|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 20, 2009 16:24:14 GMT -5
Inspired query of the Week:
Perhaps no single question has ever been so difficult to resolve as this one. How much did Gen. Custer impart to his subordinate commanders, Reno and Benteen?
Throughout the RCOI one can peruse the pages and find little to go on to believe that he gave them anything in the way of instruction other than what we see printed on those pages. Yet, if they were not asked, they would not tell. If they were not specifically asked in a specific way they would not tell. This much was admitted to by Benteen himself, as he said in so many words that they "didn't know how to get it out of him." What was it that they didn't know how to get out of him? What was it that he was afraid to tell, to admit to? And likewise, Reno?
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jan 8, 2010 21:12:08 GMT -5
An ironic enigma regarding this battle (as far as I am concerned) is that it appears that a substantial amount of students believe that Custer failed to inform his subordinates adequately and, therefore, the fatalistic results were ultimately his fault and Reno and Benteen were unable to save him without sacrificing their own troops. A neatly wrapped historical package ready for consumption for those who accept these findings .
As stated, Melani's proposition is absolutely correct. It would have been "totally nuts" for a commander to fail to include his battalion commanders in his tactical plans. I firmly believe that Custer was not a "nut" although there are some who would call him so and, damn you to hell if you didn't agree.
Orders were given by him but, few were complied with. I have no overt proof to substantiate my theory. What I do have are reasonable assumptions that make sense.
Let us assume the following did not occur:
A graduate of the prestigious West Point Academy achieves the rank of General during the Civil War at the tender age of 23 because of outstanding military abilities and sound military decisions under hot combat inexplicably became an blithering idiot at the battle of the Little Bighorn.
This "leader" also sends a battalion of troops on a mysterious foray into the "Bad Lands" in a futile search of insignificant value although he is aware that he will meet approximately 1,500 furious warriors in a relatively short time. (Custer himself expected this amount.)
Open minded students who willingly accept the ideology of Individuals who condemn "Indian Testimony" as unreliable, impossible to decipher, and basically un-interpretable while quickly embracing "white testimony" as infallible although no two "white" witnesses said the same thing: sans Benteen and Reno -Surprise!
The R.C.O.I. was nothing less than a "white-wash" whose findings -despite credible (but ignored) testimony- absolved Reno of any malfeasance of duty.
We are left pondering "What really happened" as critical information is either lost, distorted, hidden, and/or created by persons with an agenda. In an era of profound racial superiority, the unacceptable reality that a group of "savage aboriginals" defeated "white men" was simple unacceptable by America's military and its people.
|
|
|
|
Post by melani on Jan 11, 2010 0:24:13 GMT -5
I suspect that Benteen's orders were not as open-ended as he portrayed them, but rather that he was supposed to return after a certain point, which of course he did. He was already on his way back when he got Martini's message.
Custer did do some inexplicable things. He was promoted during the CW because he was a promising young officer and the Army was desperate for generals--they were getting eaten up by the war like potato chips, and he wasn't the only one promoted at that time. He turned out pretty well, and also had a flair for flamboyantly attracting attention. But I am still trying to figure out what he had in mind when he sent Reno with--what? 125 guys?--after what probably was the 800-900 Indians Reno described. Without support pretty quick, Reno's goose would have been cooked.
Maybe Benteen had been supposed to turn back sooner than he did? At one point I discussed with a friend the possibility that Benteen was supposed to sweep around and hit the village from the west--does that make any sense, or is it totally crazy? Doesn't seem to match up with Benteen grumbling about being left out of the fight. (Did anyone hear him grumble at the time, or did he only say that sort of thing after the fact?) But the jury is still out on whether or not Reno would have been total mincemeat if he hadn't performed the famous "charge to the rear"--a number of his men swore they would have been dead if they had stayed any longer, (Ryan, a solid experienced soldier, for one)but there were also some who thought they could have held out--Herendeen? (Too lazy to go look it up, and not sure which book.)
