|
|
Post by tbw on May 5, 2011 9:51:12 GMT -5
In this edition of the Cavalry Journal, I invite any and all members to participate in a quest for the truth. Once again the edition will be spread over several days (if not longer) of post in order to leave the topic open to discussion. It is requested that you keep on topic,. Thank you.
The topic here in this issue is the Reno Court of Inquiry. And more to the point, the objections that were made and why they were made. My comments/questions are in brackets [ ].
pg 331 -332
DeRudio
Q. Was it not the impression on the part of the officers and men that General Custer andhis men were just as able to take care of themselves as Maj. Reno was with the column he had?
A. The impression was that General Custer had wounded and was not able to come to us, as we were not able to go to him.
Q. Speak of the conversation between Capt. Weir and Capt. Moylan on the subject of General Custer that night.
THE RECORDER OBJECTED TO THE QUESTION as being entirely too much in the direction of hearsay. The court without being cleared overruled the objection.
A. I heard Capt. Weir ask Capt. Moylan, when he was Adjutant whether General Custer ever gave him any particular orders about doing anything. Whether we were to go here or there. Capt. Moylan said No, that when he was Adjutant, General Custer never told him what he was going to do; he would order him to tell the Company Commanders to go to such and such places and that was all.
[Hearsay? What was hearsay about it? And who gained or lost from the answer given?]
Wallace pg 29
Q. Where were the first evidences of what you state appeared to be Ben. Custer's route or trail showing that his command had been engaged with the Indians or had been attacked by Indians. Describe those evidences fully.
MAJOR RENO OBJECTED to the question and said: Yesterday the Court announced its intention of going into this entire matter. And now for the purpose of making that ruling a little more definite we rase the objection. It must be evident to the court that the activities of major Reno during the entire engagement were confined within a very limited section of country. We came here to meet that issue. Major Reno feels that he can present his case to the court without reference to the action of any other section of that command, but if it is wht wish of the court that the entire campaign shall be inquired into, we can only say we are desireous the inquiry shall be full and ample, and it is only for the purpose of having the ruling of yesterday made more definite that this objection is made.
THE RECORDER REPLIED: I have asked questions to elicit all the facts, bearing upon the conduct of Major Reno as the commader of troops there that day. And while I do not desire to go into matters occurring before June 25th still I think it is plain that the fate of Gen. Custer is connected with major Reno's command in some way or other. he is charged with failing to go to the relief of Gen. Custer. that should be inquired into. Major Reno, being the senior officer left in the command, and making his official report, all his relations to that battle should be inquired into and the facts sought to be elicited by this question ought to be brought out in order that Major Reno may be fully vindicated or condemned, whichever turn the matter may take.
THE COURT WAS THEN CLEARED AND CLOSED, and after mature deliberation was reopened, Major Reno and his counsel being present; AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT WAS ANNOUNCED BY THE RECORDER, that the inquiry shall be general in regard to the facts that transpired on the 25th and 26th days of June, 1876, in regard to the entire command, consisting of the 7th U.S. Cavalry.
-[ Not exactly overruled, but limited to only the 25th and 26th of June NOT the "entire campaign". NOTE the following statement - "Major Reno feels that he can present his case to the court without reference to the action of any other section of that command, but if it is the wish of the court that the entire campaign shall be inquired into, we can only say we are desirous the inquiry shall be full and ample, and it is only for the purpose of having the ruling of yesterday made more definite that this objection is made."]-
A. I told you about our following his supposed trail down to the Little Big Horn. There or near there was a gray horse; then back almost on a line perpendicular to the creek, two or three hundred yards, was a dead man on the top of a hill, his body filled with arrows. Then to the left or rather down the creek from that point there were found some of the men. Further on they became thicker till we crossed over the ravines. Then we found more men and horses, till we came apparently to where the last stand had been made; there were the killed in a kind of circle, the bodies lying around thick.
-[What did Major Reno object to, where the investigation by this very question could include 'the entire campaign"? And Major Reno felt it best restricted to "the entire engagement" whereupon his part of same was "confined within a very limited section of country"? In other words what did this question: "Where were the first evidences of what you state appeared to be Ben. Custer's route or trail showing that his command had been engaged with the Indians or had been attacked by Indians. Describe those evidences fully." have to do with "the entire campaign" whereupon Major Reno should object to it? And how could it have been answered had not just the 25th and the 26th been imposed as the only times that could be investigated or discussed?]-
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 6, 2011 10:45:33 GMT -5
Concerning the DeRudio testimony at the court where the objection was overruled:
The following information might be helpful:
Lt. W.W. cooke served in the capcity of regimental adjutant from the 8th of December 1866 until the 21st of Feb. 1867. He was replaced at that time by Lt. Myles Moylan who served in that position at the Washita through to 31st of December 1870. At that time Moylan was replaced by W.W. Cooke. Moylan was promoted to Capt on 1st of March 1872.
