|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 12, 2012 16:00:22 GMT -5
Although the Inquiry was not an actual trial, the witnesses were, nevertheless, obligated to "swear" under oath to tell the truth regardless of any circumstances!
When is it easy to tell the truth and when is it not so easy? When the information sought is beneficial to the witness said witness will, in all probability tell the truth;at least as they perceive truth. The data received may not necessarily be factual as individualistic perspectives are severely influenced by individual perspectives forged by life experiences. However, you should still be in the ball park with the information received.
When the information sought is detrimental to the witness in any shape or form, odds are, said witness will respond with a chorus of data designed with one essential and poignant purpose, to camouflage personal participation and/or knowledge of the event from any hint of involvement with unworthy actions. Many of the officers under Reno's command did not perform their military responsibilities in a manner that would garner respect and undulation from their military brethren.
Thus, any information that could be used to confirm personal incidents wherein officers did not perform well would be veiled with mental forgetfulness, a tendency to blame others, and a magnification of the enemy forces to such an extent that their peers would instantly understand that their situation (lost of battle) could not have been avoid no matter what the circumstances.
I will be giving examples of candidates I feel who belong in the category of "anything but the truth" to avoid the social and personal chastisement that would have destroyed their lives both present and future.
I will start with Edgerly. A respected officer who rose to the rank of General. In a letter he wrote to his wife, sometime after the battle. He wrote of the lingering and rueful regret he experienced at being denied an opportunity to go back and save the farrier who was felled at weir's Point. Capt. Weir refused to allow the desperate Lt. to go back and save Vincent Charlies from a cruel and horrible death.
Years later, the sergeant who was at Edgerly's side on that momentous occasion engaged in a series of letter's with W. Camp. In one letter he described how he and Edgerly advised poor Vincent to crawl into a ravine until they could return and save him.
Shot through the hips, the poor wretch vainly crawled away to hopeful sanctuary. As the two men rode furiously away they both looked back and according to Sgt.Harris, "saw the Indians finishing off poor charlie."
Why did Edgerly beg his superior officer for the opportunity to go back into danger and save a dead man? Food for thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Apr 13, 2012 21:01:18 GMT -5
Joe,
"Why did Edgerly beg his superior officer for the opportunity to go back into danger and save a dead man?"
I hate to answer a question with a question but - what timing would produce the answer you require? Where was Capt. Weir when they asked him that question?.... How near/far Charlie were they when they asked him that question? If they were relatively close to Charlie when they asked Weir that question, and before they saw the Indians dispatch Charlie, then the question seems moot and Weir need answer why instead. Not trying to rain on your parade here, in fact just the opposite because your notion is just as valid, if not more so than my own. Just trying to put things into a perspective that might have happened since time, distance and spatial distortion make this thing more and more of a Twilight Zone experience for most of us who are less prepared to think of such nonsense than reality provides.
Let me be just a little more clear here as to my intent. There are unknowns here as there are with just about any aspect of this battle. Those unknowns involve time, distance and to a great degree timing aspects that can never be known with any degree of accuracy or for that matter certainty. And that's why I said your ideas here are just as valid, if not more than my own here, hence the Twilight Zone experience.
To a great degree many have tried time/motion studies to map out what happened and all have failed and will continue to fail. It just can't be done. And this one example, I think, illustrates to perfection why it can't be done. There are to many tolerances, to many variables to consider like this to take into consideration to make any time motion study valid. And with this, those who do this have to throw out way to much evidence in an attempt to prove their pattern valid. Can the testimony and statements as presented be made to conform to some test? And just what test should that be? And who should decide? For my 2 cents, yours is as good as the next, as is any one elses. Please continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Apr 14, 2012 10:40:12 GMT -5
Within a short time of the arrival of Weir and company to the land mark that was subsequently named after him, Weir reportedly observed men displaying guidons and riding back and forth off in the distance. Assuming that these men were member's of Custer's command, Weir acclaimed (paraphrased) ", there goes Custer now!"
It turned out that what he actually saw were warriors with captured guidons tromping among the Custer dead.
Shortly after that moment, the warriors observed the soldiers upon the Point and hurried towards them. Edgerly, who had taken a slightly different route than Weir, was somewhat of a distance in front of Weir but, could not see the Indian advance due to his elevation rather, the lack thereof.
Weir than signaled Edgerly to turn about and come to his position. The Indian advance,however, was rapid, and Weir took off to avoid being trapped. Edgerly soon found himself immersed in a hail of bullets, one of which struck Charlie. Charlie fell from his horse as a result of his injury. As Charlie's original position was at the end of the column, a substantial portion of Weir's retreating command must have passed him yet, failed to render aid.
