CUSTER BATTLEFIELD UPDATE -- The Homepage!
Custe...@aol.com
What's wrong (and right) out at the Little Bighorn? We'll tell you!
You may of course subscribe ($15/yr.) to our non-profit quarterly The
Custer/Little
Bighorn Battlefield Advocate -- the ONLY independent newsletter
devoted
solely to the welfare of this jewel of the National Park Service.
(P.O. Box 792, Malibu, CA 90265)
BUT....
For our Custer/Little Bighorn Battlefield Homepage, check out
http://member.aol.com/CusterFact/index.html -- you can bet that the
National Park Service does!
It includes our ongoing feature "The Destruction of the Battlefield",
as
well as our uncompromising petition aimed at cleaning up the joint.
Not to mention these fascinating pages.....
"Pork Service: Two Simoleons" -- Why tourists have to pay $2 extra for
a
visit to the Battlefield -- none of it going to the NPS! Try
http://members.aol.com/CusterFact/scam.html
"Not Bread But A Stone" -- Why the proposed INDIAN MONUMENT concept
needs drastic revision:
http://members.aol.com/Custerfact/monument.html
For insights into the weird National Park Service psychology, try:
http://members.aol.com/CusterFact/Parkjunk.html.
Government-sanctioned grave desecration in a National Cemetery? We
don't
make this stuff up! http://members.aol.com/Custer/Fact/graves.html
"Jim Crow at the Little Bighorn" -- Custer's black interpreter and why
he
couldn't get a job at the park today:
http://members.aol.com/CusterFact/Jimcrowat.html
More to follow, as I think of it -- including my thoughts following a
visit in July to the Battlefield, the Crazy Horse monument site,
Fetterman
battlefield, and other Western stuff.
Watch for the upcoming story on the Battlefield in the New York Times!
(This weekend, I'm told...)
All critical bouquets, brickbats, etc. gracefully accepted. I'd like
detailed comments from those who dissent from our views as well as
those
who support them.
Wayne M. Sarf
Co-Editor, Custer/Little Bighorn Battlefield Advocate
(Custe...@aol.com)
Author, "The Little Bighorn Campaign, March-September 1876" -- A
Military
Book Club Main Selection. ("It is well done, and I like your use of
sidebars to illuminate particular points" -- Arthur M. Schlesinger,
Jr.)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jordan S. Dill
Ah, yes... a King of Thieves supporter...
Linda Terrell
In <34005E51...@dark.web>, "S. O. Teryk" <Bud....@dark.web> writes:
>Custe...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> What's wrong (and right) out at the Little Bighorn?
>
>
> Well.... my first thougt is that it is improperly named for the looser
>and not the winner.
It is Named The Little Bighorn Battlefield.
>
> I'd like to hear it called the Victory Center at the Battle of Greasy
>Grass...
>
> Or the Greasy Grass Battle Grounds National Park.
>
> or etc., let us stop paying homage to the name of a vowed
>racist!
Then you had better not pay homage to ANYONE from the Victorian period
as they were ALL racis
And pleasse to remember that there is a National Cemetary at the LBH
and the groudns have been desecrated by having ART SHOWS n the parking lot!
A court just ordered T shirt sales on the National Mall and near the
Vietnam Memorial to halt b ecause of the "flea market atmosphere"
The LBH is no different -- dead "waarriors" are buried there, from BOTH
sides. And they should all be honored and respected.
Hanta Yo
lin...@ibm.net
Bob Tiernan
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997, S. O. Teryk wrote:
> Custe...@aol.com wrote:
> > What's wrong (and right) out at the Little Bighorn?
> Well.... my first thougt is that it is improperly named
> for the loser and not the winner.
No it isn't. Its current official name is Little Bighorn
Battlefield National Monument, and has been since the Bush
administration.
For what it's worth, I agree that the battlefield should
have been called just that all along, for no battlefield
should be named after a person involved in it, winner *or*
loser. Some who objected to the Custer name for that
reason wanted to call it the Crazy Horse Battlefield, which
exposed their true colors.
Many battlefields out west are refered to by the name of a
person involved, such as the Fetterman Fight, the Custer
Battle, etc., usually because there were few wellknown
or established man-made or natural landmarks in the vicinity.
Still, many did bear such a name, such as the Washita
battle, the Little Big Horn, Adobe Walls, etc. At the
present time there is a battlefield from the 76 Sioux War
known as the Dull Knife Battlefield. Where is the outcry
to have that one named after the nearby hill or stream?
Dull Knife lost, too, by the way.
The action fought at along the Little Big Horn River has been
known as the Battle of the Little Big Horn since almost the
beginning, and not the Battle of Custer. The government
decided to call it Custer Battlefield. The person's name
being used was, as mentioned earlier, a common practice. The
fact that he lost should have had zip to do with it, even at
that time. What should we do with the Alamo and Pearl Harbor?
Have memorials in honor of Santa Anna's troops and the
Japanese respectively? The colonists were driven from Bunker
and Breed's Hills in 1775 - should we have then ignored their
actions because they lost to what was then considered our
enemy?
> I'd like to hear it called the Victory Center at the Battle of
> Greasy Grass...
>
> Or the Greasy Grass Battle Grounds National Park.
Why use the Sioux or Cheyenne name for the stream? The battle
was fought on what was considered Crow land (as it still is),
and they scouted for the army that summer. Would it not be
more proper to use the Crow name for the stream?
> let us stop paying homage to the name of a vowed racist!
No homage being paid, that I can see. And his reputation as
a racist is much fabricated and misunderstood.
Bob T.
REWATSON
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > let us stop paying homage to the name of a vowed racist!
>
> No homage being paid, that I can see. And his reputation as
> a racist is much fabricated and misunderstood.
>
If we are to consider Custer a racist with regard to the Indians, then
we would have to include Sherman and Sheridan likewise. He was sent to
do their work.
R.E. Watson
Stacy R. Swain
Well.... my first thougt is that it is improperly named for the looser
and not the winner.
And I suppose that you've never heard of the Fetterman Massacre Site ?!
Why is that any different?! Because the Indians couldn't get all of the
attention that they've been getting lately if the battle had involved
someone as unknown as Fetterman (or as contriversial in his own day as
Custer was). It all boils down to nothing more than a lot of
Politically Correct B.S.!! The National Parks Service feels this need
to kiss the Indians butts!
Stacy Swain
Stacy R. Swain
Ah, yes... a King of Thieves supporter...
Oh, and I see that you also don't know your history very well!
Custer wasn't a "thief", you can thank your own government for stealing
the Indian's land! The Army was just "along for the ride", getting used
like pawns in the process!!
Stacy Swain
Ya-ZZZZ
No-one ordered Custer to the Little Big Horn. He made a poor military
decision on his own. He thought there would be unarmed people to kill.
Guess they were better fighters than he thought. But let's not just blame
Custer. If his soldiers had refused to go, Custer's orders would have
meant nothing. Authority only has the power that it's subjects invest in
it.
--
hoko'one
ya-ZZZZ
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.970824...@linda.teleport.com>...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Jordan S. Dill wrote:
>
> > Ah, yes... a King of Thieves supporter...
>
>
> Why is Custer the King of Thieves rather than the person who
> ordered him into the Black Hills? Also, the Sioux claimed
> the Black Hills at the time, tho' they had earlier driven
> another tribe out. Was that theft as well?
>
>
> Bob T.
>
>
S. O. Teryk
Thanks for the support KJ.
As usual, we have now heard from the "rabbit trail-ist" and the "anti
butt kissers" and the "if this than ALL that'ers"...
<grin>
Linda T
"ALL" victorians were racis(ts)? That's quite an all encompassing
statement.... Art shows in the parking lot hmmmm? Well, as long as
the Government is getting a cut, perhaps, just perhaps this will cut
down a bit, on their next demand for taxpayer money.
And you are correct. Every dead warrior, be he/she/it from either
side of an argument, deserves my respect, if that death was caused by
beliefs that needed defense. But to those individuals that were the
aggressors; that intended to eradicate an entire race of people, I have
no respect. I'm satisfied with their death, as it brings an end to that
one individual and prevents that one, from further breaking of the
peace.
Bob T
Again, I apologize for muttering. I would not change the name of the
Alamo or Pearl Harbor because they are not named for the aggressor. By
that logic, you are correct, it would be called the victory of General
Santa Anna, and probably was/is in some later areas. My point was that
the name of the area should be a local name, the name given by the local
inhabitants, and not a name given by late-comers who claimed to have
discovered something. Where did the name "Little Big Horn" come from?
Does anyone know why I mentioned Greasy Grass? I'm sorry my sarcasm
was lost on the name being "of the winner or looser", my point was that
the name of a place should be its original. As in some areas, (like
Western Washington), this is done in part. The name Seattle being a
corruption of the Senior Elder, whose name the european could not (or
would not) pronounce correctly. Or as they did with the name of Tahoma.
The biggest mountain in the area. Re-named it for some English Admiral,
Rainier.
We can only deal with one issue at a time. It is ludicrous to say "if
you're going to want change in one item, you will have to change all!",
and thereby, do nothing because of the mass of material required to
change the whole world at one moment. Let us deal with a single issue,
and move one. Doom-sayers are cowards, all and never take actions of
any consequence.
Stacy:
As for Fetterman, you're right. I never heard of him. That does not
force me to abandon efforts in other places.
R.E.Watson
Why would we have to consider these other two racist just because they
"sent" him? Perhaps the one that ordered them to send Georgie, was the
racist and these two were just obeying orders..
The Massacure at Little Big Horn (as seen by the US Population)
The Victory at Greasy Grass (as seen by the "Indians")
Semantics....
