|
|
Post by strange on Oct 27, 2012 23:44:35 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! In politics, a "neutral" person will typically vote for a third party. Both sides will try to attract them, but they won't budge from the middle. Strange |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Oct 28, 2012 16:19:14 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! In politics, a "neutral" person will typically vote for a third party. Both sides will try to attract them, but they won't budge from the middle. Strange How very true Dr. Strange. One must take a position, any position, and stick to it to be respected! |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Oct 28, 2012 19:41:09 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! In politics, a "neutral" person will typically vote for a third party. Both sides will try to attract them, but they won't budge from the middle. Strange Mr. Strange, you are a jewel of wisdom in one so young! |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 4, 2012 20:07:37 GMT -5
He's a fantastic artist as well as can be seen on this very forum. If any member has not had the opportunity to see the work's of Dr. Strange please do so on this forum and you will thankful for sure!  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 4, 2012 21:45:58 GMT -5
None better. Had a guy in here earlier who did some pretty good stuff, difference seems to me was he didn't engage in conversation. Strange has some good opinions about what he thinks happened, and though I don't always agree with him, which is ok by me, as we should have good food for thought on this and other subjects, I think his dedication to what he believes is as good as any other, and I for one am eternally grateful for his valued participation in this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 27, 2012 20:40:12 GMT -5
Liddic's Vanishing Victory:Custer's Final March, is a well written and even keeled tome that I have found to be of great interest and a joy to read. Liddic's most complimentary quality is that he, unlike some others, gives the reader the information and allows him or her to make their own decisions based upon the evidenced gleaned.
I found a particularly interesting note (page 135) regarding tan incident involving Lt. Edgerly and the unfortunate Vincent Charley who died upon Weir's Point. One of the last men to see Vincent alive was Lt. Edgerly.
After being wounded, Charley attempted to crawl on his feet and one hand to keep up with his retreating comrades when Lt. Edgerly, Sgt. Harrison, and trooper Wylie rode up. Charly cried out for help and that he was wounded. Edgerly did stop but did not dismount telling Charly to "get into the ravine near him and he would try to come back and save him as soon as they could get reinforcements."
Sadly, Charlie was later found dead. Edgerly, throughout his life always claimed, and even so under oath at the Reno Inquiry, that he had asked Captain weir for reinforcements to go back to rescue the farrier. Weir denied that request!
In written correspondence to Camp some years later, Sgt. Harrison commented that he and Edgerly actually saw Charly being dispersed by warriors as they fled away.
Did Harrison tell a terrible lie?
According to Liddic, Harrison claimed that every one knew that Charlies was dead soon after they left him;
He had no reason, no motive to do so as he was not in charge;
The Army would not and did not attempt to implicate him in any manner;
Harrison was Honorably discharged in 1876 and probably never knew that anyone, let alone Edgerly, made a claim that Charly was not dead when Weir,allegedly, refused to allow Edgerly to return!
Edgerly did have a motive to shade the truth, no one else did!
