|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 25, 2013 10:36:50 GMT -5
In our contemporaneous era of governmental and military openness truth, still manages to be suppressed and/or altered to fit nefarious purposes by vested interest groups. Often times, the final say of these groups are believed to be "TRUTH"; statements taken under a ritual of "oath" and "God" are thus,as a course, deemed to be historical "facts"
Col. Graham was an intelligent, sincere, unbiased (for the most part)individual and a credible and honest person who sought to find the truth of what occurred by being open and above board. For the most part, he did a wonderful job and contributed so much to the study of the battle for which all students are eternally indebted.
However, his failure to achieve his ultimate goal (truth) was a direct result of his inability to believe that members of the "Officer's Class" would lie under oath. They did. Truth may be befuddled, twisted and, destroyed by leaving out facts as well as creating new ones.
"Whittaker's biography of Custer appeared in the fall of 1876. As Libbie had hoped, the book depicted Reno as both a coward and a traitor. to clear his name, Reno requested a court of inquiry into his conduct during the battle. In the winter of 1879, a military court convened at the Palmer House in Chicago, Illinois.
Over the course of almost a month, dozens of witnesses testified before the court. But the statements also skirted the issue of blame.
The rancor many of the officers had expressed about Reno's actions during the battle began to cool--especially when General Sheridan made it clear that he wanted no disclosures during the proceedings that might reflect poorly on the U.S. Army. By January 1879, the officers of the Seventh had closed ranks. In the end, the judges refused to condemn Reno, but they also refused to exonerate him."
"The Last Stand"
Philbreck page 301
Why did the board take such a stance. Why did sworn witnesses fail to be totally honest?
TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on May 25, 2013 10:57:57 GMT -5
In our contemporaneous era of governmental and military openness truth, still manages to be suppressed and/or altered to fit nefarious purposes by vested interest groups. Often times, the final say of these groups are believed to be "TRUTH"; statements taken under a ritual of "oath" and "God" are thus,as a course, deemed to be historical "facts" Col. Graham was an intelligent, sincere, unbiased (for the most part)individual and a credible and honest person who sought to find the truth of what occurred by being open and above board. For the most part, he did a wonderful job and contributed so much to the study of the battle for which all students are eternally indebted. However, his failure to achieve his ultimate goal (truth) was a direct result of his inability to believe that members of the "Officer's Class" would lie under oath. They did. Truth may be befuddled, twisted and, destroyed by leaving out facts as well as creating new ones. "Whittaker's biography of Custer appeared in the fall of 1876. As Libbie had hoped, the book depicted Reno as both a coward and a traitor. to clear his name, Reno requested a court of inquiry into his conduct during the battle. In the winter of 1879, a military court convened at the Palmer House in Chicago, Illinois. Over the course of almost a month, dozens of witnesses testified before the court. But the statements also skirted the issue of blame. The rancor many of the officers had expressed about Reno's actions during the battle began to cool--especially when General Sheridan made it clear that he wanted no disclosures during the proceedings that might reflect poorly on the U.S. Army. By January 1879, the officers of the Seventh had closed ranks. In the end, the judges refused to condemn Reno, but they also refused to exonerate him." "The Last Stand" Philbreck page 301 Why did the board take such a stance. Why did sworn witnesses fail to be totally honest? TO BE CONTINUED The short version here. If they were not asked, they didn't offer it. AND, the court's triumvirate didn't bother to ask or follow up when they should have. And, blame was what they were there for. But to accurately, efficiently and effectively determine that blame, they had to include any and all testimony leading up to Custer's decision to take that obvious trail to the LBH. It was and still is a bone of contention today that placed blame. Not just this, but going on back to Reno's scout many days before, for which both Terry and Custer "blamed" Reno for failing to complete his mission. There were important facts left out of the Reno's means, motive and opportunity, for returning the favor, there's not one doubt about it. This placed in evidence, would have given them enough evidence to return a favorable and just answer as to proper blame. But. They didn't want to discuss anything other than what Custer's orders to his men were. They didn't want to hear it if it wasn't stated on the 25th of June, and only that day, 1876. And they didn't want to hear what Custer's orders or thoughts were on the evening he ordered the 7th on to The LBH. A mere glimpse of that was given by Girard, and what a bomb shell he told. If only others had been able to have given their statements about that evening of the 24th. Think of what would have been. Still. Years and years later, those that knew that truth, still never said one word. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 2, 2013 10:49:58 GMT -5
You are so right in what you say! I can not add a single item other than to say that for they who appear to place the "results" of the the inquiry in an area of sacraments please be careful. Finding the truth of what happened to Custer and his men is nigh impossible as is. To accept the testimony of witnesses who were inclined toward diffusing "truth" for personal reasons is a serious mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 2, 2013 18:15:33 GMT -5
Well, yes, there is that word called sacraments. And for people who believe what those sacraments say, one way or another, usually another or something twisted, turned and screwed with the right way supports their theory of what happened. The problem with the coi is that you have many people saying - giving opinion - that at such and such a time, at such and such a place (never named, just assumed), and so and so many miles from some such another place, either here or there, this or that event happened. And the variety is so mind boggling that most end up saying the average is whats needed to explain the events of the whole - because its the best that can be done.