So how do history books refer to the conflicts at
Sand Creek
Wonded Knee
In a lot of cases, and I do mean a LOT, it is simply ignored or
referred to by a single sentence or paragraph that does nothing to
provide the truth, from both sides. And in a lot of history books,
you will not find *any* reference to minor yet significant actions
taken by certain individuals or groups. Some of which were Indians,
some Christians, Mormans, Chinese, etc. What precent of you know
how important (on a scale of 1 to 10) was the actions of the
Reverend Clark, on the day the "shot that was heard around the
world", was fired?
If there isn't a dollar to be made, or a vote to be gathered, than it
is of no consequence. As for the rest, those items that are an
embarassment to the Government, are allowed to disapate into obsecurity,
to re-direct national attention toward new forms of earning money &
votes.
My cinicism is showing, :) I just wish we could all get along,
without bragging or complaining. "WE" can't change the past, but we can
form the future. Your everyday words and actions, form the small lives
(children) under your influence. They are not born hateing, only
hungery and ego-centric.
Ray
Stacy R. Swain
>But to those individuals that were the
>aggressors; that intended to eradicate an entire race of people, I have
>no respect. I'm satisfied with their death,
Well, the U.S. Army was certainly not out to 'eradicate' an entire race
of people. To have no respect for these men who died bravely, is a
mockery as to HOW they died, etc. (i.e. tortured, mutilated). To be
SATISFIED with the DEATH of individuals who were used like pawns by
their government is SICK indeed!!
Stacy Swain
Stacy R. Swain
REWATSON
S. O. Teryk wrote:
>
>
> R.E.Watson
> Why would we have to consider these other two racist just because they
> "sent" him? Perhaps the one that ordered them to send Georgie, was the
> racist and these two were just obeying orders..
>
Perhaps not !!
REWATSON
Stacy R. Swain wrote:
>
> > He thought there would be unarmed people to kill.
> >Guess they were better fighters than he thought.
>
> history on this subject knows that the Indians NEVER were easy to
> attack, they almost ALWAYS outgunned the military. That summer was
> certainly no exception.
Did I miss something when Chivington attacked Black Kettle at Sand Creek
in the early morning. Or for that matter when GAC attacked at Washita ??
Actually, it probably wasn't that EASY since GAC's men had to wait for
dawn in the cold of Winter. You know how easy it is to get a chill !
John Mills
The premise that everyone who fought against the native americans during
this period was a racist and that all govt. actions were accordingly so
tainted is being simplistic and inaccurate - however convenient in todays
PC world.
There were racists on all sides recall that somewhat earlier in history
Tecumseh called for the EXTERMINATION of the white race. Racism, and any
other motives for war must be viewed in the context of the time, through
the eyes of those present. Armchair judges of 1997 will get their own time
to be examined in the future and should at least try to make the claim
that "Although we were incompetent we were incompetent in our treatment of
everyone."
JSM
elfmaid
And well they should!
That "National Park" was the natives f*cking home before the US Gov.
stole it.
Nothing PC about that. just morals, honey...of which you obviously have
none...
Elfmaid
--
Elf...@aa.net
Elf...@aol.com
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My Home Page:
http://www.aa.net/~elfmaid/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My Pics:
http://www.aa.net/~elfmaid/Fotos.html
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My Career Page & Resume':
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5259
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Some Will, Some Won't
Some Do, Some Don't
I might!
rick etter
elfmaid wrote:
>
>
>
> That "National Park" was the natives f*cking home before the US Gov.
> stole it.
> Nothing PC about that. just morals, honey...of which you obviously have
> none...
>
> Elfmaid
And which tribe stole it from what tribe before the evil US Gov. became
just the latest tribe to take it? Point is this wasn't first time the
lands had been fought over. It was not the current PC fad of believing
the peacfulness between all the tribes.
--
CANOE NORTH!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Bob Tiernan
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Kirk Johnson wrote:
> It was great, there were dozens of us moving around the statue
> chanting things like "Custer's not a hero! He's a zero!"
Wow! Yeah, wow, ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz............
Bob T.
Lance Foster
From "A Dictionary of Everyday Crow" (Compiled by Mary Helen Medicine Horse;
Crow Agency, Montana, 1987):
iisaxpuatahcheeaashisee "Bighorn Sheep River" Big Horn River
iisaxpuatahcheeaashisee aliakaate "Where the Bighorn [Sheep River] is small"
Little Bighorn River
ihkaleaxdaake alahaawiio "Where They did away with Morning Star's Child"
Custer Battlefield
----
Lance Foster
Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska
--
>><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><<
Lance M. Foster |>>>----------|> NATIVE NATIONS OF IOWA <|----------<<<
fos...@nativenations.com A Portion of Native Nations of the Midwest:
(also lfo...@iastate.edu) www.nativenations.com
>><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><<
Stacy R. Swain
>And well they should!
>That "National Park" was the natives f*cking home before the US Gov.
>stole it.
Well, for your information, that "National Park" is STILL on Crow land.
So it STILL IS the natives home!!
>Nothing PC about that. just morals, honey...of which you obviously have
>none...
That's all it is, is PC, because that's their only motive. By the way I
have enough moral standing to know right from wrong as to what the NPS
has been doing for years up there.
Stacy Swain
Linda Terrell
In <5tvojm$24...@saganaga.computerpro.com>, Real Name <user...@cp.duluth.mn.us> writes:
>lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) writes:
>> a friend said he met lindat at the LBHA conf in billings. Finally, it is
>known. As this subject area is for the serious minded, there is no need to post
>messages to this site anymore. Yay.
I remember some gutless git with an e*mail "address" like yours who
was going to "turn me in" to Russell Means. But the git never had the balls
to leave his real e*mail name and address.
Linda Terrell
In <34032D...@bright.net>, rick etter <ret...@bright.net> writes:
>Kirk Johnson wrote:
>> I understand the Daughters of the American Revolution came out all
>> red-faced and pissed off to angrily tear down the yarn and announce "We're
>> taking this evidence to City Hall!" (ooooo!). It was sweet as hell, it was
>> wonderful for the heart and soul, and it was a day I'll never forget!
>>
>> To hell with Custer and the whole horse shit 'Manifest Destiny' ball of wax.
>>
>> Kirk Johnson
>=============================
>
>Wow, what a life. This is the best times he has to remember?
>
> Vandalism=activism, never quite understood tha
He got his history from DANCES WITH WOLVES.
Stacy R. Swain
>
> In your eyes, they were PROBABLY beeping in approvement...I seriously
> doubt it!!
>I am familiar with the universal 'thumb's up' signal. There is a lot of
>latent dislike and shame for that statue in Monroe. it's like having a
>statue of Gerbels or someone.
It's pretty sad when someone has to compare Custer to a high ranking
Nazi!!!
Stacy Swain
Linda Terrell
In <newkirk-2608...@bart21.olywa.net>, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >How about John Brown? Now there's a white hero from that time period.
>>
>> Yeah, a terrorist and a mass murderer.
>
>In fact, churches throughout the north rang their bells for Brown, and all
>black-owned businesses closed out of respect on the day he was executed.
>
>Frederick Douglass called Brown "one of the greatest heroes known to
>American fame."
>
>That is was John Brown was and is - a freedom fighter and a true American
>hero, in the same vein as Nat Turner. If you're looking for a "terrorist
>and a mass murderer", try any one of several American Presidents or
>something.
he was a terrorist and a mass murderer. And deserved to hang.>
Brian Blakistone
I thought he was a high ranking rodent.
Brian
John Mills
Kirk is apparrently convinced his view of history and those people of the
victorian period is correct. Moving beyond his beliefs however, is a
desire to "protest" in some way, that is giving voice to his beliefs.
Fine. However, his willingness to condem people in such a general manner
combined with his willingness to commit vandalism and toss about insults
tends to result in my total lack of interest in anything he has to say.
If Kirk yells in the forest is there a sound?
JSM
In article <34032D...@bright.net>, rick etter <ret...@bright.net> wrote:
> Kirk Johnson wrote:
> >
> > In article <34005E51...@dark.web>, "S. O. Teryk" <Bud....@dark.web>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to hear it called the Victory Center at the Battle of Greasy
> > > Grass.....Or the Greasy Grass Battle Grounds National Park.....let us stop
> > > paying homage to the name of a vowed racist!
> > >
> > > Ray
> >
> > Thanks Ray, good suggestions.
> >
> > I was living in Monroe, MI a few years back (Custer's hometown) when the
> > nearby Fermi II nuke plant had an explosion and fire. Subsequently they
> > dumped 1.5 million gallons of radioactive water into Lake Erie. Well,
> > there was about a weeks worth of protests that summer against Fermi &
> > Detroit Edison, and one day a protest was held in front of the big, ugly,
> > despicable Custer statue downtown. The protest soon morphed from an
> > anti-Fermi demo. to an anti-Custer demo. It was great, there were dozens
> > of us moving around the statue chanting things like "Custer's not a hero!
> > He's a zero!" We were throwing debree on the statue, and especially these
> > big rolls of yarn (re-weaving the web of life) that were soon draped over
> > and covering the whole statue. People were driving by beeping in
> > approvement, about a half-dozen cops were on the scene saying "Come on you
> > guys, cut it out. Come on stop it." etc. to no avail. After we were gone,
> > I understand the Daughters of the American Revolution came out all
> > red-faced and pissed off to angrily tear down the yarn and announce "We're
> > taking this evidence to City Hall!" (ooooo!). It was sweet as hell, it was
> > wonderful for the heart and soul, and it was a day I'll never forget!
> >
> > To hell with Custer and the whole horse shit 'Manifest Destiny' ball of wax.
> >
> > Kirk Johnson
> =============================
>
> Wow, what a life. This is the best times he has to remember?
>
> Vandalism=activism, never quite understood that.
Linda Terrell
In <340343...@ontonet.be>, Rob Mead <Rob....@ontonet.be> writes:
>He was ordered to the LBH, but way upstream from where he actually
>struck it.
>
>He chose to cross the divide from the Rosebud on his own volition, not
>under express orders.
His orders stated "should you see sufficient reason" to deviate from orders.