----
I think it fair to say that this overruled objection hurt Custer and aided Reno's cause, and to a certain extent Benteen. Because both men at the COI testified to the fact that Custer had no plans, or at least, didn't relay to them any plans. It established a snippet of Custer's past that might not have been true at the LBH. This is what the objection was all about, and it was - hearsay.
Benteen in his testimony did state that he to paraphrase, "had ascertained more about that country than either Custer or Cooke knew..." It seems Custer had confided in one other person about the viability of action there, his adjutant W.W. Cooke, a fact that Benteen knew. Indeed, it was hearsay evidence and should not have been admitted as evidence at the Inquiry.
Anyone else is of course more than welcome to share their thoughts - unencumbered or committed to what I have put forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 6, 2011 16:38:22 GMT -5
My thought is this, the purpose of the Inquiry was to absolve the military and its hierarchy from any blame for the fatal outcome of the battle. To do so a sacrifice was required, one that could not defend himself;the dead General Custer.
In a racist society of the 1800's, wherein the general populace would not, could not acknowledge the intolerable reality that a "bunch of heathens" wiped out "white men" the only viable solution was to create a thesis that a vainglory,martinet commander who cared only for his self importance foolishly loss his life and, the lives of his men needlessly.
Benteen's self admitted lies, the drunken failure of Reno's leadership, the incredibly stupid battle plan of Terry and Sheridan, and the inability of the officer corps to rally its men were collectively responsible for this fiasco.
Your example of the scuttling of viable testimony that would have cleared the air of odious fabrications and enabled the truth to prevail had to be prevented to preserve the honor of the military and its reputation at all cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 7, 2011 7:49:03 GMT -5
Concerning the Wallace objection:
Wallace pg 29
The key to this section was what Reno thought he could accomplish in presenting his case. "Major Reno feels that he can present his case to the court without reference to the action of any other section of that command..." In other words he not only wanted the court limited to the battle day, but he also wanted the questioning limited to just his actions and battles. He further stated, "It must be evident to the court that the activities of major Reno during the entire engagement were confined within a very limited section of country. We came here to meet that issue..... but if it is the wish of the court that the entire campaign shall be inquired into, we can only say we are desirous the inquiry shall be full and ample, and it is only for the purpose of having the ruling of yesterday made more definite that this objection is made."
Reno got a lot more from this than it appears. He didn't want to talk about Custer's command or Benteen's or for that matter the pack train, just his part in the battle on the 25th. In asking for this there was also an ulterior motive, "the whole campaign". Just where did it play into this equation with the question that was asked?
"Q. Where were the first evidences of what you state appeared to be Major Reno's route or trail showing that his command had been engaged with the Indians or had been attacked by Indians. Describe those evidences fully." Where it included "the whole campaign"!
The open ended question, not limited to the 25th and 26th of June could have established a precedent where Reno would have had to have answered and accounted for his actions on his Scout that Terry had sent him on prior to the LBH battle. It was on this scout that Custer felt that Reno should have attacked the Indians once he had found the trail led to the LBH. There is of course no way of knowing what effect Reno's attack could have had, but if the Indians did what they did on the 25th, I don't think they stood a chance.
There is a missing element here. It shows that Custer, under any circumstance, was going to attack that village once he found it. And he was going to do it with essentially the same battalion Reno was supposed to have done it with, less 1 company of same composition an adding another. And I don't believe for a moment that it was mere happenstance that Custer chose those companies on the day of battle. And Reno, well Reno wanted to avoid talking about all of that; what Custer's expectations of his mission were, what Custer would have done, what Custer ultimately did do, and, he got his way.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 7, 2011 17:35:21 GMT -5
Exactly!!! And those S.O.B's (forgive my French) full well had knowledge of the attack plan and how each individual commander and subaltern were to carry out said plan.
The mission did not come to fruition because of two factors:
Benteen misunderstood the misinformation that Kanipe and Martini relayed both thinking that Custer was wiping everybody out and generally raising pure havoc in the village. Neither possessed any real knowledge of this and should not have relayed such an inference. Unknowingly, both men set a stage wherein the word, "HURRY" no longer had meaning.
The ever cantankerous and antagonistic Benteen was now convinced that Custer had duped him by sending him off on the proverbial "Wild Goose Chase" depriving him of some of the glory that should have been his. He then sulked and moved at a snail's pace as he was in no hurry to congratulate his seemingly successful nemesis.
