Peter Thompson: Testimony

[whitebull]

Until recently, I have never taken the time to read about Thompson and his adventure on the Little Big Horn. I have heard others speak about him but, always believed that his yarns was just a little bit more than I could handle.

I just brought "The Last Stand" by Philbrick and I'll be gosh darn if he ain't given me a whole lot to re-think on. I found out he was awarded the Medal of Honor for getting water for himself and the wounded on Reno's Hill. This man(and the others) must have been loaded down with guts to pull this trick off.

Walter Camp wrote that if, "just a few crucial incidents in Thompson's account were adjusted or deleted, the story would make perfect sense but I hardly think he wrote the historian would have the moral right to do that."

If nothing else, his story makes a great read and I recommend it.

[Cutter]

I agree. Thompson's narrative is one of my favorites. His is kind of the "behind the scenes" story of the battle. How he see's GAC looking for a proper ford along the river, alone, speaks volumes as to what happened that day.

[joewiggs]

I agree as well Cutter! Some may ask why Thompson did not make his amazing escapade public at the time of the escape.
Here is a possible explanation:

"The company filled up with new men in the fall who would not understand discussions, and the old men never said much about questions of this kind."

This approach is very reasonable when you factor in the immense wave of "Americanism" that arose from this battle and the unfathomable amount of ire for those who may have been suspected of desertion! Also, the reality that some men (Brennen and Fitzgerald) who were open to their comrades of desertion would have prompted me to keep my mouth so as to prevent guilt by association.

[franco777]

I find Peter Thompson's story very interesting also. Parts of it are really kind of hard for me to believe though. Here's a rather lengthy direct quote form his story about seeing Custer at the village:
-----------------------------------
"We had not gone far before we saw a sight that puzzled us very much. Coming out of the river was one of our Crow scouts, mounted on his horse with the end of a rawhide rope over his shoulder, which he held firmly in his right hand. At the other end of the rope, straining and tugging to get away, was a Sioux squaw. The rope was tied around both her hands, but struggle as she might, she could not break away.
While looking on and wondering where the Crow was going we were further astonished by seeing General Custer dash out of the fording place and ride rapidly up to the Crow and commence to talk to him. Custer was well versed in several Indian languages. The conversation with Indian did not last long, and what the nature of it was I do not know, but the Crow released the Sioux woman and she seeming glad to be free came running towards us in a half stooping posture and in her hand was a long bladed knife of ugly dimensions. So fierce did she look that my hand involuntarily sought the handle of my revolver. She must have noticed the movement for she made a short circle around us, ran over the bank, crossed the river, and disappeared in the village.
The Crow then left Custer and rode in a jog trot towards the river and disappeared. Custer was mounted on his sorrel horse and being a very hot day he was in his shirt sleeves; his buckskin pants were tucked into his boots; his buckskin shirt fastened to the rear of his saddle; and a broad brimmed, cream colored hat on his head, the brim of which was turned up on the right side and fastened by a small hook and eye to its crown. This gave him opportunity to sight his rifle while riding. His rifle lay horizontally in front of him; when riding he leaned slightly forward. This was the appearance of Custer on the day that he entered his last battle, and just one-half before the fight commenced between him and the Sioux. When the Crow scout left him, he wheeled around and made for the same point in the river where we had first seen him. When he was passing us he slightly checked his horse and waved his right hand twice for us to follow him. He pointed down the stream, put spurs to his horse and disappeared at the ford, never uttering a word.
That was the last I ever saw of General Custer alive. He must have gone thence directly to his command. We wondered why none of his staff were with him. In all probability he had outrun them. His being all alone shows with what fearlessness he traveled about even in an enemies’ country with hostiles all around him. We reached the fording place as soon as possible, but all signs of Custer were gone. Whether he had gone through the village or waded down the stream to reach his command is a question that cannot be answered; but as we had seen no signs of him crossing to the opposite side we naturally thought that he had made his way down the stream."
----------------------------------
End of Quote from Peter Thompson
------------------------------------
Now I'm thinking, Custer was by himself down at the village and freeing an indian captive girl from one of his Crow scouts? That seems hard to believe, but how would Thompson even think to make something like that up?
Anyway, I have his complete story from the newspaper articles it wa published in back in March of 1914. It is rather fascinating reading. If anyone needs a copy... let me know.
Gotta go... Franco
([e-mail])

[tbw]

May 25, 2011 6:49:45 GMT -5 franco777 said:

