|
Post by Herb on Jul 30, 2007 21:48:52 GMT -5
I suppose the most obvious answer to the second question is that Yates was killed or wounded early on and Custer came across to rally and take personal charge of that battalion, but it still leaves the first one unanswered. I've been thinking about this. It might partially explain both of my questions. I seem to recall, that there are tales about an officer being incapacitated at the Medicine Trail Coulee Ford. For awhile it was talked about as if it was Custer, however from Curley's accounts we know it was Yates' Battalion at the ford and at that time Custer was still with Keogh, in fact stayed with Keogh until the battalions rejoined at Calhoun Hill. If it was Yates, Tom Custer, as the next senior officer, may very well have been summoned to assume command of the battalion (all the rest of the commanders were lieutenants). It doesn't explain the First Sergeant's presence, however. If this was the case, that would have left 2LT Harrington in command of C Company. Harrington's body was never found/identified. Looking through some books today, I came across one that said that as the firing got hot on Calhoun Ridge, that Keogh ordered C Company to make a mounted charge to drive the Indians back. That while charging C Company received severe fire from the flank from Deep Coulee, and that was what caused them to break. Unfortunately there's no reference, on what the author bases this on.
|
|
|
Post by witlesstex on Aug 9, 2007 10:44:33 GMT -5
Regarding that fire at the battlesite several years back, they found an almost intact skeleton after the fire that they nicknamed Mike since they had no way of knowing who the man had been. Did anyone ever ascertain which company, at least, the skelton may have belonged to, or any possiblities, at least, as to who he may have been?
And has anyone ever read My Friend the Indian by James McLaughlin? He was the Indian Agent at the Sioux Indian Reservation (sorry, I can't remember the particular name offhand) where Sitting Bull and Gal were later taken after they surrendered. He interviewed some of the Indian survivors during the years he was there, and according to him, when the battle started Sitting Bull headed for the hills with his family, that he was nothing but a coward. If you've ever read the book, it becomes quite clear that McLaughlin held Sitting Bull in contempt, which may have colored his conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 9, 2007 10:50:52 GMT -5
I would rely on Robert Utley's book on Sitting Bull, "The Lance and the Shield" before I'd accept that view of Sitting Bull. It would have been totally out of character for him. There may be some confusion in that he did not take part in the battle, as Crazy Horse did, but was regarded as a holy man and religious leader, rather than a warrior (although he'd certainly fought in earlier days). I doubt his people would have given him any regard had they known him to be a coward. I believe the Indian police who murdered Sitting Bull objected to his staunch determination to preserve the tribe's traditions, while they preferred to adopt those of the whites. This is all a bit fuzzy right now, but I think that was the gist of it.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Aug 11, 2007 11:20:36 GMT -5
What's the general consensus on "Son of the Morning Star" as good history? The only titles in my library on LBH are that one and Hutton's "Custer Reader". Just curious. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 11, 2007 12:11:27 GMT -5
I wasn't quite sure what to make of SOTMS, although I did read it and thought the writing was good. I never got a clear idea of what he thought of Custer at all, but he clearly suggests that Benteen deliberately dragged his feet in responding to Custer's last message and may have decided to just let Custer die. He has a picture of Benteen there with a caption that says something like "Is this the face of a murderer?" I honestly don't remember a lot about it, but I think Wolf is more familiar with it than I am.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2007 13:16:32 GMT -5
And has anyone ever read My Friend the Indian by James McLaughlin? He was the Indian Agent at the Sioux Indian Reservation (sorry, I can't remember the particular name offhand) where Sitting Bull and Gal were later taken after they surrendered. He interviewed some of the Indian survivors during the years he was there, and according to him, when the battle started Sitting Bull headed for the hills with his family, that he was nothing but a coward. If you've ever read the book, it becomes quite clear that McLaughlin held Sitting Bull in contempt, which may have colored his conclusions. Yeah, there was a lot of personal animosity between the two, the recent HBO show "Wounded Knee" touched on it, he very obviously wasn't writing without prejudice! Although, there is a large bit of truth in it, just not his slant. By his age and position, Sitting Bull, was supposed to do exactly that escort and protect the women, children, old and infirm out of danger while the young men fought. A little known fact is that Gall's family was killed at the LBH, by Reno's men when they attacked the village. Reno got a lot closer, then what most people perceive.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2007 13:26:51 GMT -5
What's the general consensus on "Son of the Morning Star" as good history? The only titles in my library on LBH are that one and Hutton's "Custer Reader". Just curious. Jim I don't know if I would rate it "good'' as much as "not bad". You really can't go wrong with anything by Utley or Gray. Gray's Centennial Campaign while an overview of all the action, before and after as well as the LBH, is simply the best. His Custer's Last Campaign is a little dated, it was written about the time the archaeological studies were on going, and so s is missing some of their findings. It's still real good history, just his speculation of the final moments after the battalions rejoined at Calhoun Hill is probably off. Also if you can get your hands on it the US Army Command and General Staff College's Atlas of the Souix Wars is invaluable. While it covers the 1862 and 1866 - 68 Souix Wars, the detailed maps of the 1876 - 1877 War are great. The campaign maps are general overviews showing general axis of advances riverlines, and mountains, etc. The battle maps, are detailed topographic maps, with positions clearly marked and where appropriate, timelines showns.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 11, 2007 22:42:46 GMT -5
One thing that isn't often overlooked when discussing the LBH, especially by those who dislike Custer, is that Custer did not intend to attack the village on the 25th.
