Reno Court of Inquiry:Truth or Consequences

[joewiggs]

I have wondered long why Sgt. Martini did not elaborate regarding his mission to summon Benteen. why did he not say for example, "Custer's right behind me at we found one hell of a village." Or, "Captain Benteen, please hurry we are going to need all the ammunition we can muster." How about, "Man oh Man, on the way back I saw and heard Reno firing and being fired at."

Anything to motivate Benteen just a tad. All Benteen remembers is a comment in which Martini allegedly said that the Indians were "scaddeling." Something he could not have known! then it dawned on me one day, Martini did not offer any information because Benteen didn't ask for any!

In the Army of that era, non-commission personnel were view by the commission personnel as no more than serfs, ignorant peasants to be ordered about and severely punished if they dared to speak out of turn.

I have long possessed this opinion but, until recently, I was unable to find any writing to substantiate my opinion;until now!

"As Colonel Mills observed, 'Nothing...in our Republic, is so un-American as the great gulf that is maintained by laws, written and unwritten, between the commissioned and the non-commissioned."

In his diary of the Seventh's Black Hills expedition of 1874, Private Theodore Ewert also remarked on the officers' lack of compassion: Humanity is something that is foreign to their feelings and a little kindness is but seldom or never shown to one of the rank and file. the officer of the U. S. Army has no respect for a man under his command.

Now one may assume that the two examples (particularly the last one) is that of a malcontent. Pick any book on the punishment ordered against these soldiers and you will be appalled.

Page 81, Touch of Fire by Louise Barnett

[tbw]

Nov 24, 2011 22:08:34 GMT -5 joewiggs said:

I have wondered long why Sgt. Martini did not elaborate regarding his mission to summon Benteen. why did he not say for example, "Custer's right behind me at we found one hell of a village." Or, "Captain Benteen, please hurry we are going to need all the ammunition we can muster." How about, "Man oh Man, on the way back I saw and heard Reno firing and being fired at."

Anything to motivate Benteen just a tad. All Benteen remembers is a comment in which Martini allegedly said that the Indians were "scaddeling." Something he could not have known! then it dawned on me one day, Martini did not offer any information because Benteen didn't ask for any!

In the Army of that era, non-commission personnel were view by the commission personnel as no more than serfs, ignorant peasants to be ordered about and severely punished if they dared to speak out of turn.

I have long possessed this opinion but, until recently, I was unable to find any writing to substantiate my opinion;until now!

"As Colonel Mills observed, 'Nothing...in our Republic, is so un-American as the great gulf that is maintained by laws, written and unwritten, between the commissioned and the non-commissioned."

In his diary of the Seventh's Black Hills expedition of 1874, Private Theodore Ewert also remarked on the officers' lack of compassion: Humanity is something that is foreign to their feelings and a little kindness is but seldom or never shown to one of the rank and file. the officer of the U. S. Army has no respect for a man under his command.

Now one may assume that the two examples (particularly the last one) is that of a malcontent. Pick any book on the punishment ordered against these soldiers and you will be appalled.

Page 81, Touch of Fire by Louise Barnett

There may be something to this Joe. And I'm quite sure there is. However, Martin said he wasn't asked nor did he tell, and Benteen stated he didn't ask until after he had met up with Reno. What's wrong with this snap shot photo? Martini's statement that the Indians were skedaddling and that CUster was attacking the village. Even this statement is in conflict with statements he made then and years later. He stated that on his return he had witnessed Reno's skirmish line in retreat. He also stated that he had observed Custer's men in "ambush" from the "same hill" they had just been on not more than "500 - 600 or 3/4ths of a mile" from where he had been sent back. Which simply means that by the time he had rode back to that "same hill" Custer had tried to attack some ford somewhere and was at that moment in time being ambushed by them. Now, who was skedaddling?