I find Peter Thompson's story very interesting also. Parts of it are really kind of hard for me to believe though. Here's a rather lengthy direct quote form his story about seeing Custer at the village:
-----------------------------------
"We had not gone far before we saw a sight that puzzled us very much. Coming out of the river was one of our Crow scouts, mounted on his horse with the end of a rawhide rope over his shoulder, which he held firmly in his right hand. At the other end of the rope, straining and tugging to get away, was a Sioux squaw. The rope was tied around both her hands, but struggle as she might, she could not break away.
While looking on and wondering where the Crow was going we were further astonished by seeing General Custer dash out of the fording place and ride rapidly up to the Crow and commence to talk to him. Custer was well versed in several Indian languages. The conversation with Indian did not last long, and what the nature of it was I do not know, but the Crow released the Sioux woman and she seeming glad to be free came running towards us in a half stooping posture and in her hand was a long bladed knife of ugly dimensions. So fierce did she look that my hand involuntarily sought the handle of my revolver. She must have noticed the movement for she made a short circle around us, ran over the bank, crossed the river, and disappeared in the village.
The Crow then left Custer and rode in a jog trot towards the river and disappeared. Custer was mounted on his sorrel horse and being a very hot day he was in his shirt sleeves; his buckskin pants were tucked into his boots; his buckskin shirt fastened to the rear of his saddle; and a broad brimmed, cream colored hat on his head, the brim of which was turned up on the right side and fastened by a small hook and eye to its crown. This gave him opportunity to sight his rifle while riding. His rifle lay horizontally in front of him; when riding he leaned slightly forward. This was the appearance of Custer on the day that he entered his last battle, and just one-half before the fight commenced between him and the Sioux. When the Crow scout left him, he wheeled around and made for the same point in the river where we had first seen him. When he was passing us he slightly checked his horse and waved his right hand twice for us to follow him. He pointed down the stream, put spurs to his horse and disappeared at the ford, never uttering a word.
That was the last I ever saw of General Custer alive. He must have gone thence directly to his command. We wondered why none of his staff were with him. In all probability he had outrun them. His being all alone shows with what fearlessness he traveled about even in an enemies’ country with hostiles all around him. We reached the fording place as soon as possible, but all signs of Custer were gone. Whether he had gone through the village or waded down the stream to reach his command is a question that cannot be answered; but as we had seen no signs of him crossing to the opposite side we naturally thought that he had made his way down the stream."
----------------------------------
End of Quote from Peter Thompson
------------------------------------
Now I'm thinking, Custer was by himself down at the village and freeing an indian captive girl from one of his Crow scouts? That seems hard to believe, but how would Thompson even think to make something like that up?
Anyway, I have his complete story from the newspaper articles it wa published in back in March of 1914. It is rather fascinating reading. If anyone needs a copy... let me know.
Gotta go... Franco
([e-mail])

Now I'm thinking, Custer was by himself down at the village and freeing an indian captive girl from one of his Crow scouts? That seems hard to believe, but how would Thompson even think to make something like that up?
Anyway, I have his complete story from the newspaper articles it wa published in back in March of 1914. It is rather fascinating reading. If anyone needs a copy... let me know.
Gotta go... Franco

Thompson has been maligned over the years because of his quote "lies". And maybe in parts of his story that has been proven to be true, I don't really know, and I think no one does for sure. That being said, I'm not sure it was a Crow or a Ree that he saw. He did say Crow, but It might have been more likely one of the Ree's than one of the few Crows that were accompanying as guides.

The Ree (pony captors) had during their little excursion to capture the horses chased a few of those Sioux women, and that is documented in the Arikara Narratives. So I believe it was a Ree and not one of the Crows, that is, if there was any truth to this. And that might be a better place to start the investigation of this incident than anyplace else.

There is evidence to support the fact that it might have been a Crow, usually the Crow Indians took their adversaries women and children as slaves or as their own as their tribe was smaller than the Sioux. The Ree's on the other hand usually killed their captors, so it does seem strange if it was a Ree that they wouldn't have dispatched the woman rather than present her to Custer. However it may have been understood that if any women or children were captured by the allied Indians that they were to bring them to him first before they did anything else with them. Not sure here, but that might have been the case.

[joewiggs]

Outstanding reply! Thompson's main personality quirk was his abrupt and overwhelming "lost of cool" toward anyone who even slightly questioned his integrity. He was a proud and respected citizen and neighbor. However, when inquirers displayed even the faintest of doubt to his statements, he would walk off in a huff never again to be placated.

Memory is not an exact re-telling of an event but a compilation of witnessed events altered by physiological and psychological accentuations that tend to slightly alter the final mix.

As a result a witness's acknowledgment of names, descriptions, and times may be slightly off kilter when reiterating the transpired events. This does not make the narrator a liar. Personally I believe in Thompson.

The remarkable thing about this forum is that I can make that statement without qualms of being ridiculed for doing so as often happens on other forums.

[tbw]

May 27, 2011 20:35:08 GMT -5 joewiggs said:

Outstanding reply! Thompson's main personality quirk was his abrupt and overwhelming "lost of cool" toward anyone who even slightly questioned his integrity. He was a proud and respected citizen and neighbor. However, when inquirers displayed even the faintest of doubt to his statements, he would walk off in a huff never again to be placated.

Memory is not an exact re-telling of an event but a compilation of witnessed events altered by physiological and psychological accentuations that tend to slightly alter the final mix.