I am still drawn to the idea that Custer was in some measure trying to reproduce Washita, but there are a lot of things about his actions that don't make sense. I don't think we can really hang this entirely on Reno and Benteen. The whole thing hangs on the fact that he divided the regiment into what I often refer to as convenient bite-sized chunks. Was it just the arrogance mentioned above--no savages can beat the 7th?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 11, 2010 0:26:11 GMT -5
That last phrase has me laughing. Of course it is quite late and quite naturally such happens when one is tired, but then again, some, one supposes would agree with the assessment simply because it "appears" that way. But appearances often are decieving, especially after so long a time has passed. Of course one has to consider the source of the "insignificant value" and whether or not such foray was warranted in that sources mind set. See follow-up below  And Jessie Lee said of this? Over the years Custer’s route after departing from Reno until his arrival upon Custer field, has for the most part, been the banter of conjecture and supposition. Most today rely heavily upon what was written, and what was written wasn’t always true, especially when it came to ’shod’ horse tracks and whether or not one should base any evidence upon it as the Indians had captured and used many of Custer’s horses in their attacks upon Reno’s men in the days after. And any fording or watering area would have been fairly tainted by this ’captured’ evidence, not to mention the points between Custer Field and wherever Reno‘s First position was. The whereabouts of Custer’s long trek from one point to another while seemingly insignificant, does place an added burden upon understanding the sightings Reno’s men made during their own Valley Fight. But today that focal point seemingly focus’s upon only one point, that of Medicine Tail Coulee. Yet, there was no mention of which coulee they were referring to when the Indian interview was taken. For all we know it was ’water carrier ravine’ that they were talking about when they said coulee or ravine. Of course a great source for all of this confusion was the Camp interviews. Camp had a prejudicial feeling that Custer was supposed to have attacked at MTF, this based solely upon shod hoof prints found near there, flimsy evidence at best when one considers the “captured evidence” as previously mentioned. Yet in the Little Wolf interview we find a little enlightenment that tells us a much different story than what Camp wanted us to believe. Little Wolf, “When Custer was first seen he was opposite Ford “B” in Medicine Tail Coulee, traveling parallel with the river, soldiers deployed and seemingly trying to encircle the camp. After he passed MTC, Indians followed him.” John Two Moons in a Grinnell interview had this to say, “When he first saw the soldiers they were just coming down the steep hill east of the battlefield. They were on a lope and Indians were behind them, but they paid no attention to them. This was Custer’s command.” These two statements seem to corroborate each other, as one tells of Custer passing MTC on a course parallel to the river, and that once he passed there, the Indians then “followed” him. And later as they “came down the steep hill east of the battlefield… on a lope” with “Indians behind them”. One simply must ask, how did they get there? John Two Moons explanation is as good as any, but his explanation even gets better as he continued, “After the soldiers turned upon the little ridge, the Gray Horse group stopped where the monument is (was later placed). The others went on, stopping at intervals until there were four lines, the last opposite the camp. After they saw the soldiers there, John Two Moons, who was nearer the river on a hillside, ran with the others and caught their horses and rushed toward the fight. Several charges had been made but no fighting had been done. Indians were struggling up the gulch northeast of the soldiers like ants rushing out of a hill!” In the footnotes at the bottom (Cheyenne Memories/Hardorff) it states that this was Deep Coulee. Not only did they follow Custer this way, they literally were cutting him off from any retreat back to safety. MTF wasn’t attacked by Custer as he clearly skirted it as he passed over Luce Ridge, but it was used by the Indians to secure his left flank, because after he passed, they streamed up Deep Coulee “like ants rushing out of a hill” and sealed his fate that day. Curley stated that Custer went part way to the ford, sent the Gray Horse troop on, and then turned back with the rest of the command. While this could have been maneuvering on Custer field, it also could have been, and more likely was how he departed from Reno on his way downstream. There were intermittent sightings of Custer on the bluffs, and there were intermittent sightings of what Reno’s men said were Custer’s troopers. But the only sighting of any definitive value were those of Custer and the white horse troop, which easily could have been mistaken as the whole battalion being there. Varnum’s sighting placed the white horse troop at point “2” on the Maguire map just as Reno’s Skirmish line deployed. And Girard and DeRudio made personal sightings of Custer, or who they thought was Custer atop those same bluffs. Others also claimed to have witnessed Custer and or his troopers there, and thus the myths into history began as the whole of Custer’s battalion must have went that way. There were many Indian accounts of Custer’s battalion appearing on Luce Ridge. And just as many, again too tedious to mention here that he came from the “east” before trying to assault or take a ford or perhaps more than one ford downstream from mtf, but not at mtf. While Custer’s route after departing Reno still to this day remains in doubt, there can be little doubt that what the Indians (hostile & friendly) themselves observed and what they reported had more to do with the truth than any theory proposed by any white man today. |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 11, 2010 18:55:23 GMT -5
Melani,
You must have posted yours about the same time I posted mine. Or was composing it at the same time. ;D Any way, I didn't see it until today. I'm sorry about that, because yours is an excellent post.
If you mean by "open ended" - free to do what he wanted. I don't think so. The reason I believe this, is because when Custer sent Reno off, he told Reno that Benteen would be on the left and have the same instructons as he, Reno did. In other words, both had attack orders, and according to Reno, those attack orders included the village. So if one is to believe Reno, then Benteen's orders according to those "same instructions" was to attack that village.