The night of the 24th, the 7th halted for only a few hours (1945 -0030) at Busby Bend on the Rosebud. Custer planned only a meal and a short rest, followed by a night movement (to keep the Indians from detecting the column) to a hide position located near the Crows Nest on the divide between the Rosebud and LBH. Custer intended to occupy this hide position before dawn allow his men and horses to rest throughout the day on the 25th, then approach the village and attack at dawn on the 26th.
Unfortunately for Custer, the column was detected by Indians through a series of almost accidents; Custer didn't know, but most of the incidents involved Indians returning to the Agencies (moving east) and not going to the village (west). The village remained unalerted.
However, Custer did not know this, and knew that the normal Indian practice was for villages to scatter when the army approached, nor that the immense size of this village made it different from every other previous incident, decided he had no other option but to move out his tired men and horses in an imediate movement to contact. A decison that almost every other officer would have made.
Terry had directed Custer to move up the Rosebud, and approach the LBH form the south, many today attack Custer for leaving the Rosebud in violation of Terry's orders. However, that's a failure to properly understand military orders. Terry did not know where exactly the Indians were, and wanted to prevent them from escaping to the South. Custer had been discovered, so he thought, and now faced a different situation then Terry envisioned. Given what he knew Custer's actions in ordering the movement to contact were quite proper.
Custer's orders to Benteen to move his battalion to the south, make sense when Terry's orders to Custer are considered, again not comphrehending the size of the village, Custer's idea is for Benteen to prevent the Inidans from escaping to the south in compliance with Terry's intent.
What exactly, Custer told Benteen we don't know for sure having only Benteen's testimony. Godfrey (one of Benteen's company commanders) was convinced that Benteen was willfully following Custer's orders to the extreme, and was knowingly taking his battalion further away from the main body then intended. Godfrey and I believe Weir both appealled to Benteen to return to the column long before he did.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 12, 2007 12:35:19 GMT -5
This is certainly the impression you get from "Son of the Morning Star." Benteen is a pivotal character in that book. I'm not sure exactly why Benteen disliked Custer so much, but most accounts say he remained angered over Custer abandoning some troops right after Washita because he feared another group of Indians were coming his way. I think Custer may have had some deserters shot too, which apparently didn't sit well with Benteen, but I'm not sure about that one.
I agree with you on the importance of Terry's orders to the events at LBH. In fact, my reading of Terry's orders is that they were quite flexible. There was the general order to wait for the other units to link up before taking action, but that was dependent upon the realities Custer might encounter in the field. Once he learned there was a camp nearby, I'm sure he felt it would be expected for him to attack, and the unusually large size of the village may have been the ultimate joker in the deck, which he didn't count on or even realize until it was too late.
The lack of rapid communications required that commanders in the field improvise and act independently of orders depending on the circumstances. For example, Custer had no idea that Crook had been soundly beaten by these same Indians only days earlier. In fact, I think one of the reasons the Indians were particularly angered when Custer appeared is that they thought it was Crook coming back again and that they needed to teach him an even more stern lesson. I think it's pretty generally agreed that the Indians had no idea it was Custer they were fighting until it was all over.
AW
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 12, 2007 13:41:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly why Benteen disliked Custer so much, but most accounts say he remained angered over Custer abandoning some troops right after Washita because he feared another group of Indians were coming his way. Major Elliot and his men. Yeah, it's pretty evident, that with one exception (sending a scout up Tullock's Creek) that While maybe not strictly following Terry's orders, Custer was operating within his intent. And intent is far more important than strict literal obedience. The Tullock's Creek scout was simply overcome by events. If you start at Busby Bend on the Rosebud and look at each decision, Custer made, the situation as he knew it, and his orders from Terry, it's hard to find a decision that Custer made that most other professionals wouldn't have under similar circumstances, the sole exception being sending Reno to attack while moving the other five companies out of range to mutually support each other. The problem is not with the individual decisions, at the time he made them, it's only a problem looking back at their accumulative effect. Sometimes in combat one can make professionally sound decisions throughout, and still lose. People always forget that the enemy has a say in how things will turn out. I don't like Custer, I think the command climate he fostered help lead to the results at the LBH. But, professionally, his decision making, that day until we lose sight of him, was sound.
|
|