As a result a witness's acknowledgment of names, descriptions, and times may be slightly off kilter when reiterating the transpired events. This does not make the narrator a liar. Personally I believe in Thompson.

The remarkable thing about this forum is that I can make that statement without qualms of being ridiculed for doing so as often happens on other forums.

You're correct Joe. Way to many people try to filter out things like this in an attempt to create a set of data derived solely from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of any logic. Logic, in essence means nothing to them. So when someone tries a more logical approach as a solution, it is shot out of the water, quote because their senses of experienced observation tells them differently. And that experienced observation to them trumps logic each and every time. What they miss out on in this process of elimination is a great deal of the truth, because it places to much trust in a bias filter that simply cant see it.

What comes from their attempts at the total refutation of logic is insane arguments and thoughts that aren't sensibly rational and are based upon ego driven biases of emotion when challenged. They turn this around upon anyone using both experience from their own sensory perceptions and logic to say that we are the one's emotionally biased and irrational when in reality it is they who are emotionally challenged to stifle any logic based conclusions. What people who use logic do is find relationships and patterns to the events in experienced observation of all the facts, and then derive from that the relationship between specific events or situations the inevitable consequences of their interaction. To those who don't use logic at all, that is an insane way of going about it and in some if not most cases they tend to encourage it to the point of insane laughter at their whim and through emotional bombardment to prove their point. Its somewhat like a modern day computer set up to filter out any data that makes even the remotest sense. In other words if it is sensible and based on facts layed out with clear rational thought and sensible reasoning they go into overdrive to make sure the switch in their brains routes it to where they can totally refute any such notion. It's that hard-wired circuitry in their brains that says oops time to laugh, spin and have fun with this guy. Sadly what comes from their vain attempts isn't history nor will it ever produce the truth about whatever happened at the LBH and never-ever will.

Here we are open to people who use both logical reasoning and experienced based observation of ALL the facts. We're not here to laugh at anyone or make fun of them or their posts especially if they can provide sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by biased emotion or biased whim.

Sure I'm sure a lot of people are biased. There isn't anything wrong with that as long as the discussion at hand doesn't try to exclude both Logic and experienced based observation of ALL the facts, we do just fine here and won't ever devolve into the insanity that pervades other boards.

[stumblingbear]

That is exactly why that with my limited knowledge I still feel comfortable posting here! ;D

[tbw]

Thanks SB, I do try, I'm not always successful at it, but I must keep reminding myself of the incredible hypocrisy of those other forums.

I think to try and understand their motivation, one must first and foremost understand the fact that they are heretics against finding historical truth. They tolerate no criticism whatsoever against their theories which they view as fact. They follow the example of their singular hero, who from day one has been there to inspire their rhetorical genius in spewing by mouth insane words of protection over anything or anyone who agrees with them and ridiculing with absolute disdain and distasteful joy those who don't. It isn't any coincidence that those who rant & rave about their wonderful insights and other such insanity are all raving lunatics pandering to their unseen man god in absolute ignorance of the fact. The only praise they ungraciously dish out to other posters are those who show unwavering support and admiration for their theories about the LBH. Should any of their followers ever stray from their forum's party-time format, they will feel the unscathing ridicule with unabated fun, merriment and scorn faster than they can hit the delete button. Their sole purpose in remaining on their stilted forums is to continue their singular re-enacting role of defending their petty and insane theories against all odds and opposition. The truth to them comes in a dead heat last to defending their theories which they consider fact. In their small world, their "models" are synonymous with fact and is to them undistinguishable from fact.

A model as i've pointed out before is a copy of something and is used as a basis for a related idea, system or process where their interpretation of that model is arrived at by assigning values in such a way as to make the model true. It has nothing to do with finding values which aren't true and ignores them completely. In essence they "shape something", as a child does in fun, to make it true, as in a copy, but what they don't realize is that it has nothing to do with a scale replica or a theory.

A scale replica is a faithful and accurate replica of somthing, it is scrupuolous in every detail and is something of greater value than a mere model is. It is to all intents and purposes a "true" representation of something. It isn't something that is used as a basis for a processes, systems or a related idea; and there is no interpretation of the scale replica with finding any values which aren't true. Sound like something they are trying to achieve and feel they already have?

Now to a theory. A theory is an idea formed by speculation, an idea of or "belief" about something that is arrived at by speculation and/or conjecture. And usually comprises a set of circumstances or principles that are completely hypothetical. And can be principles, propositions or a set of facts that are analyzed in relation to each other when all the facts aren't known.

Now which does anyone suppose they are really talking about, model, scale replica or theory? If they say anything but theory.... RUN don't walk.

[joewiggs]

While some may doubt Thompson's story about his involvement and actions at the battle, I don't think anyone can doubt his courage!:

"Peter Thompson was wounded in the right hand while obtaining water for the wounded. Despite his painful wound and the objections of one of the troop's sergeants, Thompson made two more successful trips for the same purpose, for which unselfish acts he was justly awarded the Medal of Honor."On the Little Big Horn with Walter Camp (Hardorff)