I did not see this article as an attempt to accuse Edgerly of cowardice, he certainly was not! However, men with a past that had best stay in the past may be tempted to shade the truth a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Dec 28, 2012 19:45:26 GMT -5
Liddic's Vanishing Victory:Custer's Final March, is a well written and even keeled tome that I have found to be of great interest and a joy to read. Liddic's most complimentary quality is that he, unlike some others, gives the reader the information and allows him or her to make their own decisions based upon the evidenced gleaned. I found a particularly interesting note (page 135) regarding tan incident involving Lt. Edgerly and the unfortunate Vincent Charley who died upon Weir's Point. One of the last men to see Vincent alive was Lt. Edgerly. After being wounded, Charley attempted to crawl on his feet and one hand to keep up with his retreating comrades when Lt. Edgerly, Sgt. Harrison, and trooper Wylie rode up. Charly cried out for help and that he was wounded. Edgerly did stop but did not dismount telling Charly to "get into the ravine near him and he would try to come back and save him as soon as they could get reinforcements." Sadly, Charlie was later found dead. Edgerly, throughout his life always claimed, and even so under oath at the Reno Inquiry, that he had asked Captain weir for reinforcements to go back to rescue the farrier. Weir denied that request! In written correspondence to Camp some years later, Sgt. Harrison commented that he and Edgerly actually saw Charly being dispersed by warriors as they fled away. Did Harrison tell a terrible lie? According to Liddic, Harrison claimed that every one knew that Charlies was dead soon after they left him; He had no reason, no motive to do so as he was not in charge; The Army would not and did not attempt to implicate him in any manner; Harrison was Honorably discharged in 1876 and probably never knew that anyone, let alone Edgerly, made a claim that Charly was not dead when Weir,allegedly, refused to allow Edgerly to return! Edgerly did have a motive to shade the truth, no one else did! I did not see this article as an attempt to accuse Edgerly of cowardice, he certainly was not! However, men with a past that had best stay in the past may be tempted to shade the truth a bit. Here's a interesting follow up to your Edgerly story. Though Edgerly claimed that Weir later told him he never asked Reno for permission, several trooper accounts make it clear that he did. (A terrible Glory P.458) Lt. Gibson: "Colonel Weir did ask Reno, not Benteen, for permission to go foward and was refused." In the yelling between the two soldiers everyone in the area must have heard the arguement! |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 27, 2013 16:57:58 GMT -5
Just one of many examples of officer's who did not perform well in the battle. it is not up to us to judge why they performed poorly. Heaven knows that the stress these men were under was tremendous at the least. What we must do, in order to understand the "why" of what happened during the battle is to discuss these issues, no matter how distasteful, and in so doing so better understand the complex issues that were integral factors that created Reno's "charge" to the hills and his going into a skirmish prematurely. This, in turn, will bring clarification regarding to other critical aspects of this battle that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jan 27, 2013 17:11:22 GMT -5
I SEE YOUR POINT. I guess the problem comes in when others see you message as trying to "pick" on a soldier who didn't do well in the battle. I guess it's human nature to defend someone who can't defend himself.
Like you said though, we have to know why a person said or did what they did in order to find out why it was done. While we can't know everything that happened, the more that we do the better we can figure out what really happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jan 27, 2013 18:44:27 GMT -5
Isn't it possible that Whittaker was just a man who admired another man and wrote of him. If he was honest and wrote what he felt to be true (and I believe he was)than he would not have cared about a "neutral" group. Whittaker believed that Custer had been unjustly charged with his loosing the battle by being irresponsible.
I don't believe that he wrote to appease anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jul 5, 2013 20:26:40 GMT -5
To be honest with you SB, ! believe that the author was appeasing his own, personal beliefs as he truly felt that Custer had been abandoned by Benteen and Reno. I also believe that his "position" was based upon "word of mouth" statements from the officer class (involved in the battle)that eventually filtered back to him after the battle. These same officers chose a different stance (I know nothing, I see nothing) when superiors made it known that they would become very unhappy if certain embarrasing information became known!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 28, 2013 20:42:16 GMT -5
I am currently reading RED SABBATH by Robert J. Kershaw. I am thoroughly enjoying it as it covers the Fetterman fight, the Rosebud, and the Wagon Box fight in very informative and competent manner. The author also points out the mental stress Custer and his men had to deal with during their tiring march to the Big horn.
I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Dec 27, 2013 20:54:58 GMT -5
I just got a hold of "Indian Views of the Custer Fight" Richard C. Hardorff!
I'm telling you that Indian testimony screened the right way is a must if you want to understand what really happened in this battle. This book is opening my eyes each and every day!
You gotta pick it up!
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 24, 2014 13:34:09 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! I think that Whittaker's work would be more appreciated then and now were in not for the Reno Inquiry. During the inquiry, Custer's short comings were blown completely out of proportion while Reno's ineffectiveness as a command officer was transformed into a "what else could he do" format. It was very important to the U.S military that no one understand the full disclosure of incompetence on behalf of several of the officers. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jan 25, 2014 16:47:19 GMT -5
Didn't something familiar happen in the Viet Nam War. Ming -Li or Mai-Li or something like that?
|
|