The same holds true for Edgerly. The difference being that Edgerly and Harris stopped long enough to speak to Charlie and advised him to hide in a slight ravine. Even as they spoke these words, bullets filled the air with hot fire.
Both men quickly took off but, both men also hurriedly glanced back and saw the warriors counting "coup" on poor Charlie.
I am not condemning Edgerly for his flight. To dismount with the warriors so close undoubtedly would have resulted in his demise as well. I do not judge him and, hope to heaven that neither I nor anyone else find themselves in such a dire predicament.
However, as the troops rushed back to near their original position on the bluffs, Edgerly immediately requested to go back and rescue the fallen trooper. Weir declined as orders forbade such an action and, probably, he knew that it was to late for Charlie anyway. We have no way of knowing this of course.
Edgerly, in later correspondence to his wife, bemoaned the fact that Weir prevented him from saving charlie. Even Walter Camp declared Weir's actions as deplorable. Edgerly knew the farrier was dead when he requested permission to go back. Why then the request?
Harris, who was not requested to testify at the inquiry included this incident in a series of correspondence with Mr. Camp long after the battle and did so with no intent to besmirch Edgerly whatsoever.
In fact this incident would never have come to light if Walter Camp had not done such a thorough job at investigating and reporting the remarks and memories of every battle participant he could get his hands on.
Is it possible that the knowledge of the event haunted Edgerly for the remainder of his life and that a forced belief that the alleged preventive rescue of Charlie was a mental salve that eased the horrible pain of a terrible and harsh reality?
How many other officers and men tempered their testimony with the prevailing theory that there were so many Indians to fight in the first place and Custer should have known better than to put them in such a situation as an "out" for their own personal disappointments in their individual military performances?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 12, 2012 18:19:28 GMT -5
I take no stock in the Reno Inquiry at all. There are many reasons for my position which I will endeavor to numerate on this file. I'm sincerely not claiming that my position is the be all and end all regarding this topic. I do,however, feel that my position is reasonable and possible.
It is a know psychological quirk that people who are not exactly proud of their behavior in a given situation, particularly one that will be subjected to scrutinizing by others, will lean toward justifying said actions by creating memory not recalling it.
The men in Reno's command became completely demoralized and succumbed to severe mental debilitation created by the total absence of leadership in a critical situation wherein leadership became critical.
As a result, Reno's "charge" became a rout where virtually every man was for himself! Later, these men could not live with the disgrace they garnered upon their shoulders. The only way to relive this miserable state of being was to:
Defend Reno's actions;
Increase the amount of warriors involved;
Support the theory that no one knew what Custer planned;
and
Insist that no one had a clue to the status of Custer.
The following are examples of my meaning:
Benteen:
"It was the belief of the officers on the hill during the night of the 25th. that General Custer had gone to Terry and that we were abandoned to our faith."
Wallace:
"after we occupied the hill there was no uneasiness or solicitude about Custer, but there a great deal of swearing about general Custer running off and leaving us."
Is it not strange that Benteen spent his entire life espousing Custer as a glory seeking buffoon who foolishly died so that he "could get a bigger piece of the pie!?" Suddenly, if we are to believe Benteen, this vain, greedy, crazy man "abandoned" his own troops leaving them to perish;odd isn't it? Or could it be an attempt to cover up a failure to follow orders in neglecting to send a courier to his commander as requested?
Also, failing to respond to a written order from his commander, and three years of accusations and public assertions that he "abandoned" his commander himself?
Wallace, a brave and competent officer, did not wish to wait ten to fifteen years to make captain so he did what Sherman hinted at, enough of this mess, clean it up! Wallace made captain shortly after and subsequently died for his efforts.
I will be presenting my "one sided theories" on this site so please be patient, respond if you will, and let's see what we can come up with!
