Two Moons

[tbw]

Over the years of my research I've ran across several things that just don't fit. One of these is a story told by Two Moons, that when taken into consideration seems to point things in an entirely different direction. Especially when one considers his other accounts.

In an interview in the Harness Gazette he stated, "...I rode toward my camp and stopped squaws from carrying off lodges. While I was sitting on my horse I saw flags come up over the hill to the east like that (he raised his fingertips). Then the soldiers rose all at once, all on horses, like this ( he put his finger behind each other to indicate that Custer appeared marching in column of fours). They formed into three branches with a little ways between. Then a bugle sounded, and they all got off horses, and some soldiers led the horses back over the hill."

If one trusts that Two Moons went to the Action against Reno, then he wouldn't have had the time to have arrived back in time to see Custer's arrival! This is further confirmed by testing the times of those warriors who did go towards Custer's position after the Reno's retreat. And all of them don't arrive on or even near Custer's battlefield until long after Two Moon's observation in the Harness Gazette would have taken place. Only those who didn't go to Reno's position could have witnessed this phenomenon. Either that, or something else is going on here. The question then is: When did Two Moon's witness this?

The indication seems to be that Two Moons had left the Reno fight early on. This is confirmed by remarks made by him (Chey. Mem. Hardorff, pp 101,102) that he only observed the action there and then returned to his camp. Shortly after his arrival back at the Cheyenne camp he see's one of the battalion's approaching on the heights to the east.

Notice here, Two Moon's is one among quite a few who saw 3 companies and not 5. Why? What Two Moons observed coming towards him was company's of 4's. This standard formation with 4 troopers in column is a clear indication of that unit's full strength for the formation that they were in. And there really isn't any way to divide those 5 company's into 3 to make any sense of it.

The name of the interviewer for the Harness Gazette was not identified in the article. However the interviewer did mention that it "was Two Moons first visit to the battlefield since 1876". This may have been, but not with a known certainty, the 25th anniversary of the battle in 1901. One assumes by this, that if the directions that were pointed to by Two Moons, that it would be the white man's way of understanding those directions. Going further, a period film (1908) was taken showing Two Moons as he was pointing, when analyzed with what he was referencing as he pointed, it is further known the he was pointing the White Man's direction on that day.

Just where was this location of these horses? In Throssels interview Two Moons said, "On that day they had taken their horses down to river and watered them and were driving them out to hills west of river to let them graze, when he noticed a heavy cloud of dust up the river... This is also supported in another interview with Garland as he states. "I went to water my horses at the creek, and washed them off with cool water, then took a swim myself..." This is definitive confirmation that earlier he had taken them for water at the river. Then they were "driving them out to the hills 'west' (white man's west) of the river to let them graze." One serious question emerges; If any Cavalry battalion was to get between the indians in their encampment and their horses on the hills to the west, how was this suppose to occur if that battalion didn't cross the river?

It is well known that the Indians compressed time and even space in their stories. But it is quite remarkable that these events were described the way he tells them through the Harness Gazettes interpretation. From the number of company's to when and even where the horses were when the White's cut them off from their horses seems to tell us more than what was ever known before. But exactly what was he telling us?

[joewiggs]

Wonderful job! I researched "Lakota Noon" in hopes of discovering a possible solution to the problem of Two Moon's participating in the battle with Reno then becoming engaged with Custer, later, as well.

Michno has Two Moon, working in concert with Crazy Horse, charging the timber at the precise time Reno and company fled from the timber between 3:50-4:00 PM. He noticed that soldiers were running like "buffalo" and dropping into the riverbed in obvious panic. Feeling the danger to be slight, Two Moon was attracted by a riderless horse coming his way. He caught up to the animal, calmed it, and discovered cartridges and a 'round can" of whiskey. Enamored with his new discoveries and thinking the battle at its end, he headed back to camp.

At 4:00-4:10 PM., Two Moon arrives at camp and ordered some of the women to cease taking down the Tipi's, tried to calm them down and rode about on his white pony exclaiming the great victory.

It was at this point in time that he spotted,"flags coming up over the hill to the east." As you said the troops were riding in columns of "fours" in three squadrons.

My take on this is the following: Had Two Moon engaged in the Buffalo chase as long as the other warriors apparently did, he too would have arrived back at camp some 15-20 minutes late as the others did. Convinced their was no glory or "Coup" to be obtained from a disrespected fleeing foe he contemptuously turned his back on them.

This, of course, places him back in camp just in time to see Custer arrive. Not saying I'm right, just a thought!