Martini's english was surely lacking at that time and I've always wondered if he was trying to convey that Custer's and Reno's battalions were skedaddling and it came out wrong. And rather than admit to his error in bad english in conveying his understanding he let this go uncorrected in time and let people think he meant the opposite. Quite naturally Benteen was more than willing to capitalize upon this and did. Now, why would it be this way rather than the other way around? Evidence. There was several other witnesses to these actions that give validity to Martin's observations about the ambush and Reno's retreat being the skedaddling. One in particular was Curley. Curley made the statement that all three elements of Custer's command were running (skedaddling) at the same moment in time. 1) the 4 Crows, 2) Reno's men, 3) Custer's men. This statement by Curley just can't be ignored because it does give validity to Martin's observations about Custer's men being ambushed and Reno's men in retreat when he had gotten back to that "same hill". This is an important timing factor which most just can't fathom. And it is one that can't be ignored in all timing aspects.

Now I know Joe how you feel about Reno and his drinking problem. But the above puts this thing in a proper perspective. If the man was drinking he took too damn long in his valley fight (which I do believe drink also does, impair judgement to that effect) and stayed there too damn long to help Custer. Not the other way around, and the above proves this.

I'd have to go back through the COI and find this but, there was a certain definition trying to be applied to the term "scattering shots" and/or "sporadic fire". This was in association with those shots being fired at Reno/Bloody Knife etal when Bloody Knife was killed. I believe it was Moylan who made mention that he didn't consider the shots being fired, which he estimated at between 40 and 50 rifles, as quote, "volleys". He considered them as "sporadic" or "scattering" fire. Now apply this same to those shots heard from the hills after Reno and his men arrived there. Which were they? Little to none, just an occasional shot here and there, ie. "sporadic or scattering fire" or Moylans definition of the same? This is one of the reasons I began the Lexicon thing and I'll include this when I've got the time. The same with any other "terminology" needs be added there as we go along, because it does help in our understanding what the "H" they are talking about. And Martini's "english" at the time needs be understood, every damn word of it!

[joewiggs]

Your first two lines sum up my thesis succinctly. why didn't Benteen ask and why didn't ,t Martini volunteer the information? what change in action may have been initiated by Benteen that may have altered the final outcome of this battle? we will never know but, the field is certainly wide open.

Benteen never asked, Martini never told and Benteen did no real inquiry,regarding Custer's command, until he arrived to Reno's position! Why when it would have made so much sense to do so?

[tbw]

Nov 25, 2011 10:58:48 GMT -5 joewiggs said:

Your first two lines sum up my thesis succinctly. why didn't Benteen ask and why didn't ,t Martini volunteer the information? what change in action may have been initiated by Benteen that may have altered the final outcome of this battle? we will never know but, the field is certainly wide open.

Benteen never asked, Martini never told and Benteen did no real inquiry,regarding Custer's command, until he arrived to Reno's position! Why when it would have made so much sense to do so?

It had everything to do with the orders he did receive. This usually isn't reasoned out very well by to many people.

Benteen - (Self explanatory, could have meant no one else)

Come on - (Some say, exactly where to. Benteen already knew this answer, he had no reason to ask Martin "where".

Big Village - (Some still don't get this. It was not a small village. Meaning what? It is not like the Washita at all!!!!)

Be Quick - (Some again would say, be quick? Where to? Benteen knew this or he would have asked. And the obvious reason to "be quick was the "big village"!

The "bring pac's" was a simple exhortation for him to see to it that Custer's battalion's ammo packs were safely escorted to where he himself was told to go go. (He Knew! And he knew all of it.) That's why he didn't ask.

[joewiggs]

Absolutely wonderful. I have witnessed a myriad of convoluted, preposterous, inexplicable loose canon rational on the other board to explain why Benteen did not have a clue as to what the note intended.

Your clear, rational, and probable explanation makes too much sense not to be on the money. Great job!

[joewiggs]

Another point! it is a historical possibility that a substantial portion off the soldiers did not perform as well as would have been expected. In such a case, would not normal emotions such as embarrassment and regret affect their testimony at the inquiry.

History has shown clear evidence that Terry's plan's morphed from a pre-battle, specific and well documented objective format to an entirely different post-battle objective.

Pre-battle: find them and crush them, any "prong" could do the job alone, if anybody could find them and fight them Custer would and could.

Post-battle: There were too many Indians and Custer was foolish to engage them. Reno and Benteen had no idea what Custer was planning to do, they were kept in the dark. Reno's response to the Court reference what happen to the "dead and dying" soldiers left behind did not cause a stir when he replied that he did not know as he made no effort to assist them?

