|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 7, 2011 11:13:53 GMT -5
I'd like to start a thread about what the people here think about the credibility of the people, both Indian and white who either testified or made statements about the battle. As with most things of this nature, we find some people who say that so and so was a complete idiot and anything they said was totally wrong. So, what I'd like each of you to do is think carefully before answering because there is no middle ground here. Either you think they were totally credible or they were not. (The reason for this is because some people have made statements, in particular about those who rode down the right bank with Custer, who survived and did make comment on that ride. And are openly criticized for everything they said. Yet they, if anyone, should have known what happened. Lets find out.)
The first up is John Martin. Remember there is no middle ground here, if you have or are going to use him for just one example of credibility you must choose credible.
So what say you about John Martin. Credible or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 21, 2011 11:33:07 GMT -5
I absolutely love this idea as it forces supports and non-supporters of any topic to state their reasons rather than just make them. I believe John martini should be listed in the non-credible category not because he was a man of ill repute but, because the inquiry (I believe) was designed to discredit all witnesses who were civilians and soldiers other than officers.
The cultural and social values of that era were fraught with misconceptions that would not be tolerated in our time. For example, Gilbert's summation of the the civilian witnesses Church and Fret was deplorable, indicating that their veracity could not be compared to that of an officer(Reno) who was obviously drunk according to their testimony.
Gilbert's questing regarding Gerard's marriage to an Indian women (what in heaven's name did this have to do with valid testimony) is sickening.
The following exemplifies my disgust:
"Let it once be understood that an orderly-a private soldier of limited intelligence, who follows the heels of his commanding officer, is evidence to establish an importent order, as much as the officer who rides by his side;than Indian interpreter on his first expedition can't give reliable testimony upon military matters, or after being dismissed for stealing (dismissed by Reno and immediately reassigned by Custer)can sit in judgment on the courage of his superior;or that a mule packer struck in the face by an officer (Reno who slurred his words while doing so)for being where it was thought (by Reno) he had no duty to be (where else would a mule-packer be but with the packs?) can originate a charge of drunkenness against that officer.
Shockingly this biased, unfounded, job-discriminatory, and irrelevant garbage was wholly accepted by the board as their findings alleged that since no "officers" came up with damaging evidence Reno was assumed to be not responsible.
Utterly amazing, no officers! The officers being Reno (on trial!) Benteen (scathing against innuendo that he was maleficent in his duty) and Wallace, a young and up coming officer who placed the "honor" of his unit upon his own shoulders.
Anyone who can read the rest of Gilbert's unmitigated galling crud with his prejudicial, class distinction tirade and not recognize the fraud that the Inquire represents may wish to read it a second time...then a third....then?
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Nov 21, 2011 13:22:42 GMT -5
I absolutely love this idea as it forces supports and non-supporters of any topic to state their reasons rather than just make them. I believe John martini should be listed in the non-credible category not because he was a man of ill repute but, because the inquiry (I believe) was designed to discredit all witnesses who were civilians and soldiers other than officers. The cultural and social values of that era were fraught with misconceptions that would not be tolerated in our time. For example, Gilbert's summation of the the civilian witnesses Church and Fret was deplorable, indicating that their veracity could not be compared to that of an officer(Reno) who was obviously drunk according to their testimony. Gilbert's questing regarding Gerard's marriage to an Indian women (what in heaven's name did this have to do with valid testimony) is sickening. The following exemplifies my disgust: "Let it once be understood that an orderly-a private soldier of limited intelligence, who follows the heels of his commanding officer, is evidence to establish an importent order, as much as the officer who rides by his side;than Indian interpreter on his first expedition can't give reliable testimony upon military matters, or after being dismissed for stealing (dismissed by Reno and immediately reassigned by Custer)can sit in judgment on the courage of his superior;or that a mule packer struck in the face by an officer (Reno who slurred his words while doing so)for being where it was thought (by Reno) he had no duty to be (where else would a mule-packer be but with the packs?) can originate a charge of drunkenness against that officer. Shockingly this biased, unfounded, job-discriminatory, and irrelevant garbage was wholly accepted by the board as their findings alleged that since no "officers" came up with damaging evidence Reno was assumed to be not responsible. Utterly amazing, no officers! The officers being Reno (on trial!) Benteen (scathing against innuendo that he was maleficent in his duty) and Wallace, a young and up coming officer who placed the "honor" of his unit upon his own shoulders. Anyone who can read the rest of Gilbert's unmitigated galling crud with his prejudicial, class distinction tirade and not recognize the fraud that the Inquire represents may wish to read it a second time...then a third....then? This is interesting stuff here, could you remind me who Gilbert is? Can you fill me in also on these incidents that were happening about a soldier being "struck" and so forth? Did I read read you correctly that this all refers to Girard? |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 21, 2011 14:20:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 22, 2011 9:15:49 GMT -5
There are still a few Victorian people around today who like to use the same excuse Gilbert presented to the court as their sound reasoning for excusing Reno or for that matter Benteen's actions.