Unfortunately, sacraments are to be held in veneration and are to be protected by those who lead the church of believers. And unfortunately this usually isn't a democratic process where someone is elected by a popular majority of the believers to do that job. Representative, sure. But that's about as effective as the U.S. Congress and about as useful a process as the electoral college is for the common voter, and has become useless a method ever devised. Yet, there are still those who would say, "its the best that we can do."
What isn't reconciled here is the one time, the one mileage, the one place that was correct in and of each and every event. And the coi as a document can't provide that answer. It is a means to find it, but will never work as a definitive answer to anything by itself. Sacraments it wasn't, and was never intended to be, or, we wouldn't have found the need to still be here 135+ years later still trying to solve all the mysteries that still surround this battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 2, 2013 18:48:09 GMT -5
Hey, sorry I've been gone for awhile but I'm glad to be back. Things were getting a little slow around here and I'm glad to see things are heating up a little ;D.
Tbw, you are right on about all of the past info about the battle. We got to figure out what happened ourselves. I don't know a bug's eye of the info. you have but, I sure am ready to read what you got to say!
Some people had a reason to change the truth. We don't. I'm gonna read more, learn more, and take in whay you guys are writing about so I can learn more.
You did a great job!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 3, 2013 21:55:54 GMT -5
Hey, sorry I've been gone for awhile but I'm glad to be back. Things were getting a little slow around here and I'm glad to see things are heating up a little ;D. Tbw, you are right on about all of the past info about the battle. We got to figure out what happened ourselves. I don't know a bug's eye of the info. you have but, I sure am ready to read what you got to say! Some people had a reason to change the truth. We don't. I'm gonna read more, learn more, and take in whay you guys are writing about so I can learn more. You did a great job! You would be surprised at how much more you know than those on the other channels that just keep repeating the same mantra without trying to find out. Guru's they are not. Although to hear them chirp and chime about it, you would think they were the cat that caught the bird and knew what route the mouse would take in the chime of grandfathers clock. From what little I have heard you speak. You do okay for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 6, 2013 7:09:20 GMT -5
Thanks Partner!  |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jun 8, 2013 10:32:17 GMT -5
I agree!  D.B., you are O.K. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Aug 22, 2013 15:39:18 GMT -5
Ah shucks Lady, ;D, but it's W.B.  |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Sept 22, 2013 10:23:47 GMT -5
Here's something else the Reno trial did not talk about: Reno's charge: "It would bdo me a great service if someone cold explain to me how a military "charge" could be prefaced by a commander with the following;"Any of you men that wish to make your escape, follow me." Troopers with Custer page 108 More than one person must have heard that encouraging STATEMENT!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Sept 22, 2013 10:29:39 GMT -5
Here's something else the Reno trial did not talk about: Reno's charge: "It would do me a great service if someone cold explain to me how a military "charge" could be prefaced by a commander with the following;"Any of you men that wish to make your escape, follow me." Troopers with Custer page 108 More than one person must have heard that encouraging STATEMENT! Exactly! Reno's words perfectly reflected his alcoholic state of mind; ESCAPE! |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Dec 7, 2013 19:22:46 GMT -5
Joe the more information I get from reading and our forum the more I am convinced that many things need to be looked at to determine what actually happened at the battle.
It seems to me that Benteen, Wallace, and Reno testified to things that just did not happened and that those three may have an agenda to make Custer look very bad.
The soldiers, maybe, should not have attacked the village. Maybe it was cruel to do it. I don't know, what I do feel is that some of the men in this battle have been a little less than truthful!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Dec 7, 2013 19:26:52 GMT -5
There just might be a little bit of collusion by Benteen and Reno but, dangum it, I need to see a little more evidence!
|
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Feb 4, 2014 13:27:19 GMT -5
There just might be a little bit of collusion by Benteen and Reno but, dangum it, I need to see a little more evidence! WB, ask yourself this, does it seem possible that Benteen and Reno may have something that they are not proud of in this battle. If your answer to that question is yes than then false witnesses may be possible. |
|
D.B., you are O.K.