Reno, in the meantime, fell apart under the influence of rot gut alcohol and a sore lack of intestinal fortitude thus, leaving everyone ( but himself in jeopardy) as he "charged" the grass, dirt, and stones on Reno Hill.
Needless to say, both men spent the rest of their lives placing the blame on Custer who could no longer defend himself. The other officers (who with a very few exceptions) had much to be shamed of as well, and so they too took a ride on the "blame train" and sold the General down the river.
What I find to be absolutely unbelievable are the individuals who profess (heatedly) that Reno's actions were perfectly correct under the circumstances and that Benteen had no idea what Custer wanted him to do or any thing else for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 7, 2011 22:12:39 GMT -5
The objection raised in this singular instance changed the complexion completely of the court. In one feel swoop this objection eliminated the possibility of exploring the actual causes of the disaster. Neither side wanted to go back before the 25th for self serving reasons. Reno's has already been stated. But the Army didn't want to get into the possibility that Custer had disobeyed his orders from Terry. Why say this? Simply because of the expectations Custer had of Reno's scouting mission; where Custer expected Reno to attack them once Reno had found the trail AND his own orders from Terry which stated explicitly that when he found that same trail Reno did, and if it turned towards the Little Horn, as it was expected to do, that Terry's suggestion was that Custer was not to follow it. This thing would open a can of worms neither side wanted to discuss. Yet, it was the very heart and soul of the reasons the LBH disaster occurred in the first place. And every man, whether King, Lee, Meritt or Reno, Benteen on down the chain of command knew damn well that when John Gibbon took the stand, it wouldn't be pretty, and the scope of the Inquiry would have to be broadened to include others in the know to make a better determination whose fault it was. And that just wasn't going to happen.
If they had gone back and brought up Reno's prior actions on his scouting mission and his reasons for returning instead of pursuing the Indians, and all things associated with it, to include Custer's expectations; how far would they have had to have gone to determine whether or not Reno's actions then led him to do what he failed to do later? Or did it have any bearing on it at all? Again the question would come up about what Reno thought of Custer's abilities as a commander and whether or not what Custer had expected of Reno on his scout might have somehow adversely affected Reno's actions later. Recorder Lee, "still I think it is plain that the fate of Gen. Custer is connected with major Reno's command in some way or other. he is charged with failing to go to the relief of Gen. Custer. that should be inquired into..."
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 8, 2011 10:30:19 GMT -5
page 58....
Wallace testimony, objection.
Q. So you remained during the night?
A. Yes, sir.
q. And how long the next morning?
A. The next morning we remained there until 9 o'clock. Then we saw a dust rising down the river, and by scouts being sent out we found it was Gen. Terry, and then there wasn't so much attention paid to this line.
Q. What communication, if any, did you have with Gen. Terry, and under whose orders?
A. When we found out who was coming, Maj. Reno directed me to go down to him and report to him who was up there, and show him how to get up, because the country was very rought.
RECORDER LEE - What date was this?
A. This was the 27th of June.
RECORDER LEE - Then I believe the ruling of this court was that this investigation was to be confined to these matters occurring on the 25th and 26th of June, and entirely to those days. I simply speak of this because the witness is now being examined with reference to events that occurred on the 27th, concerning which the court is not ordered to inquire into the conduct of Maj. Reno. Furthermore, I have not, in the examination in chief of this witness, touched upon any matters of that kind. I did not intend to make any objection to the cross-examination of this witness, though it might occasionally touch upon matters of the 25th and 26th of June, that I had not brought out in the examination in chief, nor do I object in that regard. But to this question I submit whether it is not going beyond the ruling of the court.
MR. GILBERT - Technically speaking, this objection is perhaps correct. The 26th perhaps should conclude the inquiry, but the question we now ask is strictly within the spirit of the ruling that this court has made. That ruling extended the scope of your investigation. Now we ask the question in regard to Maj. Reno's conduct, while he was in command of these troops, and before he was relieved from responsibility, and we say that is a part of that general conduct which is in review before this commission. I will admit further that some of the questions I have asked the witness on cross examination are not responsive nor explanation of matters developed in the direct examination. I have asked them, not with any desire to contradict the witness on anything he has stated. He is certainly one of the most important witnesses to be produced by either side - if we can claim to have sides here. The recorder kindly turned him over to us yesterday afternoon, and I knew his sources of information had not been fully developed before this court. Now, I submit it will be but just to have the entire conduct of Col. Reno during the time he was in command there inquired into before this court, so that you would have a full view of everything of importance that occurred during that campaign.
After consulting with the other members of the court THE PRESIDENT said;
"The witness will answer the question."