Lyman Gilbert:
The case has been wider then I anticipated. It commenced as an examination of the courage shown by Major Reno, during a time when General Custer and his column could be affected by his conduct.
It extended itself until it included his behavior long after General
Custer and those under him had ended with honor their lives as soldiers, and it ended with a question into the sobriety of Major Reno, at a time when the Indians were with savage joy holding their scalp dance over their defeat of Custer and his command.
These charges so varied and unlike, so distant and remote from the real charge which provoked this Court of Inquiry and have been the subject of testimony from many witnesses. These represent different degrees of character and will I am sure be properly discriminated between by the Court. It is not so much of them as of the principle which underlies testimony applicable to all cases of a military character that I wish to speak. A military Court is always, so far as I am informed, composed of officers higher, or at least equal, in grade to the one who is interested in its proceedings. The reason for the rule is I think plain. It is found not merely on the greater impartiality which higher rank confers, not merely in the greater knowledge and ampler experience which attends :t, but also in the fact that the independence of every officer requires that those who live in the suburbs of the Army to whom he must give peremptory orders to which the only answer is unquestioning obedience shall not be his Judge in matters which concern his life, or his honor.
Apply the reason which governs the selection of military Courts to the kind of testimony by which you, as members of this Court, would be governed, and you will see that some of the testimony requires a rule of rigid construction.
===========================
What followed was what Joe presented.
This stuff is pretty Victorian, almost to the point of being Prussian.
"It is found not merely on the greater impartiality which higher rank confers, not merely in the greater knowledge and ampler experience which attends :t, but also in the fact that the independence of every officer requires that those who live in the suburbs of the Army to whom he must give peremptory orders to which the only answer is unquestioning obedience shall not be his Judge in matters which concern his life, or his honor."
This view of our soldiers is not held in such reverence today. Yet there are those out there who think it should still be that way. That it was that way in 1876, and this point was pressed home by Gilbert to the Court, I think is an important point to make. That we should still look back upon it with that same view today is wrong. And it serves no useful purpose other than to conceal the truth behind the lies those officers should, could and did impart. We now hold that "unquestioning obedience" has been replaced, and rightly so, and in that same process of thought any soldier who feels that an officers conduct beyond reason, which concerns "his life" has absolutely nothing to do with honor in questioning those very orders.
And again:
"These charges so varied and unlike, so distant and remote from the real charge which provoked this Court of Inquiry and have been the subject of testimony from many witnesses. These represent different degrees of character and will I am sure be properly discriminated between by the Court. It is not so much of them as of the principle which underlies testimony applicable to all cases of a military character that I wish to speak. A military Court is always, so far as I am informed, composed of officers higher, or at least equal, in grade to the one who is interested in its proceedings."
Joe is correct about Gilbert's prejudice & bias, and such prejudice & bias wouldn't be allowed in today's military courts. Something to keep in mind when someone, anyone, somewhere says something, anything about honoring these now deceased soldiers whose actions still to this day haven't been fully accounted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 23, 2011 8:51:20 GMT -5
I should be more specific in my criticism of Reno's council.
It is this paragraph that condemns the man:
"These charges so varied and unlike, so distant and remote from the real charge which provoked this Court of Inquiry and have been the subject of testimony from many witnesses. These represent different degrees of character and will I am sure be properly discriminated between by the Court. It is not so much of them as of the principle which underlies testimony applicable to all cases of a military character that I wish to speak. A military Court is always, so far as I am informed, composed of officers higher, or at least equal, in grade to the one who is interested in its proceedings."
