Post by tbw on Jan 11, 2011 18:28:20 GMT -5
Custer had orders that were as vague as the orders he gave to Benteen and Reno. The only real order that we today understand without question was that they were commissioned to bring the hostile Indians back to the reservation. It is difficult to ascertain today what was meant by the terminology used and the gaps that were not filled that a successful mission would surely have produced. I think the record far to incomplete to point a finger at any individual that day. And what we do have left is the residue left over from an investigation that was not thoroughly reviewed in light of the task for which it was charged to do. Custer's orders throughout the campaign and battle should have been thoroughly sought out, brought to the fore regardless of circumstances surrounding those orders, reviewed for intent and plan of action. This should have been done to determine whether or not Major Reno at any time had disobeyed Custer's orders, and for them to have determined this without any prejudice or persuasion upon their part in the complicity that so clearly was demonstrated by them not undertaking the understanding of his plan which was never to see the light of day after the fact. There is barely anything consistent with military logic to suppose that had they really wanted to properly investigate the charges against Major Reno, above all else, the very thing upon which he was being charged for, should have been 1) known, 2) discussed in full, 3) investigated beyond all question... before any decision was passed upon Major Reno. Was this a simple case of arrogance amid chaos or chaos amid arrogance?
To many questions were left unanswered by the court to properly define whether or not Custer failed in his plans, let alone note any successes his exact orders (vis a vie plans) would have or should have produced. And why was this?
People over the years have noted that it was his responsibility so therefore, yes, he failed. But, they can't answer why he failed; other than to assume if the profile fits use it. The truth is no one knows whether or not Custer's move down the right bank was a tactical change or adjustment that he at that time needed to make. No one it seems can explain it, yet it seems Major Reno had some knowledge of it, as he wrote of it in his official report on the LBH Battle a few days after the battle. Perhaps a knowledge that was imparted to him by Custer before he departed on his own mission? One would guess that would be to much information, or too easy. But the fact is, it was the truth. Why then shroud it in the mystery of him supporting Reno. Why indeed question Custer's, tactical on the field decision, to do what needed to be done, perhaps even amid protestations from others, perhaps even Reno himself. It certainly had happened earlier when Benteen questioned a tactical decision Custer had made about keeping the Regiment together. would there be any difference had they protested before, during or after this particular action, and if there was, would it be telling us something important we need to know?
----
Of course most people who study this battle like to think of themselves as self proclaimed experts in some manner or another. In reality everyone is in the same sinking boat as any other, as the old adage keeps coming back to haunt those who would level charges of superior knowledge that theirs is somehow a better explanation to the events. Yet in all the years I've been involved in various boards, here and there, never once was it ever inferred, stated nor even in the remotest sense ever mentioned what a pistol charge was. Most, if not all identify it with the John Wayne version where they all string out and charge in line with pistols a blazing. What is evident from Curley's observations and descriptions of the event at a ford somewhere (where the company's were all strung out in line formation back up the hill) was that Custer was using a tried and true method known as a Mounted Caracole to force a crossing there. A true Cavalry - Pistol Charge.
To many questions were left unanswered by the court to properly define whether or not Custer failed in his plans, let alone note any successes his exact orders (vis a vie plans) would have or should have produced. And why was this?
People over the years have noted that it was his responsibility so therefore, yes, he failed. But, they can't answer why he failed; other than to assume if the profile fits use it. The truth is no one knows whether or not Custer's move down the right bank was a tactical change or adjustment that he at that time needed to make. No one it seems can explain it, yet it seems Major Reno had some knowledge of it, as he wrote of it in his official report on the LBH Battle a few days after the battle. Perhaps a knowledge that was imparted to him by Custer before he departed on his own mission? One would guess that would be to much information, or too easy. But the fact is, it was the truth. Why then shroud it in the mystery of him supporting Reno. Why indeed question Custer's, tactical on the field decision, to do what needed to be done, perhaps even amid protestations from others, perhaps even Reno himself. It certainly had happened earlier when Benteen questioned a tactical decision Custer had made about keeping the Regiment together. would there be any difference had they protested before, during or after this particular action, and if there was, would it be telling us something important we need to know?
----
Of course most people who study this battle like to think of themselves as self proclaimed experts in some manner or another. In reality everyone is in the same sinking boat as any other, as the old adage keeps coming back to haunt those who would level charges of superior knowledge that theirs is somehow a better explanation to the events. Yet in all the years I've been involved in various boards, here and there, never once was it ever inferred, stated nor even in the remotest sense ever mentioned what a pistol charge was. Most, if not all identify it with the John Wayne version where they all string out and charge in line with pistols a blazing. What is evident from Curley's observations and descriptions of the event at a ford somewhere (where the company's were all strung out in line formation back up the hill) was that Custer was using a tried and true method known as a Mounted Caracole to force a crossing there. A true Cavalry - Pistol Charge.