[tbw]

Joe,

In an interview with Garland he states. "I went to water my horses at the creek, and washed them off with cool water, then took a swim myself..."

In Throssels interview Two Moons said, "On that day they had taken their horses down to river and watered them and were driving them out to hills west of river to let them graze, when he noticed a heavy cloud of dust up the river..."

To reiterate:

"If one trusts that Two Moons went to the Action against Reno, then he wouldn't have had the time to have arrived back in time to see Custer's arrival! This is further confirmed by testing the times of those warriors who did go towards Custer's position after the Reno's retreat. And all of them don't arrive on or even near Custer's battlefield until long after Two Moon's observation in the Harness Gazette would have taken place. Only those who didn't go to Reno's position could have witnessed this phenomenon. Either that, or something else is going on here. The question then is: When did Two Moon's witness this?"

The notice of when and where this dust cloud "upstream" was observed is a vital clue, as one of the clouds, was dust being stirred by the fleeing Indians Reno and his men were chasing, So this does give a good indication of when he could have first noticed something was amiss.

The main problem is placing Two Moons at Reno's battle at all. The best anyone can do is say that he observed that dust cloud "upstream. I think it was imperative for a lot of those Indians to demonstrate their personal bravery by making up stories about their actions, and I think in this case, outside of him observing the dust cloud, nothing that he claimed to do after was possible. The story from that point on does become quite sketchy and time is further compressed in expressions beyond the norm.

The problem with the approach of the troopers he described was all wrong, as was told by way too many others who observed what did happen. Two Moons was clearly describing the "arrival" of those troopers "on the bluffs" and most assuredly not any kind of retreat. And the reason for this was how he exactly described that arrival. It was way too detailed, I feel, to be a mere made up story, as he then described again, what they did, they divided into three divisions and dismounted with the horse holders retreating behind the bluffs.

We know from all participants who were engaged in the early fighting with Custer that he never stopped, nor did he ever dismount (upon arrival) on the bluffs the way this troop was described as doing, Indeed barely 5 to 10 minutes after Martini left with his message he looked back and made the observation that Custer and his men had been ambushed - Clearly not all spread out on a bluff somewhere. Early accounts tell of a charge towards the river, these along with Curley's remarks speak not of a dismount back on any ridge, but indeed a pell mell dash for the river upon arrival. So Two Moons account could not have been an observation of Custer nor his men, as the Indians tell of pushing him back "UP" the hill to where he was killed. If he or his men dismounted at any time after their arrival, it was in full view of the Cheyenne camp and not as Two Moons described it, clearly upon arrival on the bluffs.

The problem then is exacerbated by what he observed: 1) 3 company's not 5, 2) The distance from which he could have observed them from. It is this 2nd one which presents the most difficulty, but it is this one that should concern us more. For him to have observed the formations and the flags and the men all distinguishable, meant that this demonstration was somewhere within a half to 3/4ths of a mile of his position. Anything beyond this and it would have been questionable whether he could have observed the flags (pennants) let alone the formation, especially if such a formation was oblique to his position, which in this case, it was not. For the sake of argument, one could say 1 mile. This means that what he observed occurred within 1 mile of the Cheyenne encampment and tells us again a part of this battle that still is obscured by time and myth.

[strange]

Given the nature of what he says, its very likely that Two Moons only observed the battle(s) from a distance and probably only arrived just when it was about to be over, hence his account about "as fast as a hungry man to eat breakfast" or however we paraphrase is probably the most truth telling factor of his personal experience with this battle.

Another thing I should mention also is that people who are IN fights might feel them happening much longer than people who are OUT of fights. To us watching a boxing match, the fighters are only their for one or two minute rounds with quick little breaks. That doesn't seem very long for the the fight or the break if you're watching them, but for them themselves... its probably feels quite longer.

The people watching from a distance, back to the Battlefield scenario, are also gonna consider certain things finished before they really are finished because they can only see troop and warrior movements. Indians like to be on the move as much as possible whereas the soldiers have obviously been taught how to fight from long term stationary positions. Many Indians have probably even been mowed down for having a false confidence about observing and attacking a stationary presence. Its very possible that people like Two Moons may have considered it over as soon as Custer's troop movements stopped moving. We know that there was fighting from the stand areas, hence why it is called a stand, and I think that was only appreciated by the Indians who were more face to face with it.

strange

[joewiggs]

Another interesting caveat regarding Indian testimony is the motivation for their remarks which heavily influenced what was said They often exaggerated the intensity of their participation in the battle for social recognition;understandable in a society of warriors. Rarely, in my studies, did they out right lie! The one exception being of course to please their interviewer if they believe negative repercussions would be the culmination of their words.