Finally, Godfrey's skirmish line (one company)held back the same Indians who chased Reno (140 men) up mountains. Amazing ain't it?

[tbw]

Nov 9, 2012 18:14:15 GMT -5 joewiggs said:

Another point! it is a historical possibility that a substantial portion off the soldiers did not perform as well as would have been expected. In such a case, would not normal emotions such as embarrassment and regret affect their testimony at the inquiry.

History has shown clear evidence that Terry's plan's morphed from a pre-battle, specific and well documented objective format to an entirely different post-battle objective.

Pre-battle: find them and crush them, any "prong" could do the job alone, if anybody could find them and fight them Custer would and could.

Post-battle: There were too many Indians and Custer was foolish to engage them. Reno and Benteen had no idea what Custer was planning to do, they were kept in the dark. Reno's response to the Court reference what happen to the "dead and dying" soldiers left behind did not cause a stir when he replied that he did not know as he made no effort to assist them?

Finally, Godfrey's skirmish line (one company)held back the same Indians who chased Reno (140 men) up mountains. Amazing ain't it?

When it comes to emotions men are less likely to admit cowardice or anything else that would embarrass themselves or show unmanly weakness. It's like trying to catch a man crying and he admit it. So I'm quite sure some of them weren't completely candid with their statements. Also with this is the feeling they did something utterly wrong, its kind of like the conscientious objector in all of us when it comes to killing another human being. I think most veterans don't like to think about things like that after the fact. They feel emotionally inside very differently than what they wont tell on the outside about what they did. Because what they did was a very up close and personal experience that wasn't that pleasant or to their way of thinking, certainly nothing to be heroically praised for.

Most people don't know this but Terry did accept full responsibility for the loss of Custer and his men. As such, I have always thought he should have been called for Reno's Inquiry. If anyone was in a position to judge the situation immediately after it happened, it would have been Benteen and Reno's superior officer. I don't think they could have pulled the wool over his eyes as they did the officers of the court 3 years after the fact.

As for Godfrey. I don't think it was ever stated just how many Indians were coming for them. And I think it wrong to say they all were. I think many of them were celebrating in the village so it might just have been a few who were on Custer's field still pillaging and counting coup.

[joewiggs]

Thank you so much for your response as it helps me to understand some of my perceived irrationality of some perspectives of the Reno Inquiry and some of the harsh responses condemning Custer that teeter on the chasm of ridiculousness. Custer as commander was responsible for a substantial portion of the outcome of the battle. However, for Reno and Benteen to totally disavow any responsibility is just not reasonable.

As for Godfrey, Weir, French and the other commands that reached Weir Point dashed passed him retreat, Godfrey forced his company to "stand" and faced the warriors who were chasing the others. One can only assume that there were enough Indians to cause the other companies to run.

Why is it that Godfrey stood fast and the others did not. Why were questions of this nature not delved into at the hearing. Why are facts such as the above glossed over in most sources, until recently. My guess is that "embellishments" were gladly taken in by the authorities to avoid a catastrophic confrontation with "truth" that could have ended the careers of virtually every officer who survived that battle and resulted in irreversible damage to ethnocentric society of that era that does not exist today. Thus, the difficulty of understanding, by students of this era, regarding a fundamental concept of the past that was vital to the National honor of our Country in a bygone era.

[joewiggs]

Lt. Wallace at the R.C.O,I. emphatically stated that he was at Reno's side and, therefore, could testify to any commands Reno may or may not have received. Subsequently, Reno received no orders other than to lead out to the village where he,eventually, fell into the timber because, as he stated, no other orders were received from Custer.

! always suspected Wallace's testimony but, I could not come up with a motive to make sense for his probable lying that would stand up to scrutiny. Later I did some research of my own and, concluded that as the "Company Internist" for the Command he was obligated to remain with the Commanding officer at all times unless personally released by the commander to do otherwise.