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 25, 2012 18:50:50 GMT -5
This is the million dollar question that puzzles me beyond despair and I will be forever indebted to the member who can produce some rationale as to why the question was asked and why this particular question was answered as it was: Q. How many cartridges did a cavalryman have for his revolver? A. They usually have their revolvers loaded and enough to load them twice more, 12 additional rounds. Q. Did they have that number of rounds that day? A. I don't know that they had. Q. After a cavalryman expends the cartridges from his revolver, his revolver is useless? A. Yes, Sir. Now this performance (dog and pony show) between Wallace and Gilbert did not occur before the local Cub Scout troop, Post #123 but before a distinguished board of senior officers of the Army. The unbelievable inference that a pistol is no longer valuable after firing six rounds predisposes the incredible perspective that it becomes, somehow, broken and unable to further function by reloading!  Ask yourself, why was the question asked in the first place? Was It proposed to prepare an exoneration for Reno who had done exactly that;thrown his empty gun away! A line of questioning of this nature could not have occurred without stirring instantaneous response from the board (and every officer there) unless the board was prepared to do what was necessary to preserve the honor of the military against public reticule. The pages of the inquiry abound with ludicrous and absurd innuendo that is glossed over by the biggest can of whitewash heretofore known to man. This does not mean that the information garnered here has no value, its value is beyond measurement. All I ask is that we separated the wheat from the shaft. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jun 2, 2012 19:09:37 GMT -5
My guess is that a lot of things may have happened during the stress of battle that some of the soldiers were not proud of. Later, when everyone questioned what they did or did not do it was only human to skin over some facts that were harmful.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 3, 2012 16:36:12 GMT -5
This is the million dollar question that puzzles me beyond despair and I will be forever indebted to the member who can produce some rationale as to why the question was asked and why this particular question was answered as it was: Q. How many cartridges did a cavalryman have for his revolver? A. They usually have their revolvers loaded and enough to load them twice more, 12 additional rounds. Q. Did they have that number of rounds that day? A. I don't know that they had. Q. After a cavalryman expends the cartridges from his revolver, his revolver is useless? A. Yes, Sir. Now this performance (dog and pony show) between Wallace and Gilbert did not occur before the local Cub Scout troop, Post #123 but before a distinguished board of senior officers of the Army. The unbelievable inference that a pistol is no longer valuable after firing six rounds predisposes the incredible perspective that it becomes, somehow, broken and unable to further function by reloading! Ask yourself, why was the question asked in the first place? Was It proposed to prepare an exoneration for Reno who had done exactly that;thrown his empty gun away! A line of questioning of this nature could not have occurred without stirring instantaneous response from the board (and every officer there) unless the board was prepared to do what was necessary to preserve the honor of the military against public reticule. The pages of the inquiry abound with ludicrous and absurd innuendo that is glossed over by the biggest can of whitewash heretofore known to man. This does not mean that the information garnered here has no value, its value is beyond measurement. All I ask is that we separated the wheat from the shaft. I checked my copy of the R.C.O.I. and found that passage. I'd never read that before. Wallace must have know that only a soldier who has fallen apart would throw his gun away. A revolver is never useless as long as you have rounds to put in it! If Wallace made one fib did he make others? Next question is why? what was he trying to cover up? Dag nab it, I'm sure something is definitely up! |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jun 3, 2012 18:05:16 GMT -5
it sure makes you wonder. Here's something I noticed in graham's Condense version of the R.C.O.I. in a review written by Brian Pohanka.
"One disturbing revelation that emerged in testimony was Reno's foray back down the bluffs to ascertain the faith of his good friend, lieutenant Hodgson. That officer had in fact been killed, and while the major managed to recover a ring, watch clapse, and set of keys from the body, it hardily justified his absence from the decimated command at a time when there were decisions to be made, wounded to be secured, and the sound of Custer's battle could be heard in the distance."
My question is did not Reno realize that the very fact he was able to go down to the Lieutenant's body and not be attacked by thousands of Indians who had suddenly vanished as a little odd?
Also, could he have been charged for going down to the river and leaving his men?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 7, 2012 12:34:28 GMT -5
In the real world, Reno could have been charged and would have been charged for dereliction of duty (at least) if not desertion in the face of the enemy for his actions.
This punishment did not occur for the same reason it was ignored at the hearing, an embarrassment to the Army and an unwillingness to probe to deeply into the circumstances of its occurrence.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 7, 2012 17:49:20 GMT -5
In the real world, Reno could have been charged and would have been charged for dereliction of duty (at least) if not desertion in the face of the enemy for his actions. This punishment did not occur for the same reason it was ignored at the hearing, an embarrassment to the Army and an unwillingness to probe to deeply into the circumstances of its occurrence. This is of course possible, I wouldn't say it was unlikely in lieu of what happened at that court. Unfortunately the court wasn't set up as a punishment court, but was a research effort of inquiry that might have led to a court martial court that could have done something like that. And I think it would have depended upon what the charges were and how those charges were addressed as to whether or not they passed it on to have made ONLY those charges viable as a reason to court martial him. For us it comes down to what Jessie Lee said and what Reno's lawyer said in their conclusion statements. The court found in Reno's lawyers favor, we have to ask why, of which none of this has ever been taken up as a serious study, but it needs to be done, word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph to see why what he said was believed over what Jessie Lee said. Those closing statements were a summary of what took place during the inquiry, and the one who better summarized their points, either in favor of testimony or not brought that court to its conclusion. They had to justify their findings, and those were summarized as well and have not been fully dissected to understand why they did what they did. But, it needs to be done with as much an impartial an eye as can be had to determine the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 10, 2012 19:07:17 GMT -5
I desperately need help! Please help me to understand the following:
Q: Did Major Reno lose any time in moving from the hill top in the direction in which general Custer was found after the pack train came in?