>
>The only question was how much lattitude Terry gave him to do what he
>did. Terry actually stated the location of the Indians (probable at the
>time - he had it right) when he gave Custer his orders at the mouth of
>the Rosebud. He told Custer to go to the LBH headwaters then sweep North
>to meet him at that spot on the day Terry actually arrived ther
There was NO meeting date ever stated in the orders. Custer was
rationed for 15 days which brings us to July 4 or 5. And the final line
in Terry's "suggestions" was to meet no later than the time for
which Custer was rationed. And Terry was not there on June 26 --
he was a day late for his own mythical meeting.
>Terry went on to give Custer lattitude to act as he saw fit on the field
>at the time, and that's where the controversy is. The military question
>is not whether Custer had express orders to go strike the LBH at that
>point and on that date (he clearly did not), but whether or not he met
>the intent of his orders in going to that point earlier than ordered.
when he found the trail, the Indians were a day closer than anticipated.
>That question can't be answered by us, because it is simply not possible
>to know what is on the mind of a tactical commander without being there
>with him (and even then it's guess work). He definitely made a bad
>decision, but why he did it, and whether or not it was based on sound
>principles is something you cannot judge without being there with him.
>A more interesting *military* question is why he decided to split his
>forces like that. Benteen was taken out of the equation entirely,
>something which may have swung the whole day if it had not happened.
Try reading Lt. Charles Edward Callwell's "Small Wars: Their Principles
and Practice" 1896. This book for many years was used to train British
officer in the art of irregular warfare at both the tactical and strategic
levels.
"But irregular warfare must generally be carried out as a method totally
different from the sterotyped system." The US Army by 1876 had found out
by experience that if you hit Indians from several directions at once, they
scattered. And Benteen was not taken out of the equation -- his orders were
to search two ridges and return to the command ASAP. He was NOT given
orders to go "valley hunting ad infinitum"
Lt. Godfrey wrote: "An attack against Indians must be made with celerity
and generally without other knowledge of the numbers of the opposing
force than that discovered or conjectured while following the trail. The
dispositions for the attack may be said to bve made "in the dark" and
succesful surprise to depend on luck. . .In Indian warfare the rule is
"touche and go" In fact the firebrand nature of Indian warfare is not
generally understood."
Callwell: "Vigour and decision are the root of effective conduct of
irregular warfare operations. To attempt to lie down rules for
guidance in such enterprises, to suggest the conditons under which
such exploits may or may not be safely ventured on, would wholly be
out of place. To the commander thrown on his own resources, who sees
a great chance open should he risk all on one single throw, the accepted
code of strategy and tactics is of no avail and the mazims of the academic
school of military thought have small significance."
"The appearance of numerous distinct invading forces not only terrifies
an antagonist, but it perplexes him and confuses his plans. Another reason
for invading the opponents' territory in several distinct bodies is that when
accurate information of the theatre of war is unobtainable, it may be
doubtful if the objecttive can be reached at all by any particular line. IN SUCH
A CASE IT IS CLEARLY A WISE PRECAUTION TO MOVE BY SEVERAL DIFFFERENT
LINES IF POSSIBLE."
Custer was fully aware of the mobility advantage the Plains Indians had
over regular forces: "I am of the opinion, and my opinion is justified by
experience, that no cavalry in the world, marching even in the lightest
possible manner, unencumbered with baggage or supply trains, can
overtake or outmarch the Western Indian, when the latter is disposed to
prevent it."
Callwell: "The fundemental principle of carrying out operations
against irregular warriors is to assume the initiative wherever it is
possible to do so, and to maintain it as long as it is practicable to
maintain it."
"It cannot be insisted upon too strongly that in a small war, the
only possible attitude to assume is, speaking strategically, the
offensive. The regular army must force its way into the enemy's
country and seek him out. It must be ready to fight him wherever
he may be found. It must play to win and not for safety."
"When there is no king to conquer, no capital to seize, no organized
army to overthrow, and no great centres of population to occupy, then
the regular troops are forced to resort to village burning and the war
assumes as aspect which may shick the humanitarian. If the enemy
cannot be touched in his patriotism or his honour, he can be touched
through his pocket."
"Since tactics favor the regular troops, while strategy favours the
enemy, the object to be sought for clearly is to fight, not to manoeuvre"
". . .to beat irregular opponents and savages, the most effacious plan
is to engage them on everypossible occasion. In the majority of cases, the
boldest will be found to be the wisest course.
"There will often be temptation to attempt some far-reaching combination,
but in nine times out of ten it will probably be better to fall upon the enemy
with whatever forces are at hand and thereby to make sure of a fight."
Godfrey explained the necessity of moving quickly to attack: "In all our
previous experiences, when the immediate presence of the troops was oance
known to them, the warriors swarmed to the attack and resorted to all kidns
of ruses to mislead the troops, to delay the advance while the sqaws and
children secured what personal effects they could. . .and then scattering, made
succesful pursuit next to impossible."
Callwell: "Considering the number of cases where small bodies of
regular cavalry have utterly defeated and dispersed masses of brave,
well-armed and well-mounted horsemen, it may almost be accepted
that the regulars should not shirk an encounter with even very superior
forces of hostile horsemen on suitable ground."
Callwell: "Division of force, often necessitated by the circumstances, is
less often objectionalbe in small wars campaigns than in regular warfare."
"The main advantage of tactical separation is the moral effect which it
exerts. The enemy finds it vbery trying to be attacked simultaneously
by different columns. Some must menace the line of retreat and
irregular warriors above all things fear a situation where their escape
is jeopardised."
David Laro
Egad, here it goes again.
Stacy R. Swain <srs...@micron.net> wrote:
: >Well.... my first thougt is that it is improperly named for the looser
: and not the winner.
:
: And I suppose that you've never heard of the Fetterman Massacre Site ?!
YEs, I've heard of it. What's your point
: Why is that any different?! Because the Indians couldn't get all of the
: attention that they've been getting lately if the battle had involved
: someone as unknown as Fetterman (or as contriversial in his own day as
: Custer was).
I"ve tried, but can make no sense out of the last sentence above? What's
your point, again?
It all boils down to nothing more than a lot of
: Politically Correct B.S.!! The National Parks Service feels this need
: to kiss the Indians butts!
: Stacy Swain
Like Stacy, I detest the politcally correct BS that is sweeping the
society into non-thinking stagnation. But we need to remember that
that land was the home of the Indians until our "society" decided
that our need for riches was more important than their society's
right to live there. Is this kissing their butts? I think not.
I'd call it fair play, if rather belatedly.
Battles are usually named by the writers of history. While that may be
the winners (usually,) in this case those native Americans apparently were
writing few history books during the period. It seems that there were
OTHER U.S. Lt. Colonels who were more effective at winning battles and the
native Americans' attentions were more than diverted by merely trying to
survive as a people.
David
la...@texas.net
Kevin Jordan
Stacy R. Swain <srs...@micron.net> wrote:
> It's pretty sad when someone has to compare Custer to a high ranking
> Nazi!!!
>
>
> Stacy Swain
Tell that to Black Kettle.
Kevin Jordan
Kevin Jordan
Kirk Johnson <new...@olywa.net> wrote:
> I disagree. See my post, refered to above. You have only called him names.
> Anybody can go around calling people names.
>
> Kirk
No chance of him being acceptable. He was never played by Errol Flynn,
the only true source.
Kevin Jordan
Glenn Gehring
The difference is that a treaty was entered into between the Sioux and the
United States. A covenant by the U.S. that Sioux property would be
respected. The U.S. violated that covenant when gold was discovered, the
Sioux didn't. From all records, including records from ministers that lived
among them, the Sioux were known to keep their word. They didn't promise
peace and then attack the Crow or the Shoshone.
In article <3401a...@news2.ibm.net> lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) writes:
> We'd have to consier that the Indians were pretty racists too. The Lakota
>tried to wipe out the Crow. TOOK their Big Horn valley hunting territories and
>killed some 5000 Crow in the process. TOOK the Black Hills from the Shoshone.
>
Linda Terrell
In <gehring.1.3...@osu.edu>, gehr...@osu.edu (Glenn Gehring) writes:
>
>The difference is that a treaty was entered into between the Sioux and the
>United States. A covenant by the U.S. that Sioux property would be
>respected. The U.S. violated that covenant when gold was discovered, the
>Sioux didn't.
Incorrect. Tehre was a clause in the Laramie Treat of 1868 which
allowed the US Government to survey the area and put in a For if
deemed necessary. I doubt they bothered to inform the Lakota
of that, but the clause was there nevertheless.
From all records, including records from ministers that lived
>among them, the Sioux were known to keep their word. They didn't promise
>peace and then attack the Crow or the Shoshone
No they just jumped them in complete ambush and attempted to
wipe them all out. Slaughtered 5000 Crow in the early 1800's.
Waited until the Pawnee were decimated by disease then attaacked
and nearly wiped all the rest of them, within sight of a mission. A John
Dunbar (ever wonder where that name came from) wathced Lakota
bludgeon down women and children as they fled.
Linda Terrell
In <3404d9b8...@news.azstarnet.com>, rac...@azstarnet.com (Rachel A) writes:
>cbla...@ucsd.edu (Brian Blakistone) wrote:
>>>>statue of Gerbels or someone.
>
>>I thought he was a high ranking rodent.
>He, he. I wondered when someone was going to make a comment on the
>spelling of Goebbels (sp?). See, I'm not sure if I spelled it right,
>either.
Depends on if you get all your history from DANCES WITH WOLVES.
The statue of Custrer in Monroe, MI is of the CIVIL WAR Custer who helped the
Army of the Potomac beat Lee -- in fact, Custer STOPPED Lee at Appomattox
and held him there in a night skirmish until the rest of the army could come up.
Sheridan later presented Custer with the table on which the terms of
surrender were written. Said table is now in the Smithsonian.
thomas kavanagh
Linda Terrell wrote:
> Cheyenne and Kiowas Dog Soldiers who'd been ravaging the countryside.
