|
|
Post by tbw on Apr 9, 2012 7:24:58 GMT -5
This sub-board is for those who would like to discuss various authors and what views or opinions they shared in their work. Authors such as Pennington, Camp, Wagner (shameless plug  ), and many many others who are at times controversial in nature to the subject. You can post to it in the "Custer's Last Stand ~ Battle of the Little Big Horn" category of this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Apr 22, 2012 16:45:07 GMT -5
I like anything that Hardorff has written. Cheyenne memories tells us that some of Custer's men did reach the river. for the longest time that fact was argued because the Sioux said it never happened while the Cheyenne said it did. The mix up was solved when Hardorff figured out that that the Sioux were late in getting to the ford because of their meeting with Reno. The Cheyenne were already there!
His other books make for good reading although some of his findings are a little hard to swallow. Like for instance their only being 50 to 60 Indians killed in the whole battle.
I've never been disappointed with him and I am now reading - Camp, Custer and the Little big Horn. I'll let you all know how it turns out!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 27, 2012 16:28:50 GMT -5
To me Graham is the undisputed master of Custer lore and facts. Even though I totally disagree with his perspective regarding Reno's actions and his insistence that every member of the Reno Inquiry, for the most part, told the true.
However, his book the primary unit for any serious student of the battle!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Apr 27, 2012 20:29:55 GMT -5
My favorite is The Last Stand by Nathanial Philbrick. He brings out information that is not only interesting but is written in a plain, easy to understand style. His foot notes are superb and chock full of information. He doesn't seem to be biased against anyone but he does not hesitate to point out some not so honorable acts committed by some of the soldiers. A really good read.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Apr 28, 2012 7:38:08 GMT -5
I think one of the worst authors was Walter Camp. His prejudice and bias is all over his work, the ford "B" myth being just one, but one big assed one.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 28, 2012 10:22:50 GMT -5
Maybe that's why Elizabeth ignored his numerous letters to her and never replied to him?  |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on May 26, 2012 20:21:38 GMT -5
Is there any use in reading the book by Whittaker or is it useless to read. I've heard that he only glorified Custer while putting down everyone else. Has any anyone on the forum read it yet?
What did you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Oct 20, 2012 17:56:23 GMT -5
Whittaker wrote a huge book that idolized Custer and he used information that was already available. He put all the blame for the outcome of the battle on everyone back except Custer. He was very close with Elizabeth. In other words, the book has little historical value.
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 21, 2012 11:09:38 GMT -5
Whittaker wrote a huge book that idolized Custer and he used information that was already available. He put all the blame for the outcome of the battle on everyone back except Custer. He was very close with Elizabeth. In other words, the book has little historical value. I've read partway through Whittaker's book and I actually enjoyed it a lot. The chapter on Washita lets Custer speak for himself and Whittaker turns it over to Custer's firsthand accounts of the battle and everything leading up to it. This was my favorite part of the book and it helps me to remember Custer's account better. I don't particularly agree with Whittaker advocating legal action against Benteen and Reno. I think he's out of bounds on that. Mistakes will happen and the military does have to move on. If Benteen and Reno's superiors did not request a reprimand, then one was probably not needed. People have gotten on Whittaker for being very clearly partisan in Custer's defense, but I think he has every right to take that position. Strange |
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 21, 2012 11:11:39 GMT -5
Maybe that's why Elizabeth ignored his numerous letters to her and never replied to him? In her defense, Custer's letters were often a little too dirty to respond to. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Oct 21, 2012 17:14:53 GMT -5
Well put Dr. Strange. I have never had the opportunity to read Whittaker's book but i will now. You sir have peaked my interest!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Oct 21, 2012 17:31:43 GMT -5
Whittaker wrote a huge book that idolized Custer and he used information that was already available. He put all the blame for the outcome of the battle on everyone back except Custer. He was very close with Elizabeth. In other words, the book has little historical value. I've read partway through Whittaker's book and I actually enjoyed it a lot. The chapter on Washita lets Custer speak for himself and Whittaker turns it over to Custer's firsthand accounts of the battle and everything leading up to it. This was my favorite part of the book and it helps me to remember Custer's account better. I don't particularly agree with Whittaker advocating legal action against Benteen and Reno. I think he's out of bounds on that. Mistakes will happen and the military does have to move on. If Benteen and Reno's superiors did not request a reprimand, then one was probably not needed. People have gotten on Whittaker for being very clearly partisan in Custer's defense, but I think he has every right to take that position. Strange I have to disagree with you Strange about legal action. I don't believe Whittaker was out of bounds at all there. That was the only part of his whole involvement that made sense to me. His mistake was trying to spare Custer completely while criticizing everyone else. In every war men have committed some wrong then some slob is left to clean up the mess.. Bosses who have information held back from them probably won't ask for charges. if Whittaker had left out some of his loves for Custer maybe others would have taken him more seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 21, 2012 18:23:50 GMT -5
I've read partway through Whittaker's book and I actually enjoyed it a lot. The chapter on Washita lets Custer speak for himself and Whittaker turns it over to Custer's firsthand accounts of the battle and everything leading up to it. This was my favorite part of the book and it helps me to remember Custer's account better. I don't particularly agree with Whittaker advocating legal action against Benteen and Reno. I think he's out of bounds on that. Mistakes will happen and the military does have to move on. If Benteen and Reno's superiors did not request a reprimand, then one was probably not needed. People have gotten on Whittaker for being very clearly partisan in Custer's defense, but I think he has every right to take that position. Strange I have to disagree with you Strange about legal action. I don't believe Whittaker was out of bounds at all there. That was the only part of his whole involvement that made sense to me. His mistake was trying to spare Custer completely while criticizing everyone else. In every war men have committed some wrong then some slob is left to clean up the mess.. Bosses who have information held back from them probably won't ask for charges. if Whittaker had left out some of his loves for Custer maybe others would have taken him more seriously. Its not about being taken seriously by others, its about doing the right thing as you can best manage. Custer has one Court Martial in his career, served most of it (as far as I know) and went back to success again. Whittaker doesn't have to pretend to be impartial if he genuinely loves the guy. Rather than critiquing Whittaker for celebrating Custer, I'd rather ask... is he wrong about anything? Lets discuss that rather than tones or impartiality. If that throws a kink in the evolutionary preferences of the modern era, then so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Oct 21, 2012 19:14:37 GMT -5
"Doing the right thing as you can best manage." What a wonderful statement. Try to be the best person that you may be even if you don't quite reach the mark, you tried! I understand agree with you all the way home!  |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Oct 27, 2012 20:19:56 GMT -5
All I'm trying to say is that Whittaker may have loss a lot of credibility with the neutral party by being such a Custerphile!
|
|
), and many many others who are at times controversial in nature to the subject.