Now imagine for a moment if Reno had not attacked that village. Benteen's orders were predicated upon those same orders, and he already wasn't attacking the village, as he was ordered to do. Yet what has come down from history of his mission? "This 'leader' also sends a battalion of troops on a mysterious foray into the "Bad Lands" in a futile search of insignificant value although he is aware that he will meet approximately 1,500 furious warriors in a relatively short time. (Custer himself expected this amount.)" AND RENO? "The R.C.O.I. was nothing less than a "white-wash" whose findings -despite credible (but ignored) testimony- absolved Reno of any malfeasance of duty." This "white-wash" statment - stated by none other than the Court Reporter himself.
And this depended upon Reno's orders. But Reno so badly garbled those orders to the court that not one person could see past the lie for the truth. Reno's own official report conflicted sharply with his own tesimony, and he was called on that. But it wasn't a trial, it was an "inquiry", and this matter was dropped like the hot potato that it was.
Benteen himself stated to the court that he disobeyed Custer's order when he "turned back". Many today feel that he was pulling the courts leg (as in a joke). But had he been called on that charge, what would he have said? That it was a joke? That he was saying it to pull someone's chain? I seriously doubt his response would have been that, and if it had he would have been held in contempt of court, they were in no mood for such antics, and one could tell from the serious tone it took throughout. I forget now where one such incident like this did happen, and that witness was quickly reprimanded.
This "division" you speak of was 'standard operating proceedure' back then. That's the way they operated against the hostile warriors. There was nothing mysterious nor wrong about it. As a dear friend of mine once said:
|
|
|
|
Post by melani on Jan 16, 2010 1:18:14 GMT -5
If you mean by "open ended" - free to do what he wanted. I don't think so. The reason I believe this, is because when Custer sent Reno off, he told Reno that Benteen would be on the left and have the same instructons as he, Reno did. In other words, both had attack orders, and according to Reno, those attack orders included the village. So if one is to believe Reno, then Benteen's orders according to those "same instructions" was to attack that village. ...This 'leader' also sends a battalion of troops on a mysterious foray into the "Bad Lands" in a futile search of insignificant value although he is aware that he will meet approximately 1,500 furious warriors in a relatively short time. Benteen himself stated to the court that he disobeyed Custer's order when he "turned back... What I mean is that Benteen's orders as he described them made only limited sense. Yes, it was a good idea to scout to the left a bit to prevent any escape or surprise by unseen groups of Indians, as at Washita--but according to Benteen, he was just supposed to keep on going until he found something. As you pointed out, Custer expected 1500 or so--so he sends Reno with 125 against that, and tells Benteen to wander off south, with no other orders? Am I missing something here? I think he intended to do the regular ol' three-pronged attack, but the timing was totally screwed. He may have thought he'd be able to cross the river with his battalion a lot sooner than he actually was able to. Oh, and then we can throw in the Edward Curtis Crow scout story of sitting on the bluffs watching Reno get decimated--that also makes no sense at all. I am beginning to see why those guys are spending their lives writing timelines--but I gotta admit, I never finished Gray. I guess I better make the attempt. I guess what I am driving at is the possibility that Benteen was supposed to come back a lot sooner than he did...or something. Do you think he could possibly have been supposed to swing around and hit the village on the west side? |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 16, 2010 11:30:34 GMT -5
I think what is needed here is a bit of AAO history. Joe and I had a discussion about it there, and if I remember correctly I may have said something at the other site as well at one time or another.
What it really all boils down to is position. Get the placement of that position wrong and it throws off everything else. This is what Gray and others didn't and still dont understand. Take for example "if" Benteen on his mission went to the left of the trail, "where" would that have taken him? I've seen Clair's description of where everyone 'thinks' he went. And I have to admit its pretty good. However, consider what Benteen and/or his men could have observed from the upper most reaches of that trek. Could they have seen the village and the Indians? The answer is fairly obvious, yes! Varnum on his scouting mission was on those same line of bluffs as he himself explained it to the court. And he said he observed a great number of Indians and that village about an hour before they arrived at the tepee about 1 mile from the river. If he saw them, then why didn't Benteen and his men? They reported no such thing. Now, either Benteen and all his men are lying, or the position is wrong. There is one other thing to consider here. Those 40 to 50 fleeing Indians from that camp about 5 miles up Reno creek from Ford "A". Benteen was in position to see them before Custer's men spotted them, again why didn't Benteen or his men ever report that? Instead they reported no such thing. Again either he and his men lied, or the position is wrong.