>
>
> lin...@ibm.net
There is/was no such thing as a Kiowa "dog soldier".
tk
Stacy R. Swain
>
> It's pretty sad when someone has to compare Custer to a high ranking
> Nazi!!!
>
> Stacy Swain
>Please elaborate, in what way do you feel my analogy is "sad"?
I find it sad for one thing because you refuse to understand the truth
in what I'm saying.
>It was an offhand remark, but a good analogy never the less, I think.
Not!! It was a terrible analogy, and if you HAD been thinking, you
wouldn't have said it!
>Both men were high ranking military officials, both were deeply >involved through the military in the attempted wholesale extermination >of an entire race of people.
You aren't EVEN close, it's obvious from your ramblings that you don't
know squat about Custer!! He admired the Indians AND respected them,
and a few times even REFUSED to attack them because he didn't deem it
necessary! He got himself into some HOT water with the Grant
administration because he openly spoke out against the way the
Government was treating the Indians (i.e. not giving them the promised
supplies and food rations they were supposed to be giving them on the
reservations; and how that the Government was taking kick-backs for
selling off the items and then giving the Indians crap!))
>The level of complicity in the two extraordinarily hideous
>campaigns seems comparable.
Again, not even close! Contrary to YOUR belief, the Indian Wars were
not about "extermination", or "genocide".
>I woudln't want a statue of Gerbels in my
>hometown
I wouldn't blame you there, though.
>I wouldn't want a statue of
>Custer in my hometown.
I seriously believe that you need to rethink your logic on this. Start
by reading some good realistic books about Custer. He really wasn't the
"monster" that you think he was.
Stacy Swain
Linda Terrell
In <3405AC...@indiana.edu>, thomas kavanagh <tkav...@indiana.edu> writes:
>Linda Terrell wrote:
>>
>> whose village was a Military Targert because it had been harboring
>> Cheyenne and Kiowas Dog Soldiers who'd been ravaging the countryside.
There was a group of Kiowa under Satanta which called themselves
"Dog soldiers" meaning outcasts and they were joined by Cheyenne
some from Kettle's village. they were ravaging the Kansas countryside and
this is the group Custer was trailing and whom he thought he had that
November morning -- but their ptahs had crossed with Kettle's villagae
during the snowstorm.
REWATSON
Stacy R. Swain wrote:
> I seriously believe that you need to rethink your logic on this. Start
> by reading some good realistic books about Custer. He really wasn't the
> "monster" that you think he was.
>
> Stacy Swain
Stacy:
Would you suggest 3 or 4 books that you think are "good realistic books
about Custer" ? I'm just about through Louise Barnetts, Touched by Fire
and I've read Gray's, Custer's Last Campaign.
Thanks,
Roger
Stacy R. Swain
Hello Roger:
Try these titles: "The Custer Reader", by Paul Hutton, "The Little Big
Horn Campaign", by Wayne Sarf, "My Life on the Plains", by George A.
Custer, "Son of the Morning Star", by Evan S. Connell, "Tenting on the
Plains", "Following the Guideon", and "Boots and Saddles", by Libby
Custer, and "Custer's 7th Cavalry", by Lisle Reedstrom.
That is all I can think of offhand right now, it should be enough to get
you started.
Stacy Swain
Richard Little
Glenn Gehring wrote:
>
> The difference is that a treaty was entered into between the Sioux and the
> United States. A covenant by the U.S. that Sioux property would be
> respected. The U.S. violated that covenant when gold was discovered, the
> among them, the Sioux were known to keep their word. They didn't promise
>
> In article <3401a...@news2.ibm.net> lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) writes:
> > We'd have to consier that the Indians were pretty racists too. The Lakota
> >tried to wipe out the Crow. TOOK their Big Horn valley hunting territories and
> >killed some 5000 Crow in the process. TOOK the Black Hills from the Shoshone.
> >
>
> >lin...@ibm.net
The charter of
alt.war.civil.usa reads:
The purpose of this group is the discussion of topics
related to the United States Civil War (1861-65). Topics can
involve military, political, social, economic or other factors
which impacted upon this period of history. This newsgroup will
also serve as a source of information, assistance, or referral
for persons seeking guidance via responses from more
knowledgeable subscribers.
rl
Linda Terrell
Brian Blakistone
lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) wrote:
>In <3404d9b8...@news.azstarnet.com>, rac...@azstarnet.com (Rachel A) writes:
>>cbla...@ucsd.edu (Brian Blakistone) wrote:
Somebody said:
>>>>>statue of Gerbels or someone.
I quipped:
>>>I thought he was a high ranking rodent.
Rachel A. replied:
>>He, he. I wondered when someone was going to make a comment on the
>>spelling of Goebbels (sp?). See, I'm not sure if I spelled it right,
>>either.
And now Linda Terrell:
> Depends on if you get all your history from DANCES WITH WOLVES.
> The statue of Custrer in Monroe, MI is of the CIVIL WAR Custer who helped the
>Army of the Potomac beat Lee -- in fact, Custer STOPPED Lee at Appomattox
>and held him there in a night skirmish until the rest of the army could come up.
>Sheridan later presented Custer with the table on which the terms of
>surrender were written. Said table is now in the Smithsonian.
Despite my wife's resolute opinion to the contrary, I remain
convinced that I have a sense of humor. Just the name spelling
Goebbels/Gerbels struck me funny, nothing more. It would make a
good tongue twister:
If Göbbels' gerbils wore girdles
Could Custer's bluster pass muster?
Brian 'Maybe the Mrs. has a point' Blakistone
David Laro
In alt.old-west Linda Terrell <lin...@ibm.net> wrote:
: In <5tvis5$n...@clarknet.clark.net>, sli...@clark.net (slidge) writes:
: >
: >Well, I doubt my g-g-grandfather was. He was too busy being oppressed by the
: >czar to foster any racists beliefs.
: And if he hadn't been being oppressed, he'd have been dumping on someone
: he considered inferior. It's the history of the human race.
Only two choices?
You are saying that you believe the entire human race can be categorized
as "the superior oppressor" or the "inferior oppressed?"
If so, in which category do you place yourself?
I find there are many other categories, at least among my acquaintances.
I like the "objective (justice-for-all) citizen" myself. I like folks
with a social conscience (NO, not the PC crowd.) And I really like the
"dumping on those who BELIEVE they are superior and arrogantly browbeat
those they believe to be their inferiors" category. :-)
David L.
Real Name
Hooray to David Hendren. It's rare that someone with Indian sentiments (and
origins) "invades" this bailiwick of one person's campaign to glorify Custer.
Individuals who constantly reinforce their pro-cavalry logic with isolated,
virtually hidden legalistic humdrum are missing a larger picture of the times.
As for Indians killing Indians as some kind of justification for action by the
US Army, I don't get it. Treaties between races and their violation become the
matter, which is with us today. In the face of it, though, the pro-Custer
people revert to the pre-Little Bighorn Custer, who showed bravado. But the
Indian fighter Custer was General Sheridan's brownie, a liar (remember the
Cheyenne tobacco spitting incident) a fighting oaf (remember Yellowstone 1873) a
groveler (check out General Terry's remarks about Custer begging him, with tears
in GAC's eyes, to be included in the march to the LBH.) When is this idolatry
of the guy gonna cease? Custer is responsible for over 250 deaths, none of whom
seem to matter to GAC's mice.
Linda Terrell
. And as far as Custer not being a theif, his Black Hills
>expedition violated the Treaty of 1868 and one of it's purposes was to
>find out what
>sort of mineral resources were there. Certainly, he was working with the
>theives.
Incorrectr. It was not *his* expedition. It was Sheridan's and
Grant's. Custer was merely *assigned* to it.
> I guess it boils down to this My Heroes have always killed cowboys
and my heroes whupped your heroes.
Linda Terrell
In <5u6j3q$gnp$2...@news3.texas.net>, David Laro <la...@shell1.texas.net> writes:
>In alt.old-west Linda Terrell <lin...@ibm.net> wrote:
>: And if he hadn't been being oppressed, he'd have been dumping on someone
>: he considered inferior. It's the history of the human race.
>You are saying that you believe the entire human race can be categorized
>as "the superior oppressor" or the "inferior oppressed
Where did I SAY that?
>If so, in which category do you place yourself
Benevolent ultraliberal conservative.
>
>I find there are many other categories, at least among my acquaintances.
>I like the "objective (justice-for-all) citizen" myself. I like folks
>with a social conscience (NO, not the PC crowd.) And I really like the
>"dumping on those who BELIEVE they are superior and arrogantly browbeat
>those they believe to be their inferiors" category. :-)
And you do the latter so well!
Linda Terrell
All these LBH messages are cross-posting to alt.civil.war.usa
and they are gettting upset. Perhaps we should remember to
remove it from the neewsgroups header.
Linda Terrell
In <5u55k6$a0a$1...@newsd-4.alma.webtv.net>, iris...@webtv.net (tom brennan) writes:
>Maybe Kirk would rather see a statue of the swinish Procter or his
>bloodyhanded, prisoner-massacreing buddy Roundhead in Monroe. Dee Brown
>never wrote about them though. Remember the River Raisin!
Musn't remind the wannabees of that. It might upset
their inner red-balance.
SFlorman
In article <34022A4D...@aa.net>, elfmaid <elf...@aa.net> writes:
>And well they should!
>That "National Park" was the natives f*cking home before the US Gov.
>stole it.
>Nothing PC about that. just morals, honey...of which you obviously have
>none...
If you're naive enough to look at it this wat, you should be aware that
the government purchased the land from the Crows, who fought side-by-side
with the US Army in the Lakota Wars. In fact, the historically-aggressive
Lakota were making a largely-successful effort at expelling the Crows when
their attempt at regional hegemony was interrupted by the US. Think of the
Army as going in to help the Crows reclaim their territory, maybe kinda
like we did in Kuwait?