No Sir, I don't think he did. The ammunition had to be distributed after the train came up and it is my impression now that he moved on as soon as it could practically be done.Almost two hours after climbing the hill, over 45 minutes after two of the the ammunition mules arrived, and 30 minutes after the entire pack train arrived, Reno had not given the order to move out. In fact, Weir went out on his own against Reno's wishes. Yet Wallace had the "impression" that everything was okie dokie??  ! Please give me a break!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 22, 2012 19:18:20 GMT -5
Maj. Reno (during the R.C.O.I) testified that he specifically gave the order to Capt. Weir requesting him to seek out Custer's whereabouts and status. He uttered this statement (under oath) at the R.C.O.I.
If we were to find that his statement was false, this discovery would lend credence to the possibility that Reno was untruthful during the inquiry in this instance and, perhaps other statements as well. If such an inexcusable exercise in dishonor occurred once, it may have happened several times! Sadly, the possibility that other officers may have been less than factual looms heavily before us as well
Let us examine comments made by individuals who were actually there:
Sgt. Martini said that he saw Weir talking to Reno, and the Captain (Weir)was excited and appeared angry. " Weir kept pointing down the river;soon after he rode off to the North."
Pvt. Windolph stated, "It is known that he (Weir) had a heated argument with Reno."
Sgt. Fox, over heard Weir talking to Reno and asking to go to Custer. he heard Reno reply, "No, for if you try to do it, you will get killed and your company with you."
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 22, 2012 19:39:30 GMT -5
I neglected to present portions of a letter written by Reno on July 5, 1876 regarding his instructions to Capt. Weir.
"I moved to the summit of the highest bluff but seeing and hearing nothing of Custer, sent Capt. Weir with his company to open communications with the other command.
Is it any wonder that I refuse to believe anything the three Amigo's (Reno, Wallace, and Benteen) uttered?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Aug 3, 2012 19:08:27 GMT -5
Lt. Wallace testified, under a sworn oath, at the inquiry that Reno's battalion consisted of 12 men. In fact, he responded to that specific number at least twice;112! Now I realize that remembered thoughts after a significant amount of time could wreck havoc with memories but, a couple of years should not do too much damage.
Reno's command consisted of 11 officers, 140 enlisted men, 25 scouts, and 5 civilians for a total of 181 men. The percentage was 32.3 % to Custer's 41.9 % and 230 men.
I will buy any member of this forum a cup of coffee if they can explain this discrepancy on behalf of Wallace.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Aug 25, 2012 20:18:58 GMT -5
One of the most difficult choices,for me, in life is to brand anyone (either living or dead) a "Liar!" It is distasteful, upsetting, and usually the nadir of any historical research. On the old AAO forum I was called a "liar" repeatedly time after time for posting what I believed to be true. Even when I referenced my posts with resources, I was damned beyond comprehension.
Unfortunately, the truth can not be ascertained without the messy and distasteful fact that the recognition and identification of those who may have "lied" be confronted, screened, and accepted as a historical reality;no matter how distasteful.
Human beings, since the beginning of time, have found themselves in situations wherein their personal performance may leave much to desire hence, this very human failure is often shaded with "white Lies" wherein the sufferer may elevate his regrettable status as least a shade higher in order to pacify the unforgiving and sometimes cruel historical "truth."
Several officers involved in this battle did not perform well. This is no denigration of character but an all to human frailty. Later, when fingers were pointed at the survivors in an unforgiving attitude, it was absolutely understandable that falsehoods were proffered to buttress real and suspected failures.
The Reno Inquiry was responsible for camouflaging the truth for many years. Custer issued orders that were, later, eliminated from history by the very men who received them.
Surviving letters and correspondence between the survivors have prove this fact beyond all doubt. Reno's official report to his superiors are endowed with the same official credibility as his testimony at the inquiry yet, they contradict each other substantially. Can both be simultaneously correct?
Benteen's claims are so hideously ridiculous that they overwhelm the serious minded student of this battle.
I will always seek the truth and will always seek the truth wherever I may find it. All I ask is that the intelligent, caring, and proud members of this forum not accept my conclusions without their own personal research.
All I ask is that they provide evidence, not personal beliefs, that my conclusions are invalid. Only then shall we all approach the vestibule of "truth" that may lead us to the realm of life's "Files" of the Custer battle.
|
|
!