Gray is an excellent place to start. He is off by quite a bit because he uses faulty sources, Wallace being one of them and a major contributor to his errors. What most people still don't realize is "position" is everything here. If Custer was on the attack before he ever arrived at the divide, then why send Benteen the direction he did? If he was setting up the famous "three pronged attack", that third prong in the form of Benteen's battalion was way off the mark, was it not?
It would make more sense wouldn't it? But where's the foundation of belief for it? Is there anything that would or could corroborate this theory? Benteen was consistent in his direction of "left", so too was Edgerly. The question remains, "left" of what? Left isn't a direction unless one can reference it to a certain point that gives it 'direction'.
One last thought on this. Benteen said that Custer "pointed to a line of bluffs" that Custer was sending him to. If Custer pointed to that "line of bluffs" then those bluffs had to have been in full view for Custer to have done that. Position is everything here as well: Where was Benteen sent from? And what "line of bluffs" could be seen from there that Custer could have possibly "pointed to"? All the times stated today use Wallace's times for going down Reno Creek, but there were others much more qualified than he for stating those times, and they did, Reno was one, and Benteen was the other and their stated times agree with one another to within 1/2 hour, and disagree with Wallaces by as much as 3 hours!
As for Benteen hitting that village anywhere, that I'm certain of was what Custer wanted him to do, and not turn back, nor did Custer expect him to, that is clear from Benteen's own admission of guilt at disobeying those orders at the court, and is the main reason for the "timing" mixup you state, he wasn't where Custer ordered him to go and be: Where is the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by melani on Jan 16, 2010 23:16:48 GMT -5
Yup. "Go scout off thataway until hell freezes over" makes no sense at all.
We rode part of the area where Reno and Benteen were this past summer, but I had absolutely no idea at all where I was until we got to MTC. We were riding behind the bluffs, away from the river. At one point we crossed what I think was Reno Creek, but my attention there was taken up by the guy who was thrown after crossing the creek--fortunately not badly hurt, though he was an older guy who landed flat on his back. (I should talk--I think the youngest person on that ride was about 40.) My goal now is to learn to ride well enough that I can pay attention to the terrain instead of concentrating on staying on the horse--though I must say my horse was a gem, very kind and cooperative, but I'm pretty much of a novice rider. Then we had to argue with the Realbirds to finish the ride to the highway, which is what we thought we had contracted for. All in all, it was too much of a circus to get a really good perspective on who could see what from where--I'm not even sure where I was. Next time I'm taking a map.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 17, 2010 1:21:20 GMT -5
Never rode it on a horse before. Drove up the road towards the divide and back in the car, and doubt I would want to try the horse now-a-days. Although I was born in the saddle, my father owned and operated a farm/ranch operation and it seems like when I was young I was on that horse herding cattle somewhere sometime more than I cared to. Rowdy Yates didn't have nothing on me i'll tell ya that right now. Still can ride with the best of them, but darn it those saddle sores dont help much and I don't look so good walking bow legged for about two days afterward. Hmmm.... it couldn't have been 'him' could it that fell? Naaaa... Could it? ;D Probably why he was so nasty after he came back, darned ole fool, he shoulda known better than to try to hurdle that creek bed with that horse. Didn't he know that the horse would win? Darn I wished I was there a watch'n that one, I sure woulda pet that horse and curried him down nice before letting him go back to his pen. That horses name wouldn't have been Comanche would it? As for riding. Now I don't know about out there where you are, but here, almost anywhere one could find someone to ride with for free, although not right now, a person would have to be nuts. But in the Spring, Summer and Fall months easiest thing to find. One would suppose out there they'd likely charge one an arm and a leg depending upon whether or not you know someone with horses or not. But, I'd say if you want to ride better next time, practice makes perfect, as it goes with anything. As for Benteens mission and its direction, your absolutely right. |
|
|
|
Post by melani on Jan 17, 2010 12:59:54 GMT -5
Having not been on a horse in literally about 40 years, I started taking lessons last spring to prepare for the ride, and generally go once or twice a week. I am sitting here now instead of riding because it is raining, and there is only an outdoor arena. The day after the ride, I was one of three people who could walk. My problem is that I learned to ride English back in Chicago as a kid, and now I am trying to learn Western, which as you probably know is quite different. I keep inadvertently signaling the horse to go fast--fortunately she knows I don't mean it, but is still somewhat confused. Since she is probably too much horse for me--belongs to the instructor--and is trained for barrel racing, we stay in the small pen, and she has been very polite.