As a result, two salient questions begged to be answered to establish a motive for a suspected fabrication on Wallace's behalf at the Inquiry and, also to produce the inexplicable lack of interest on behalf of the "August Board" regarding such a aberration of military policy.I felt that these, two questions must be answered to proceed any further.

1. Why did the competent and knowledgeable members of the Board not inquire how Wallace separated from his commander without expressed permission and;

2. Why would an outstanding and well respected Officer like Wallace lie in the first place.

I will now submit a letter written by Lt. Col. Chas A. Varnum in 1906 to Walter Camp:

"As our paths had diverged to some extent, I was sometime rejoining the command and found all my scouts bunched at the head of the column. I said to the Genl. that I thought I would be of little use to report any more as he could see all I could see. He asked me what I saw, and I aid the village was out of sight behind the bluffs, but this valley was full of Indians. col Reno was just passing Hdquarters at a trot. I asked where they were going and he (Custer ) said to the attack."

....Hare had come in and was then with me. he and I put spurs to our horses, and the Indians followed. Lieutenant Wallace was acting Engineer Officer and was riding with Custer."

Question: how could Wallace be at Reno's side when he passed Headquarters at a trot yet, be with Custer when Varnum rode up and said:

"Wallace was was acting engineer Officer and was riding with Custer. I turned back and told him not to hang back with the coffee-coolers, [but] to come on with the fighting men. Custer laughed and told Wallace he could go. Wallace joined us and we passed Reno in the ford."

At that specific point, Wallace was near Reno not at any other time until they fell back to the timber!

Finally, understand that today,in our era, the news median can not be compromised and any attempt on behalf of the government to "hide" military actions will be exposed. However, in Custer's time this reality was quite different and things could be and ofter were hidden for the sake of the Army.

That is why the board did not question Wallace's testimony, Reno's testimony, and why other officers declined to "put up or shut up"

Why did Varnum fail to mention this critical "truth" then rather than in 1906? it was military suicide to have done so in the Inquiry but, completely safe to do so in 1906.

Believe it or not!

[whitebull]

Wow! I had no idea that this letter existed. Unless varnum lied in his letter, it's clear that Wallace was with Custer until after Reno got his orders and was on the way to attack. that means that Wallace and Reno lied under oath. I get it about Reno but Wallace?

What I don't understand is why he waited so long to tell the truth? If he lied who else lied and why do so many folk seem to think that it was okay to lie at the trial.

Man this has really got me to thinking, big time! Can you give me the name of the book you got the letter from?

[joewiggs]

The book is, 'On the Little Big horn with Walter Camp' authored by Hardoff.

I do not believe there was any negative motive in Varnum's letter which was sent over 25 years after the fact. He was merely remembering a bittersweet memory of his friend Wallace, who was killed at Wounded Knee.

it is so important no, critical to understand the mind sets of a social group whenever you are attempting (if possible) when studying any historical event. The actions of a group are prompted by subtle nuances and expectations of a given group that maybe and. often are, alien to the modern man.

In a time before "whistle blowers" became common place you did not go against the "hierarchy" of the military. You just did not!

particularly when the failed "plans" were the ingenious off-spring of the highest Generals.

[stumblingbear]

Well, this rips a big hole in the fabric of truth of the Reno Court of Inquiry doesn't it! How can any testimony be trusted if one lied who else may have?

[joewiggs]

The majority of the information gotten from the Inquiry was credible. the "Red" flag goes up whenever the actions of Custer came up for the sole purpose of pinning the tail on the dummy.

Had Custer survived, the telling of his tale would have been quite different and the entire "Custer Myth" would have never occurred. Why? Those who survived were in concert together in that they failed to respond in the proper military fashion of cohesiveness, support, and logistical soundness. As a result, their conclusion to hide the "truth" was understandable if not ethical.

Also remember that the witnesses probably had no real choice in the matter as their superiors were, undoubtedly, leading the choir to sing a particular tune.

[whitebull]

So, what you're saying is that if Custer had lived none of us would probably be spending time on all these forums arguing over who the good guys are and who the bad dudes were.

There wouldn't be any mystery about the battle. No what ifs, no nothing!

Hell, in that case I would have to get another hobby!

[stumblingbear]

WB, I'm sure you would have no problem finding another career in talking!