Sure, that's a simplistic viewpoint, but it's several degrees less
simplistic than the one you're suggesting here.
regards,
--steve
George Szaszvari
In article <3406d...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.net" says...
>>Would you suggest 3 or 4 books that you think are "good realistic books
>>about Custer" ? I'm just about through Louise Barnetts, Touched by Fire
>>and I've read Gray's, Custer's Last Campaign.
>
>Civil war career);
>"Custer and the Cheyenne" Louis Kraft; "My Life on the Plains" GA Custer;
>A SUMMER ON THE PLAINS, Annie Gibson Roberts diary by Brian Pohanka;
>"The Custer Reader" various essays ed. by Paul Andrew Hutton; "Little
>Big Man" by Thomas Berger (isn't at all like the movie; great read!)
>"Sheridan and his Army" by Paul Andrew Hutton; "A Dose of Frontier
>soldiering" by E. Bode (not about Custer but about a common grunt's
>adventures during a 5 year hitch 1870-1881 -- eye-opening)
Linda,
Why didn't you mention the most "realistic" of all: *Troopers with
Custer*? All eye-witness accounts and testimonies of LBH survivors
and those directly connected to the debacle, edited by Brininstool.
I know you hate that book, because it argues, like no other, why
Custer was such an asshole at LBH, but let's be fair and give both
sides of the story for objectivity's sake, shall we?
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * The Commodore64 Lives! www.cmdweb.com
William McLaughlin
>Again, not even close! Contrary to YOUR belief, the Indian Wars were
>not about "extermination", or "genocide".
Stacey:
Without commenting upon other arguments in this thread, let's
hear the definition of the term "genocide" from the man who coined the term,
Polish Jurist Raphael Lemkin:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate
destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killing of all the
members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of
different actions aimed at destruction of the central foundations of the life
of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The
objective of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social
institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the
economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of personal
security, liberty, health, dignity, and the lives of individuals belonging to
such groups. Genocide is the destruction of the national group as an entity,
and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their
individual capacity but as members of the national group.
(Lemkin, Raphael, AXIS RULE IN OCCUPIED EUROPE; Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace/Rumford Press; Concord, NH; 1944)
Let's now look at the U.N.'s definition. Article II of the
Convention on Punishmnent and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide lists five
categories as genocidal when applied to an identified "national, ethnical,
racial, or religious group." They are:
I. Killing members of the group;
II. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the group;
III. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
IV. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
V. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Under Article III, the convention makes the following acts punishable under
the law:
a) Genocide;
b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d) attempt to commit genocide,
e) Complicity in genocide.
Under Article IV, all persons are to be held accountable for acts committed
under Article III, "whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers,
public officials, or private individuals."
(adapted from Churchill, Ward; INDIANS ARE US? Common Courage Press, Monroe,
ME; 1994)
Little wonder that, after almost 40 years, the U.S. still
refuses to ratify the convention, unlike most nations. The U.S. government is
clearly guilty of I - V and, given that definition, a - e above.
Regards,
Mac
(Copy sent via email.)
Steve Grimm
Linda Terrell wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Would you suggest 3 or 4 books that you think are "good realistic books
> >about Custer" ? I'm just about through Louise Barnetts, Touched by Fire
> >and I've read Gray's, Custer's Last Campaign.
>
> Jeffrey Wert's "Custer"; Greg Urwin's "Custer Victorious" (Custer's
> Civil war career);
> "Custer and the Cheyenne" Louis Kraft; "My Life on the Plains" GA Custer;
> A SUMMER ON THE PLAINS, Annie Gibson Roberts diary by Brian Pohanka;
> "The Custer Reader" various essays ed. by Paul Andrew Hutton; "Little
> Big Man" by Thomas Berger (isn't at all like the movie; great read!)
> "Sheridan and his Army" by Paul Andrew Hutton; "A Dose of Frontier
> soldiering" by E. Bode (not about Custer but about a common grunt's
> adventures during a 5 year hitch 1870-1881 -- eye-opening)
>
>
>
Linda Terrell wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Would you suggest 3 or 4 books that you think are "good realistic books
> >about Custer" ? I'm just about through Louise Barnetts, Touched by Fire
> >and I've read Gray's, Custer's Last Campaign.
>
> Jeffrey Wert's "Custer"; Greg Urwin's "Custer Victorious" (Custer's
> Civil war career);
> "Custer and the Cheyenne" Louis Kraft; "My Life on the Plains" GA Custer;
> A SUMMER ON THE PLAINS, Annie Gibson Roberts diary by Brian Pohanka;
> "The Custer Reader" various essays ed. by Paul Andrew Hutton; "Little
> Big Man" by Thomas Berger (isn't at all like the movie; great read!)
> "Sheridan and his Army" by Paul Andrew Hutton; "A Dose of Frontier
> soldiering" by E. Bode (not about Custer but about a common grunt's
> adventures during a 5 year hitch 1870-1881 -- eye-opening)
>
>
>
I would suggest "A Sad and Terrible Blunder" by Roger Darling which
although in the beginning tries not to take sides. He later blames
Terry and to a certain extent Custer. The item which makes this book
great are the aerial photos with coreesponding maps of the route to the
LBH.
--
Steve Grimm
sgr...@dimensional.com
(Email address modified for spam control - remove the huh. to respond)
--
Steve Grimm
sgr...@dimensional.com
(Email address modified for spam control - remove the huh. to respond)
Linda Terrell
In <34067714...@aa.net>, elfmaid <elf...@aa.net> writes:
>David Hendren wrote:
>in fact from what i have learned custer didn't just go to find out the
>mineral resources of the dakotas, but actually knew that gold and other
>valuable minerals had been found there (thus the battle at little
>bighorn vs. crazy horse) is this wrong or misguided???
It had alway been know that there was gold in the Black Hills. Assorted miners
had been sneaking in and out of the area for years. Custer's expedition
merely *proved* something everyone knew -- but the geologists along with
it also found a vast array of minerals; the biologists found an unknown diversity of
plant and animal life (the plant collection brought back and new species
identified and named is still in the NY Library, in the \
In 1875, some of the tribes decided to "sell" the Black Hills since they
knew the whites were going to take it anyway. In fall of that year
a council was set up with some several thousand Indians in attendence.
Indians wanted $7 million plus guarantees for the next 7 generations (which
brings us to about now, by the way). Interpreters skewed it to $70 million
which the government wouldn't consider.
Meanwhile Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse refused to attend, wanting
nothing to do with the white man nor to sell their land (which they had
stolen from the Shoshonne and Kiowas anyway) Man Afraid did, as a
kind of de facto representative and dang near started a riot. It
was Red Cloud, of all people, who calmed him down.
That November, at a secret White House meeting, Grant, Sheridan and
Sherman put together a kind of "gulf of tonkin" kind of letter accusing
the Lakota of all sorts of depredations they hadn't done and declared
off-reservation Indians to be "hostile" and to come into reservations
by end of January. Now this was patently impossible; even if they
wanted to, they couldn't get through the deep snows -- and many
1. didn't want to or 2. never got the message.
Simply put, the Government *wanted* a war and set about inventing
one. The railroads wanted that land; the miners could not be stopped
from going into the Black Hills by the thousands (remember there were
something like 15000 army regulars to patrol the entire west; the 7th
tried to keep miners out of BH for some months, only to have the miner
go in the back way -- the 7th kicked out and arrested the same people
dozens of times.) so Grant, Sheridan and Congress got themselves a
war. Custer was *assigned* to the campaign. And in the end, because
he'd testified in Congress about BIA abuse of reservation Indians and
Army sutler corruption, and pointed a finger directly at Grant's Administration,
Custer didn't have command of the campaign
at all -- it was Terry's expedition, Custer was subordinate. It was
*Terry's* plan being followed, not Custer's. And, BTW, Terry's plan
did NOT call for a June 26 meeting. Only that Custer was to "report"
to Terry by June 26 and that could be done by courier. But that
they were to finally meet no later than the length of time for which
Custer was rationed -- and Custer left on June 22 with FIFTEEN
days rations -- that brings the scenario to July 4 or 5.
All Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse wanted was to keep away from
whites but there wasn't much further they could go. Ironically they
ended up having their most famous battle on what had been Crow Land
and what is now Crow land. And the Crow scouted for the Army and fought
beside soldiers. Crow pulled some army butts out of the fire at Rosebud.
BTW, the Lakota's *best* battle was the Rosebud. It was bigger,
longer, more convoluted, and against an equal force.
Anyone with 2000 warriors can wipe out 200 warriors. But hold
your own against 1200 and cause him to go all the way back to
Wyoming and you've accomplished something. Crook didn't come out
of "hiding" (he considered it RnR) until late July.
A winner is measured by how good the opponent was. As long as
Indians and whites belittle Custer they cheapen the Indians' victory.
Hanta Yo
lin...@ibm.net
Linda Terrell
In <newkirk-2808...@otto15.olywa.net>, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) writes:
>
>This is the way I feel. Indeed, I have a t-shirt depicting Geronimo and
>several of his compatriots defiantly posed with rifles in hand. The
>caption reads "My Heroes Have Always Killed Cowboys". Though I have no
>Native American blood in me, this is the way I feel never the less.
How do you ever live with yourself
hating whites for what they did?
How do you justify your existance?
You are returning to Europe, right?
You have, of course, given all your property to
the local tribe, right? You ARE attoning by buying
up all the white property you can and then giving
it to the local tribe, right?
I mean, it's the only way to cleanse yourself.
Jerry L. Parker
I have been subscribed to this group for six months and this is the
first posting I have seen. But, according to the references, there have
been eight postings recently that I never received. Anybody have any
ideas as to why I haven't seen those postings?