When I say I am a novice, the guy who went off at Reno Creek made me look like Gene Autry--I doubt he'd ever been on a horse before. Charlie Realbird (72 and rides like a teenager!) dismounted and was leading the horses and riders across the creek one by one, knowing he had an inexperienced bunch on his hands. I waited until close to last, to observe. But they at first forgot to tell us to rein in as the horses went uphill on the steep bank of the creek (About 12 feet or so up), since the horses tended to want to run upslope. So the guy's horse took off, his hat went off, and he reflexively tried to grab for it. Bad idea. And no, he wasn't anybody I'd ever met before. We thought at first he might really be hurt, but he got up and finished the ride. Then Charlie's granddaughter got bucked off the young horse she was riding--it was just one of those days. And there was a buckskin in the bunch, so of course we called him Comanche--but he behaved well.
A bunch of us would like to do it again next year. Maybe by then I'll have my feet in the right position in the stirrups--strangely, I can do it easily bareback, but as soon as I touch stirrups I automatically go into "English" position. Working hard to overcome that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 17, 2010 18:12:05 GMT -5
Where did you start from on your ride, go to and then end up? I bet it was alot of fun. God, how I'd love to do that again. Not sure this old body could stand up to it though. Darned Arthur and Bursey keep me from doing many things, although I do have some good days, never know when though.
Yup, they do that and if you don't find the horn quick enough sometimes you might just end up in a heap off the back side! Been there done that! Not a pretty site. You sure you didn't know that fella? He wasn't wearing a costume or make-up that day was he? Well, anyways, I'll have to see about what that horses name was, and sign up myself next year and see ifn I can hornswaggle one of them bird characters into letting our mutual acquaintance have a fine ride upon that horse. ;D You don't suppose he would dare invite me would he?
|
|
|
|
Post by melani on Jan 17, 2010 19:09:02 GMT -5
We started from what I think was the Realbirds' place down Reno Creek Road (there are a lot of Realbirds, and certainly more than one piece of property), and finally ended up at the highway across from the Trading Post, opposite the entrance to the battlefield. This was what we thought we had contracted for, but for whatever reason, Charlie Realbird took us all down MTC and said the ride was over--horse trailers were waiting. There was some discussion, a bunch of people who were getting sore got off at that point, and finally five or six of us and Charlie and a couple of his family went on to the highway. I could tell where I was from that point on, since I am familiar with the battlefield from the ridge road, but not from the area south of Reno Creek. I totally want to do it again, and hopefully spend more time looking around and less in concentrating on staying on the horse.
For what it's worth, I've got pretty severe arthritis myself, but I find it gets a lot better in Montana in the summer!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 17, 2010 19:49:14 GMT -5
About how long did that ride take? Was it a morning ride or an afternoon one? It can get quite hot there in the summer, so i'm not sure I would want to go in the afternoon.
The only house I can remember going up Reno Creek was about 7 or 8 miles up there from the river. It was in the corner of a bend there and the house was off to the southeast, just off the road about a hundred yards or so. Was this where you started from? The divide would have been a mile or two away from it. There were some other outbuildings around there if I remember corrrectly. But I don't remember seeing any other houses or anything else along that road.
|
|
|
|
Post by melani on Jan 18, 2010 1:03:04 GMT -5
The buildings were quite a way away from the road, down a very long drive. I'm not even sure I could find it again accurately--they picked us up at the Trading Post and drove us there in several vehicles, so I did not absorb it the way I would have if I had been driving.
We started late morning, and the ride took six hours. We went some really strange way around the back--various people commented that they expected to see a state line sign any minute, we went so far. Supposedly it was because we didn't have permission to ride on certain land, but the first ride, the day before with the other half of the group, had apparently gone a different way. I'm still not sure what was up.
It was probably in the mid-to-high 80's, and several of us, myself included, were in wool uniforms, Very instructive. Custer had it in the low 100's, and I have been there in that sort of temperature, though not wearing wool. On a certain level, it's not as bad as you would think, but then I have been doing this sort of thing for 20 years--wearing Elizabethan clothes in Northern California in September, for example. That's the hottest time of the year here--and Elizabethan styles were based on the fact that they were having a mini Ice Age!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jan 18, 2010 10:45:43 GMT -5
Good grief, how long did the trip take to get there (the back way?) from the Trading Post? The only State Line near there would have been Wyoming! Wouldn't that have been going the wrong way? Or was it 6 hours all together from the time you left the Trading post? If so, how long did the "horse-ride" itself take? As for that "mini Ice Age" comment, stick around I think were heading for another one the way things are going. I haven't seen this much snow here since I was a kid! And if we get what they're predicting, we wont get rid of this stuff until next September; and be glad someone kept the traditions you speak of alive! |
|