[Here the court went explicitly against its former ruling and allowed Reno and his lawyer the privilege of further developing Reno's defense. But in doing so they also opened a loop hole that they had previously closed, "Now, I submit it will be but just to have the entire conduct of Col. Reno during the time he was in command there inquired into before this court, so that you would have a full view of everything of importance that occurred during that campaign." Which should have included Reno's scout that Terry had sent him in command of on a date previous to the LBH fight; and most certainly a part of that "campaign". But it was never tried, not even by Recorder Lee. Why?
The main concern questioning this objection and its subsequent overruling was, why - Why would it be so important to overturn an earlier air-tight case and possibly open up a can of worms no one wanted to discuss? What was so important to Reno's defense to risk all of that?]
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 9, 2011 9:40:36 GMT -5
It will be noted that there was no question asked at the time the President made his proclamation. What was so important was establishing the following fact in total from all witnesses to the exclusion of none. How it was pursued by Gilbert was questionable and damning as he led the first witness to say what he wanted him to say. The way he asked the question should have been objected to, but it wasn't, and it would become the basis of Reno's acquittal; for the very next words spoken after the President's proclamation was this:
MR GILBERT: What was the conversation you had with Gen. Terry at that time? I speak more particularly in reference to your ignorance of where Gen. Custer was and the ignorance of the entire command?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 9, 2011 13:51:52 GMT -5
Gilbert also referred to the testimony of civilian witnesses and non-coms in a demeaning manner imply that they were the "dregs" of society not to be trusted to be honorable nor trustworthy.
Thus, the testimony of Reno's drunken behavior in front of the two civilian packer's (Frett and Churchill) was tossed out while Gerard was asked the slanderous and irrelevant question if he was married to a "squaw woman!"
Such behavior in a barrister today would lead to his dis-baring!Yet, no one on the board took umbrage with such disgusting behavior by Gilbert.
The fact that such behavior was even allowed to occur does speak volumes regarding the mind-set of the reviewing board.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 9, 2011 20:12:23 GMT -5
The questioning takes a bizarre twist,
Wallace
A. ...When I got the time I asked him where Gen. Custer was, and received a reply that gave me to understand that they had all been killed.
Q. Up to the time you made this inquiry of Gen. Terry did you know where Custer was?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Was there any knowledge on the part of Maj. Reno, or any officer or solider of his command, as to where Custer was?
A.. None Whatever. We were looking for him back the first night he was away, and we didn't understand why we hadn't seen him.
Q. Now as exhibiting the degree of feeling on the part of the command, you stated yesterday there was some swearing in regard to Custer among the command under Reno. What was the character of that?
A. Well, they thought that Custer had sent us in, and had gone off and left us to look out for ourselves; that he had made an attack and probably been defeated, and he had gone down the river to meet Gen. Terry.
------------------
I don't think I have to go much further with this line of questioning and what that objection did for Reno's defense. The twist I mentioned? It was about one man, Custer, and only one. Not about his men, just him. And so no, Wallace nor Benteen nor Reno nor any other man could have known where he, that one man was. Fast foward to that last answer.
"A. Well, they thought that Custer had sent us in, and had gone off and left us to look out for ourselves; that he had made an attack and probably been defeated, and he had gone down the river to meet Gen. Terry."
Hold it right there, did he say, "that he (Custer) had made an attack and probably been defeated"? How the heck did he know that? "He made an attack", not, maybe he made an attack, perhaps he made and attack, but, "he made an attack..." AND "probably been defeated". The following assumption then left open to criticism was that he and whatever was left of his command high tailed it off to Terry's command. Quite an answer for someone who had stated that he didn't know where Custer was. He knew, in fact they all knew. They knew because on the Weir advance they saw most if not all of them lying there bare white with Indians going all around making sure they were all dead. What the heck did they think the Indians were shooting at? Badgers, bobcats, or white buffalo? They knew, they all knew, and it was because they all knew Custers men were all dead by the time they got past Weir Peak, that Reno was absolved of doing any wrong. They knew it was to late to save him. And this was the point that Gilbert and Reno would drive home throughout the court; with the everlasting impression that not one of them ever knew what had happened to Custer's command vis-a-vie "Custer". And it was all in the parsing of the word and how it was to be interpreted by the mass media and the naive people who would later read it and not interpret it correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on May 14, 2011 18:29:22 GMT -5
Your knowledge of what really happened is fabulous. I appreciate your contributions to the forum. I have learned a lot from you. I wish that many others will have the opportunity to learn from you as well. Great job! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on May 20, 2011 18:56:32 GMT -5
I agree. when I first started posting here I was a little bit intimidated with what little I knew against some of the other members. Once i dove in the water was fine. thanks bud!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 4, 2011 18:58:33 GMT -5
Great Leadership makes for a good forum. Guests are more than welcome to come on down and jump in and... |
|
