|
|
Post by tbw on Aug 11, 2012 13:08:30 GMT -5
With all respect, what objective is being referred to in the statement " to charge afterward" if not the Indians who were in a village? They had to reside somewhere.  Reno gave false testimony not once but several times at the inquiry. Why is this particular "testimony" sacrosanct? Graham's "Reno Inquiry" list 16 witnesses who testified to the alleged hearing of gun fire emitting from Custer's command. 13 of the 16 testified to hearing the gun fire. The other three, Reno, Benteen, and Wallace did not. All 16 witnesses were under sworn oath! Reno swore (in Court): "there was no other way to support me" referring to enforcement from the rear or flank. It simply must come from the rear he espoused. When Recorded Lee held up Reno's post battle Official Report while asking, " If a flank attack could be considered support Reno replied, " Not under the circumstances." Lee then asked Reno if he wrote in his official report that Custer could have, in fact,support from the flank he replied, "I may have said that" without changing his expression.Liddic P 65. There is so much discussion and perspectives, that may counter my beliefs that I am more than willing to (sometimes) acquiesce to. I fervently believe that proper compromise is an essential tool toward the learning process. The veracity and sworn testimony of Reno is the exception for me. As a greater man than me once said, "There you go again". You and others also assume that's what was meant by those orders, but you can't prove it because those orders don't state village. On the other hand there were Indians out there that were not in the village and their location was described as running long before the supposed order was given to Reno to pursue the running Indians, that's because Custer had sent the Ree allies after them not Reno. That, however was about to change once those Ree allies decided to delay their forward pursuit and take up costume shopping instead. As for Reno's testimony concerning this... Q, You were, of course, expected to charge the Indians? A. Yes; certainly. And what Indians were they referring to? The good General himself stated which Indians he meant and intended to send Reno after. It is in the written record. What? You want to call him, General George Armstrong Custer a liar also? |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Aug 11, 2012 18:59:26 GMT -5
Could you explain Joe's statement that 13 of 16 witnesses heard firing while three heard nothing? I noticed that you passed over that point entirely.  It seems to me that he is pointing out a probable case were officers under oath lied. If that is true, how can we accept Reno's statement? How can you accept it? |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Aug 11, 2012 20:23:15 GMT -5
Could you explain Joe's statement that 13 of 16 witnesses heard firing while three heard nothing? I noticed that you passed over that point entirely. It seems to me that he is pointing out a probable case were officers under oath lied. If that is true, how can we accept Reno's statement? How can you accept it? Two different points entirely. The point first taken issue with was concerning Reno's orders, looking back it shouldn't be difficult to find who questioned it the original post and took issue with it. I prefer not going off on side issues that have little to do with what little evidence we do have about that charge. Most of the time, if not all, those side issues are used to derail and sidetrack the discussion. Rest assured its not happening this time. I have noticed that when a position is or has become untenable and someone is loosing the debate they use those same tactics to change the conversation to something they think they can prove. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, but it has no bearing on the discussion here. If they want it discussed, post it to a different thread. I have little faith in modern authors whose very tendency is too be biased from the very beginning of their thoughts on the subject. All I do know is that the testimonies presented at the RCOI are there for all to see no matter how incomplete they are, they still are the best we have in the way of "first" person evidence. We'll not get it again, and have to do the very best with what we've got. The discussion here is "Reno's Charge". And what set up that charge was General George Armstrong Custer's orders to Major Marcus Reno. There is no call for interpretation here, none. It was and still is written very clearly in the record for all to see and know perfectly well what went down. And the clarion call for gypsies, tramps and thieves should be proven in the context of what was happening at the time. I find little comfort in discussing an event that happened long after Reno's charge, the subject of this thread, where stasis is the basis of their unproven fact. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Aug 12, 2012 10:12:37 GMT -5
I disagree! The point is clear it seems. Your position can only be correct if Reno is telling the truth. If he is not, and there seems a good chance he is not telling the truth, then any statement by Reno must be disregarded. Sadly, people do sometimes lie to protect themselves or to hide things they are not proud of. In this battle Reno could not be proud. Your whole argument is based on what Reno "said" while you completely dismiss that maybe he lied. You say you are not concerned with "side issues" then you bring them up yourself. You hint at side issues that "derail" the conversation and have "little evidence and revelency" when practically everything Joe has posted was sourced with references. Your comments were for someone who has only had the best interest of this forum in his mind and heart. You pin down the issue by saying there is no call for "interpretation" yet, you use the statement of a man who lies under oath more than once to back your position. Never have I seen a better situation to use "interpretation" that is based on anything other than a lie. I am sure Joe's question of the 13 of 16 witnesses was not a step to win an arguement with you. I was to set ground rule to understand that these men, for whatever reason, lied. a lot of what we assume to be true is based on these lies. I don't understand your anger and I won't try to again. When people disagree with you it's not personal it's how they feel. God be with you.  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Aug 12, 2012 14:33:54 GMT -5
I disagree! The point is clear it seems. Your position can only be correct if Reno is telling the truth. If he is not, and there seems a good chance he is not telling the truth, then any statement by Reno must be disregarded. Sadly, people do sometimes lie to protect themselves or to hide things they are not proud of. In this battle Reno could not be proud. Your whole argument is based on what Reno "said" while you completely dismiss that maybe he lied. You say you are not concerned with "side issues" then you bring them up yourself. You hint at side issues that "derail" the conversation and have "little evidence and revelency" when practically everything Joe has posted was sourced with references. Your comments were for someone who has only had the best interest of this forum in his mind and heart. You pin down the issue by saying there is no call for "interpretation" yet, you use the statement of a man who lies under oath more than once to back your position. Never have I seen a better situation to use "interpretation" that is based on anything other than a lie. I am sure Joe's question of the 13 of 16 witnesses was not a step to win an arguement with you. I was to set ground rule to understand that these men, for whatever reason, lied. a lot of what we assume to be true is based on these lies. I don't understand your anger and I won't try to again. When people disagree with you it's not personal it's how they feel. God be with you. I was unaware that I expressed any anger towards your post. Although these machines do tend to make any serious efforts seems that way, I assure you I expressed none. I am open to discussing any and all reports about what Major Reno's orders were. I merely started there. And to tell you the truth I don't believe any of them lied about it in their testimony, they didn't have to. Because some of us today don't understand it, doesn't mean what they all stated about it was an abject lie. They were all sworn to tell the truth, and who is to say what that truth was if we don't try to understand it in a different context than what it has always been understood. This principle also applies directly to Joe's evidence about Reno and Benteen not hearing the firing going on downstream later. And, once again I'll summarize this with just one word, stasis. The thing that bothers me about Joe's principle theory that the RCOI is all lies and liars gives him ample opportunity to say at any convenient moment in time that suits his bias and prejudices what according to him is a lie and what isn't. Not much room to discuss or debate anything when such a principle is applied to the sum of the whole. And rather that upset a loyal following I'll do what I do best, remain silent. If however he and anyone else is willing to discuss those orders, Reno's without shutting the door and placing armed guards there to see to it that everything goes their way, count me out. Enough said. |
|
It seems to me that he is pointing out a probable case were officers under oath lied. 