Reno Hill" - were mis-placed?
If you haven't guessed by now. I call everything into question, and leave no stone unturned to find the answers. I don't assume - that because several well known authors and supposed researchers keep on saying Medicine Tail Ford over and over in meditated - medicated jargon, that for them its the Holy Grail to understanding this battle, and that it was the holier of holy's than it was. I don't assume likewise that Weir Peak nor for that matter Reno Hill held any great significance, other than the fact that Reno Hill may, and I again am not saying it did, may have been Reno's "final" position on the bluffs. Other than the bodies that lay upon Custer's field, nothing was ever set in stone. And if I have to take a hammer and shatter that stone, I will. So be forewarned: If I challenge you, be prepared to back up your statement of "Place" and or "Time" with the facts as stated by the participants themselves. Otherwise, someone, somewhere 'inserted such lingo into our tainted drinks' and it has about as much credibility as saying that Gen. George A. Custer fought at Guadalcanal, Okinawa, the Philippines and also served in Viet Nam. Time warp romaticism? Or Fact?
, and thats why I usually don't post, so if I'm not around much, it may mean one or another or neither. I'm not here to "denigrate" anyone's opinion. In the end, what I have really come to believe, is that it really doesn't matter what happened at the LBH all those years ago. Its all in the eye of the beholder, and each have their own opinions.