Linda Terrell
In <340741...@dimensional.com>, Steve Grimm <sgr...@dimensional.com> writes:
>Linda Terrell wrote:
>I would suggest "A Sad and Terrible Blunder" by Roger Darling which
>although in the beginning tries not to take sides. He later blames
>Terry and to a certain extent Custer. The item which makes this book
>great are the aerial photos with coreesponding maps of the route to the
>LBH.
Roger Darling also proves that there was NO June 26th "meeting"
date; further proven by the last line in Custer's written orders that
speak of meeting no later than the time rationed for. Custer left on
June 22 rationed for 15 days, which brings him to July 4 or 5.
-
cheers,
lin...@ibm.net
George Szaszvari
In article <34091...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netî says...
>Never said I hate the book. I said there are better around,
Come on, your previous postings here about Brininstool were just
about the most disparaging I've read anywhere on any subject.
>especially Fox's and many of Camp's notes (there are about 4
>books of his notes out now). Brininstool's own
>letters show a hatred of Custer (he actually claims that Custer
>was trying to get Benteen or Reno killed!)that was pathological.
Okay, even if Brininstool himself was anti-Custer, the eye-witness
accounts in the book are still invaluable source material. Those
accounts make up the best part of the book.
>You want balance? I suggest SMALL WARS: THEIR PRINCIPLES AND
>PRACTICES by Lt. Edward Callwell, graduate of the Royal Military
>Academy Woolwich -- 1896 book expanded from an essay he wrote in
Balance? There is only balance if both sides of the Custer story
are presented, something you are NOT doing at all!! Your're simply
quoting stuff in a smokescreen attempt to justify (yet again) GAC's
actions at LBH and to protect your hero's reputation. Isn't it clear
to you by now that you are simply of the same ilk as Brininstool,
even if you are at opposite poles? According to him GAC could do
nothing right, and according to you GAC could nothing wrong.
>"Vigour and decision are at the root of effective conduct of irregular
>warfare operations and to attempt to lie down rules for guidance in
such
>enterprises. . .would be wholly out of place."
Everything you quote is fine, and one could dig up zillions of such
examples for and against all points of views, except it does not
have anything to do with the simple common-sense question of whether
GAC coordinated his LBH forces properly, whatever his plan was
(which doesn't seem to have been much more than "recce and attack"
or "pitch into the Indians at the first opportunity" without giving
any intimation to Reno or Benteen of his own movements or intentions).
>..... Several, including privates like Wm O Taylor
>write of expecting to see Custer come charging from the other end of
the
>village and meeting up with them or driving Indians off flankwise.
Except that GAC Force didn't even begin to approach the other side
of the camp for at least 3/4 of an hour from the time that Reno
first engaged. It was 3.45pm when GAC reached the top of Medecine
Tail Coulee, the first passable terrain leading toward the rear
of the hostile camp, and on finally seeing the strength of his
enemy he had no intention of attacking without reinforcements
or supplies!!
By 3.55 the Indians were infiltrating Reno's position at the timber,
setting off the panic retreat...Benteen saw this scramble from a
distance and rode towards it. At 4.10 the survivors of Reno force
reached a hilltop and rallied with Benteen's arrivals. Gunfire and
dust clouds downstream drew most hostiles away from the Reno-Benteen
hilltop towards the positions of Custer's battalions (which most
hostiles had already been converging towards, anyway).
Reno and Benteen sought the the supply train and waited for it to
arrive before proceeding, as ordered by Custer...the problem here
is the interpretation of whether Custer's request of "come quickly"
was more important than "bring the pack train, PS bring the pack
train." The fact is that Custer emphasized *bring the pack train*,
which Benteen obeyed...anyway, Weir went on ahead 22 minutes earlier,
which didn't change a thing. At 4.50 Captain Weir moved his company
towards the sound of battle in Custer's direction. On the arrival
of the supply train Benteen immediately broke open an ammo pack of
1,000 rounds and followed Weir at 5.12 with three companies. Reno
followed behind with three companies, the wounded and the pack
train. At the high point (Weir Point) the officers tried to locate
GAC's force, but only succeeded in witnessing their demise. Those
victorious braves then turned on Weir Point, which quickly became
untenable, forcing the 6pm withdrawal to Reno Hill, until the
relief column arrived the following day.
You headed your posting *GAC Made Right Decisions - Timing Was
Off*, but the reason the timing was off was precisely because GAC
made the wrong decisions! The whole operation relied on Custer's
previous successful experience against the Indians, which was
invalid at LBH. Indian tactics were no longer hit and run, but
direct attack en masse. GAC misjudged the strength of the enemy,
the capabilities of his own tired forces, and the terrain.
The idea that Reno force could link up with GAC force attacking
the Indian camp, as you've argued before, only stood any chance
of success with realistic coordination, which didn't happen by
a long chalk. As it was, GAC had sent Benteen out on a wild goose
chase and he used Reno to draw the fire of overwhelming odds, while
he himself went for glory with the outflanking/rear attack. Reno
just about saved his command with timely help from the returning
Benteen. In the end, it was GAC himself who was outflanked and
outnumbered. Custer simply took a chance at LBH which didn't come
off. That's all there is to it.
Linda Terrell
In <5ud9l4$de7$1...@soap.uunet.pipex.com>, g...@dial.pipex.com (George Szaszvari) writes:
>In article <34091...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netî says...
>>Never said I hate the book. I said there are better around,
BTW, the party asked for books about "Custer" so I suggested those
that are about Custer, not the LBH since Custer was so much more than
one day.
>
>>You want balance? I suggest SMALL WARS: THEIR PRINCIPLES AND
>>PRACTICES by Lt. Edward Callwell, graduate of the Royal Military
>>Academy Woolwich -- 1896 book expanded from an essay he wrote in
>
>Balance? There is only balance if both sides of the Custer story
>are presented, something you are NOT doing at all!!
WE are presenting BOTH sides!
I am Pro, you are Con
You have presented nothing BUT negativity yet you try to
dump on me for presenting nothing but positive. What makes
YOU so different?
Linda Terrell
>>Never said I hate the book. I said there are better around,
>
>Come on, your previous postings here about Brininstool were just
>about the most disparaging I've read anywhere on any subject.
I used Brininstool's OWN LETTER to disparage himself.
>
>>especially Fox's and many of Camp's notes (there are about 4
>>books of his notes out now). Brininstool's own
>>letters show a hatred of Custer (he actually claims that Custer
>>was trying to get Benteen or Reno killed!)that was pathological.
>
>Okay, even if Brininstool himself was anti-Custer, the eye-witness
>accounts in the book are still invaluable source material. Those
>accounts make up the best part of the book.
There asre eye-witness accounts in any number of books. So?
>
>>You want balance? I suggest SMALL WARS: THEIR PRINCIPLES AND
>>PRACTICES by Lt. Edward Callwell, graduate of the Royal Military
>>Academy Woolwich -- 1896 book expanded from an essay he wrote in
>
>Balance? There is only balance if both sides of the Custer story
>are presented, something you are NOT doing at all!! Your're simply
>quoting stuff in a smokescreen attempt to justify (yet again) GAC's
>actions at LBH and to protect your hero's reputation. Isn't it clear
>to you by now that you are simply of the same ilk as Brininstool,
>even if you are at opposite poles?
What is so different about you then? You find and agree with
everything that supports your view that Custer was an wrong.
You refuse to agree otherwise. But because *I* do the same, I am
using "smokescreens" to "cover my hero"? This rhetoric makes you no
different than Brininstool or Dustin or Van De Water.
I have presented proof from trained military souces that have backed
Custer's tactics at LBH. One fought irrregulars on different methodology
than regulars. The Army had learned this.
According to him GAC could do
>nothing right, and according to you GAC could nothing wrong.
According to you GAC could do nothing right. I have found proof that
he was using the proper tactics ACCORDINBG TO WHAT HE KNEW AT
THE TIME.
>
>>"Vigour and decision are at the root of effective conduct of irregular
>>warfare operations and to attempt to lie down rules for guidance in
>such
>>enterprises. . .would be wholly out of place."
>
>Everything you quote is fine, and one could dig up zillions of such
>examples for and against all points of views, except it does not
>have anything to do with the simple common-sense question of whether
>GAC coordinated his LBH forces properly, whatever his plan was
>(which doesn't seem to have been much more than "recce and attack"
>or "pitch into the Indians at the first opportunity" without giving
>any intimation to Reno or Benteen of his own movements or intentions).
And Callwell also writes how the divided command attack is often
necessary, that each command operates independently.
>
>>..... Several, including privates like Wm O Taylor
>>write of expecting to see Custer come charging from the other end of
>the
>>village and meeting up with them or driving Indians off flankwise.
>
>Except that GAC Force didn't even begin to approach the other side
>of the camp for at least 3/4 of an hour from the time that Reno
>first engaged. It was 3.45pm when GAC reached the top of Medecine
>Tail Coulee, the first passable terrain leading toward the rear
>of the hostile camp, and on finally seeing the strength of his
>enemy he had no intention of attacking without reinforcements
>or supplies!!
Read Pennington's "The Custer Controversy" in which he trashes
the alleged timelines.
And remember that Gray's timelines are based on going over a
topological MAP with a stopwatch. He never actually rode over the
ground on ONE horse let alonewith a regiment.
>Reno and Benteen sought the the supply train and waited for it to
>arrive before proceeding, as ordered by Custer...the problem here
>is the interpretation of whether Custer's request of "come quickly"
>was more important than "bring the pack train, PS bring the pack
>train." The fact is that Custer emphasized *bring the pack train*,
>which Benteen obeyed...anyway, Weir went on ahead 22 minutes earlier,
Csuter didn't request the pack TRAIN - he requested "the packs"
which meant ammunition. The pack train wasn't ALL ammunition,
it was mostly food and fodder for horses and clearly he wasn't asking
for them to bring and distribute oats to the Indina ponies.
Engaging a "Big Village"
meant he needed more men and more *ammo* Benteen could have easily
have cut out 6 ot 8 mules with ammo packs and sent them on to Custer.