The court was assigned to find out if there were "any charges" that could be found to send Reno to a military court martial. Gilberts insistence that it be held to just the original charges was overruled. He knew that, yet here again he interjected his venom against the civilians who testified saying, "...from many witnesses. These represent different degrees of character and will I am sure be properly discriminated between by the Court." He tried to save face by saying this, "It is not so much of them as of the principle which underlies testimony applicable to all cases of a military character that I wish to speak." Notice here he was trying to say civilians should have no say in a military court. And in fact in every single instance tried desperately to say this. And if I remember correctly, I think he did say it. Gilbert of course had to discredit these people, these civilians and of course it wouldn't have been to difficult to have done that in front of a military tribunal of that time. He goes at length on a wild tirade against each of them, not a mere summary but a scathing attack on each of their characters, which he said above "It is not so much of them...", but he made it all about them in those personal attacks against each.
Why should this rankle or concern us today? The what if's are more numerous than the lies covered up. What if the Marine who killed his wife and unborn child a few years ago had 3 civilians who knew him and had seen him? One observing him 10 minutes prior to his arrival at his home where he killed her? Another who saw him an hour after the coroner projected her death, 20 miles up the interstate getting a bite to eat. And yet another neighbor who saw him arrive during the coroner's time of death and leaving within the same? Should these be admissible in a military court of law?
What about those 3000 or so innocent civilians who were killed on 911? What if no one took credit for the dastardly deed and all they had to go on was the report from the one plane that didn't make it, the one where the civilians with their cell phones reported that Arabs had taken control of the plane. This surely shouldn't be taken seriously because they were quote, "civilians" and should have no say in military matters.
I could of course go on, and probably should. But what rankles me the most in all of this is that we still have people today cherry picking this same evidence, favoring one over another because of these same credibility issues. And in the process, eliminating not just evidence, but I do feel, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth just as Gilbert did do and did succeed in doing at the COI.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 23, 2011 20:42:28 GMT -5
Like the Roman god, Janus, there are two sides to all issues. i agree wholeheartedly that we should not spend our lives wrapped in an unprovable theory that has no relevance nor should we become inundated in "this', "that" and "whatever" until we loose sight of the real and material issues.
However, I feel, that the studies of this battle should be balanced with the obvious and the not so obvious innuendo that will help to create a forum wherein the evasive,elusive, yet desirable truth may be discerned.
The Reno Inquiry is not what many believe it to be. The Recorder Lee did not have the authority of a prosecutor to challenge evidential submissions for it's veracity, relevancy, nor the summation viable witnesses. All allegations of malfeasance by Custer, unsupported assumptions, judicial tomfoolery, and witness tampering was allowed while the Board stood passively by. How can the "truth" be derived from such
"It has been commonly held that after the Battle of the Little Big Horn the Army closed ranks at the court proceeding to preclude criticism damaging to itself;further scrutiny of the campaign-which had been a waste of time and money, and men could only reinforce the public anti-military sentiments. In interviews with Walter Camp, the interpreter Gerard said that,'the general understanding among all whom he talked with confidentiality was that any officer who made himself obnoxious to the defense (Reno) would incur the wrath of certain officers in pretty high authority in certain department headquarters farther west than Washington and not as far as St. Paul"
In other words, Phil Sheridan whose office was in Chicago.
Ask yourself, when Reno swore that hear no firing coming from the killing field why Lee did not present Reno's Official Report written days after the battle which stated, "We heard firing from that direction and knew it could only be Custer."
Why was a fine Doctor like Porter who bravely and coolly tended the wounded while ignoring the hot and constant Indian fire from Sharpshooter Ridge allowed to be denigrated and ostensibly, accused of cowardice by Gilbert?
I could give many more examples but will only give one final statement from Recorder Lee written almost twenty years later to Libbie that he had been influenced:
"By the prejudicial opinions of those whose motive I did not then understand, and whose sources of information I then had no means of testing."
In summation, please do not look at the Inquiry as sacrosanct. It was nothing more than a military manipulation to absolve the army hierarchy for its culpability for a military fiasco resulting in the defamation of an officer whose death and silence made it all possible.
"
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 23, 2011 20:58:41 GMT -5
|
|