[tbw]

Very good observations, Strange and Joe. And not to burst a bubble here Joe, but I'd like to modify your post to read...

"
Another interesting caveat regarding Indian & white testimony is the motivation for their remarks which heavily influenced what was said They often exaggerated the intensity of their participation in the battle for social recognition;understandable in a society of warriors. Rarely, in my studies, did they out right lie! The one exception being of course to please their interviewer if they believe negative repercussions would be the culmination of their words.

"

I think its important to recognize that not just the Indians did this. And I think its also important to note that while we feel in our analysis of this, that - this man or that man may have lied or falsified and/or even exaggerated parts of their statements, its not for us to say that they didn't do what they said they did or observed. I think also, way to many winnow away to much wheat in this 'pick and choose' process, and end up throwing away bucket fulls of wheat that are vital if not important information in the process because of such accusations.

[Cutter]

I agree, seems to me a lot of politics and ass covering were equally employed on both sides.

[tbw]

Cutter,

And there is more problems with this singular fact than any other. Most try to look for the lies in searching for the truth. And this is where they fail and fail miserably. Because in doing so they eliminate, in total, what was the truth. This isn't history, never has been and never will be. Just because one thinks any one of those involved lied about something, and because of that his credibility is ruined en total, that's where they're wrong and if they do it just one time, ONE, it makes all their work false because of one, just one wrong conclusion based upon a credibility issue. No one said it better than John Gray, who realized that if he was wrong about any one thing, it would skew his entire timeline and the rest of it as well. The trouble is, it did, and will continue to do so for those who seek the answers looking for liars.

[joewiggs]

True! A singular fascination with discovering lies may blind you to the kernels of truth that lay just beneath the surface of any narrative. Like you, I prefer looking for "truth" while always being aware of the "motivation" behind the narrative. Too many people (particularly one individual on the other board) differentiate the difference between the stretching of truth or absolute lies against the unrelated and ethnocentric back drop of ethnicity. In other words, people of that "ilk" see more lies with the Native American versions of the battle as opposed to the "White Man's" version almost every time.

I am of the opinion that the complexity of several Indian accounts occur because of the internal tendency to report the battle from a singular, personal perspective as a whole. For example one Indian witness will claim that the troops never approached ford "B" while another witness will claim that a battle did occur. Both testimonies are then tossed out as a rule. In actuality both comments are true, one reporter seeing one incident and not the other and visa-versa for the other witness.

Also, I can recall no incident in which Sitting Bull was able to convince, threaten, no induce any warrior to make statements that were absolutely not true. Although there was one incident, the particulars of I can not recall, when a group of warriors did influence another warrior to accept responsibility for the killing of Custer due to absolute pressures from "whites" to do so.

When we read the travesty called the R.C.O.I., we see a sickening "whitewash" of some and the condemnation of others precipitated by unsubstantiated and negative comments issued by command staff regarding Custer's military decisions on that faithful day. In a military where success and failure was dependent upon the very whim of a commander, how much influence would these men have over the testimony of the soldiers? Absolute!

[tbw]

Joe,

If there was just one thing that Two Moons or for that matter any other participant said that could be of importance is rejected because of such bias and spin, how is any discovery to be found for the truth? The lies then are further perpetuated by such ignorance and was the basis for what isn't known today. To further perpetuate such ignorance is unthinkable, intolerable and just plain nuts.

Unfortunately the RCOI was less than what it was cracked up to be. All in all it was as you say, a whitewash, that was meant to pacify public opinion towards the military and enrage it against the Native Americans. They didn't set out to convict Reno of anything, nor for that matter answer any charges that could have led to his Court Martial or worse. There was so much that they needed to ask and follow up on to properly do that job, but they didn't, and they wasn't going to. F. Girard's testimony is enlightening on that very subject, for he was trying to establish what Custer's plans were for the upcoming battle against those Indians, when he was abrasively upbraided by the court for trying to do so. How in the world could they properly lay blame on Reno for disobeying any orders if they wouldn't establish what those orders, based upon Custer's plan were? And - they wasn't supposed to talk about it - just wasn't or shouldn't have been an option. Saying that Custer or Benteen or any other man wasn't on trial there, was stupid in the extreme, especially Custer, it was his orders, his plans, that needed to be established to find that out.

[whitebull]

I don't know how I missed this response but, let me say this;a gosh, darn, good job!