Both Martin and Knipe had just met up with Benteen, each within a
few minutes of each other -- this meant the way was *clear* to Custer.
They *said* the way was clear.
>You headed your posting *GAC Made Right Decisions - Timing Was
>Off*, but the reason the timing was off was precisely because GAC
>made the wrong decisions!
He made the right decisions at the wrong time.
The whole operation relied on Custer's
>previous successful experience against the Indians, which was
>invalid at LBH. Indian tactics were no longer hit and run, but
>direct attack en masse. GAC misjudged the strength of the enemy,
>the capabilities of his own tired forces, and the terrain.
Why should have Custer and his officers (and Edgerly clearly states
his officers were of the same experience and thoughts as Custer -
"we got 'em, go get 'em) suddenly decide that this was the ONE time
that things were different? That this was the ONE time the Indians
wouldn't run? All experience said otherwise, they had no reason to
expect otherwise, why should they have suddenly changed all
their known tactics based on experience?
>The idea that Reno force could link up with GAC force attacking
>the Indian camp, as you've argued before, only stood any chance
>of success with realistic coordination, which didn't happen by
>a long chalk. As it was, GAC had sent Benteen out on a wild goose
>cha
He sent Benteen off to look over the next TWO ridges then to
rejoin the command ASAP. Those were his orders Benteen turned
it into "valley hunting ad infinitum." Returning ASAP would have had
him flanking Reno.
and he used Reno to draw the fire of overwhelming odds, while
>he himself went for glory with the outflanking/rear attack.
He used the proper tactics of frontal and flanking. Now you
sound like one of Brininstool's letters.
Reno
>just about saved his command with timely help from the returning
>Benteen. In the end, it was GAC himself who was outflanked and
>outnumbered. Custer simply took a chance at LBH which didn't come
>off. That's all there is to it.
Yes.
Now, come on over to the forum at http://www.garryowen.com
log in under Forum and find more to debate with than just myself.
If you have the courage.
George Szaszvari
>that are about Custer, not the LBH since Custer was so much more than
>one day.
Yes, quite right, the person did, and Brininstool's book isn't even
specifically about Custer himself, but it's about a helluva lot more
than just one day! It's study into the backgrounds and lives of a
lot people involved with the US Army and Indian Wars of the time
(I presume you have the book? If not drop me an email)
>>Balance? There is only balance if both sides of the Custer story
>>are presented, something you are NOT doing at all!!
> WE are presenting BOTH sides!
> I am Pro, you are Con
> You have presented nothing BUT negativity
Rubbish, I've argued for certain points in favour of Custer
before... I'm not anti-Custer at all! I don't like extremist
positions either way. It goes beyond discussing anything about
Custer or the Old West..my family lived under both Nazism and
Communism...people with intransigent attitudes create such
monstrosities and allow them to thrive.
>yet you try to
>dump on me for presenting nothing but positive.
You've gotta be kiddin'...right? Dumping on you? Because you're
so positive? I know what you're trying to say about positively
supporting a national hero like Custer, but a few months ago you
were dumping on the whole US Army and government just to save
GAC's reputation...that ain't positive, it's intransigent extremism.
However, it seems like you've mellowed out on Reno a bit lately
(since your last Montana visit).
>What makes
>YOU so different?
What makes me different is that I'm neither for or against Custer...
it's not personal with me like it is with you. I'm not defending or
damning GAC to the hilt ;-) I'm interested in all sides. You are
misrepresenting me as an out and out anti-Custer extremist to cover
your own sin of being a pro-Custer extremist ("...to the hilt",
remember?). I don't hold any such views either way about Custer
and am willing to listen to all sides. You, in contrast, readily
and loudly denounce others for offering a viewpoint different to
your own.
> What is so different about you then? You find and agree with
>everything that supports your view that Custer was an wrong.
>You refuse to agree otherwise. But because *I* do the same, I am
>using "smokescreens" to "cover my hero"? This rhetoric makes you no
>different than Brininstool or Dustin or Van De Water.
> According to you GAC could do nothing right.
Linda, you speak with forked tongue...see my above comments.
>I have found proof that
>he was using the proper tactics ACCORDINBG TO WHAT HE KNEW AT
>THE TIME.
Why are you shouting this? For rhetorical effect? As a smokescreen?
I more or less stated this myself in my last posting, so there isn't
any disagreement on this point.
>>Except that GAC Force didn't even begin to approach the other side
>>of the camp for at least 3/4 of an hour from the time that Reno
>>first engaged. It was 3.45pm when GAC reached the top of Medecine
>>Tail Coulee, the first passable terrain leading toward the rear
>>of the hostile camp, and on finally seeing the strength of his
>>enemy he had no intention of attacking without reinforcements
>>or supplies!!
> Read Pennington's "The Custer Controversy" in which he trashes
>the alleged timelines.
> And remember that Gray's timelines are based on going over a
>topological MAP with a stopwatch. He never actually rode over the
>ground on ONE horse let alonewith a regiment.
I'll get around to Pennington some time, but I only quoted the
timings from a book that you recommended to me a few months ago
(and were even prepared to send me, thanks; the thought was
appreciated and hasn't been forgotten...if there's anything you
need that I can get, I'll send it on). Have you changed your
mind about the value of that book (Panzeri) since then?
I have to admit that I've seen contradictory times quoted,
according to various authors. BTW do you usually recommend
something and then shoot someone down for accepting your
recommendation?
>>Reno and Benteen sought the the supply train and waited for it to
>>arrive before proceeding, as ordered by Custer...the problem here
>>is the interpretation of whether Custer's request of "come quickly"
>>was more important than "bring the pack train, PS bring the pack
>>train." The fact is that Custer emphasized *bring the pack train*,
>>which Benteen obeyed...anyway, Weir went on ahead 22 minutes earlier,
> Csuter didn't request the pack TRAIN - he requested "the packs"
>which meant ammunition. The pack train wasn't ALL ammunition,
>it was mostly food and fodder for horses and clearly he wasn't asking
>for them to bring and distribute oats to the Indina ponies.
Huh??? What on earth are you on about??? Have you flipped?? Okay,
let's be pedantic: the request (written by Lt Cooke) says *packs*
rather than *pack train*, but it refers to the train, where the
packs were, thus *pack train*, geddit? Benteen in his own reports
and accounts was on about why he did or didn't wait on the pack
train for the packs. When referring to "packs" he was always on
about the train where the "packs" were...is that enough explanation?
...and OF COURSE it was for the ammo! You..you...you...grrrr.
Didn't you read my last posting properly, where I stated as much?
I reckon that you're being deliberately cantankerous, coz you're
simply reiterating what I already wrote and making an argument
about absolutely nuthin'...grrrr
>>You headed your posting *GAC Made Right Decisions - Timing Was
>>Off*, but the reason the timing was off was precisely because GAC
>>made the wrong decisions!
> He made the right decisions at the wrong time.
Hahahaha...okay, Linda, have it your way, you stubborn ol' gal....
>>The whole operation relied on Custer's
>>previous successful experience against the Indians, which was
>>invalid at LBH. Indian tactics were no longer hit and run, but
>>direct attack en masse. GAC misjudged the strength of the enemy,
>>the capabilities of his own tired forces, and the terrain.
> Why should have Custer and his officers (and Edgerly clearly states
>his officers were of the same experience and thoughts as Custer -
>"we got 'em, go get 'em) suddenly decide that this was the ONE time
>that things were different? That this was the ONE time the Indians
>wouldn't run? All experience said otherwise, they had no reason to
>expect otherwise, why should they have suddenly changed all
>their known tactics based on experience?
Well, it depends on how shrewd and flexible of thought a commanding
officer is, but then not everyone can be a Hannibal. The determined
Indian resistance at the Powder River Raid (300 cavalry attacking
250 braves) and the numbers and aggression of the Indians at the
Battle of the Rosebud could have warned the US Army of what was to
come, but I guess that years of doing things a certain way in the
military, ain't gonna change overnight (though, interestingly, it
was Benteen who tried to warn Custer about the dangers of dividing
the 7th in the face of unprecedented numbers).
>>The idea that Reno force could link up with GAC force attacking
>>the Indian camp, as you've argued before, only stood any chance
>>of success with realistic coordination, which didn't happen by
>>a long chalk. As it was, GAC had sent Benteen out on a wild goose
>>cha
> He sent Benteen off to look over the next TWO ridges then to
>rejoin the command ASAP. Those were his orders Benteen turned
>it into "valley hunting ad infinitum." Returning ASAP would have had
>him flanking Reno.
Yeah, I know there are people (pro-Custer extremists) who claim that
Benteen was the real villain of the whole debacle...as yet, I remain
unconvinced.
>> and he used Reno to draw the fire of overwhelming odds, while
>>he himself went for glory with the outflanking/rear attack.
> He used the proper tactics of frontal and flanking. Now you
>sound like one of Brininstool's letters.
Oh, come on, now, Linda...do I really deserve to be categorized
with Brininstool? Do you hate me so much that you need to demonize
me to that extent? Have you no pity at all?
>> Reno
>>just about saved his command with timely help from the returning
>>Benteen. In the end, it was GAC himself who was outflanked and
>>outnumbered. Custer simply took a chance at LBH which didn't come
>>off. That's all there is to it.
> Yes.
Huh? What's this? You're not kiddin', now, are ya? Are you agreeing
with me for once? Hallelujah!
> Now, come on over to the forum at http://www.garryowen.com
>log in under Forum and find more to debate with than just myself.
Sure, I'll have a look in sometime, and thanks for the site address,
but with a zillion and one other things to do (including earning a
living), I simply don't have as much time to spend on Custer, LBH
and the rest of the Old West as I'd like..
>If you have the courage.
Please, Linda, I know we're having fun, but don't be so silly.
'bye for now.
Custe...@aol.com
In article <5tuu1n$ub7$1...@news.iastate.edu>,
lfo...@iastate.edu (Lance Foster) wrote:
>
> From "A Dictionary of Everyday Crow" (Compiled by Mary Helen Medicine Horse;
> Crow Agency, Montana, 1987):
>
> iisaxpuatahcheeaashisee "Bighorn Sheep River" Big Horn River
> iisaxpuatahcheeaashisee aliakaate "Where the Bighorn [Sheep River] is small"
> Little Bighorn River
>
> ihkaleaxdaake alahaawiio "Where They did away with Morning Star's Child"
> Custer Battlefield
>
> ----
> Lance Foster
I'm not surprised. The people who were arguing that Custer's name should
be stripped off the present LBH Battlefield because "battlefields are
never named for people" forgot that A) a number of Indian Wars
battlefields have been, such as Dull Knife, Connor, etc., and B) Plains
Indians commonly named a fight after some highly personal incident rather
than a geographical locale. Thus "Where the Girl Saved Her Brother"
(Cheyenne name for the Rosebud fight), the fight where Roman Nose was
killed (Beecher Island -- named for Lt. Beecher , also killed at the
site), and, in Chief White Bull's label for a pictograph of the Last
Stand, the "Long Hair Fight" -- in other words, the Custer battle. Since
Custer was the most prominent person killed at the battle, this is
consistent with the usual Indian practice.
Wayne M. Sarf
> >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><<
> Lance M. Foster |>>>----------|> NATIVE NATIONS OF IOWA <|----------<<<
> fos...@nativenations.com A Portion of Native Nations of the Midwest:
> (also lfo...@iastate.edu) www.nativenations.com
> >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><< >><<
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kevin Martin
On 4 Sep 97 13:56:42 GMT, lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) wrote:
>In <newkirk-2808...@otto15.olywa.net>, new...@olywa.net (Kirk Johnson) writes:
>>In article <34058...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) wrote:
>>
>>> The statue of Custrer in Monroe, MI is of the CIVIL WAR Custer who
>>helped the
>>> Army of the Potomac beat Lee -- in fact, Custer STOPPED Lee at Appomattox
>>> and held him there in a night skirmish until the rest of the army could
>>come up.
>>> Sheridan later presented Custer with the table on which the terms of
>>> surrender were written. Said table is now in the Smithsonian.
>>
>>Yes, this excuses Custer for slaughtering innocent Native Americans
>>defending their homeland......NOT!!!
>
> Aren't you the white wannabee? Have you given your land to the
> local tribe yet? Have you returned to Europe yet?
Have you found and completely understood the definition of the word
"relevance" yet?
Kevin Martin
Kinda like an army "whupping" a kindergarten classroom. That
mentality really makes me proud to be an American.
George Szaszvari
In article <3407EC...@powernet.net>, par...@powernet.net says...
Ask your ISP (they control your newsfeed). Otherwise check out
www.dejanews.com.
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Wanna do something positive for kids?
Then check out the Loch Ness charity swim: www.cybercities.net/monster
BJ1M...@waonline.com
Jerry L. Parker wrote:
>
> I have been subscribed to this group for six months and this is the
> first posting I have seen. But, according to the references, there have
> been eight postings recently that I never received. Anybody have any
> ideas as to why I haven't seen those postings?
Well, my access is through Working Assets and its been the pits for the
last week. Either no access at all or all of a sudden real posts but
like coming into the middle of the movie. One of the excuses was that
the phone lines in Phoenix are overheated!!! Too much web traffic? Who
knows? Have we gotten spoiled? I want my newsgroups!!!
BJK
Linda Terrell
You mean like 2000 Indians whupping 200 Army?
something to really be proud of: "We're so good at being
warriors it only took 2000 of us to beat 200." And then
they couldn't budge Reno's 400 once he dug in.
Kevin Martin
On 6 Sep 97 08:00:59 GMT, lin...@ibm.net (Linda Terrell) wrote:
>>>> I guess it boils down to this My Heroes have always killed cowboys
>>>
>>> and my heroes whupped your heroes.
>>
>>Kinda like an army "whupping" a kindergarten classroom. That
>>mentality really makes me proud to be an American.
>
> You mean like 2000 Indians whupping 200 Army?
>something to really be proud of: "We're so good at being
>warriors it only took 2000 of us to beat 200." And then
>they couldn't budge Reno's 400 once he dug in.
Hmmm....I'm wondering if the 2,000 were using bows and arrows or were
they fully equipped with rifles, cannons, etc? Could you cite your
sources on this, or is it just a fictitious account? Also, out of all
the squirmishes between the savages and the sophisticates, how many
times were the sophisticates outgunned? I can accept your weak
argument that at times, the American army was outnumbered - however I
seriously doubt that they were ever outgunned - which takes me back to
my original statement which I will reiterate more descriptively, for
your understanding:
An army of, say 2000 unsophisticated individuals equipped with bows
and arrows would never stand a chance against a sophisticated, fully
equipped 200 man artillery/infantry unit.
Bob Tiernan
On 28 Aug 1997, Linda Terrell wrote:
> Depends on if you get all your history from DANCES WITH WOLVES.
Yes, too many people still do get it this way, or from similar
writings.
> The statue of Custrer in Monroe, MI is of the CIVIL WAR Custer
You may be right, but I myself have never read this anywhere.
Was this in the 1910 dedication speech by Prez. Taft? I believe
I have that, still unread.
> who helped the Army of the Potomac beat Lee -- in fact, Custer STOPPED
> Lee at Appomattox and held him there in a night skirmish until the rest
> of the army could come up.
Come on, Linda, no need to pump the guy up here. I'm a Custer
partisan as much as anyone here, and while I give him high marks
for his actions during this period (and this dusk-night action
is unfairly criticized by many), I wouldn't go so far as to say
that Custer stopped Lee all by himself.
> Sheridan later presented Custer with the table on which
> the terms of surrender were written.
Now this is taken too lightly by people. Notice how Sheridan
didn't present this to Merritt, or Devin, Or Mackenzie, or
Crook, etc. He presented it to Custer (with the note we
are all familiar with, I take it). Don't look into this too
much, tho', for you might find out something like Sheridan
presenting those others with an even larger piece of
furniture.
Bob T.
REWATSON
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On 28 Aug 1997, Linda Terrell wrote:
>
> > The statue of Custrer in Monroe, MI is of the CIVIL WAR Custer
>
> You may be right, but I myself have never read this anywhere.
> Was this in the 1910 dedication speech by Prez. Taft? I believe
> I have that, still unread.
>
Bob T.
In Barnett's book, I couldn't find a description of the equestrian
statue but the commission that put it up consisted of three veterans of
the Michigan Brigade (and "...friends of Libbie"). Most likely it was of
the Civil War Custer.
Regards....R
Bob Tiernan
On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, REWATSON wrote:
> In Barnett's book, I couldn't find a description of the equestrian
> statue but the commission that put it up consisted of three veterans
> of the Michigan Brigade (and "...friends of Libbie"). Most likely it
> was of the Civil War Custer.
The statue is of Custer, mounted, in one of his Civil War uniforms.
My only point was that when a statue is made of someone it is
difficult to claim that it represents that person in a specified
time period rather than represent the person in general. Imagine
German artists making a statue of the young (failed) artist Adolf
H., and trying to get away with saying that it should not be
thought of as Adolf H. the dictator. It'd be knocked over in
five minutes or less anyway.
Bob T.
William G. Davis
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.970906...@kelly.teleport.com>...
Good point. I also find nothing wrong with honoring a man who fought
superbly in the Civil War, then returned to the "service of his
country" and gave up his life in so doing.
Regards,
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
pa7...@epix.net
Linda Terrell
In <Pine.GSO.3.96.97090...@kelly.teleport.com>, Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> writes:
>> The statue of Custer in Monroe, MI is of the CIVIL WAR Custer
>
>You may be right, but I myself have never read this anywhere.
>Was this in the 1910 dedication speech by Prez. Taft? I believe
>I have that, still unread.
Statue is called "Sighting the Enemy" meaning Confeerates. Uniform
is CW.
>
>
>> who helped the Army of the Potomac beat Lee -- in fact, Custer STOPPED
>> Lee at Appomattox and held him there in a night skirmish until the rest
>> of the army could come up.
>
>
>
>Come on, Linda, no need to pump the guy up here. I'm a Custer
>partisan as much as anyone here, and while I give him high marks
>for his actions during this period (and this dusk-night action
>is unfairly criticized by many), I wouldn't go so far as to say
>that Custer stopped Lee all by himself
Yes, he had help from the Wolverinand Red Ties and his artill
and men who used to be train engineers in civilian life
It was still *Custer* who was out in front, who moved on a
piece of info that Lee was taking supplies off of trains at
Appomattox station. He did keep the rebels occupied until the
rest of the army could come up.>
>
>
>> Sheridan later presented Custer with the table on which
>> the terms of surrender were written.
>
>
>Now this is taken too lightly by people. Notice how Sheridan
>didn't present this to Merritt, or Devin, Or Mackenzie, or
>Crook, etc. He presented it to Custer (with the note we
>are all familiar with, I take it). Don't look into this too
>much, tho', for you might find out something like Sheridan
>presenting those others with an even larger piece of
>furniture.
Since Sheridan used his only $20 gold piece, it's unlikely.
The table on which Lee *signed* the terms (a marble topped affair)
ended up in the Ord family.
New book out by Longacre "Custer and his Wolverines"
history of Michigan Brigade and its commander. Longacre's other
books have been very good, so I am looking forward to this one.
Linda Terrell
>An army of, say 2000 unsophisticated individuals equipped with bows
>and arrows would never stand a chance against a sophisticated, fully
>equipped 200 man artillery/infantry unit.
Well since we're talking strictly Cavalry here -- and the Indian
had guns and ammo they took from crook the week before.
Took 2000 of them to beat 200 and they couldn't budge REno's
400.
S. O. Teryk
Some News Group Readers, Netscape, IE(?) have a function for control of
the "messages" you receive. You can ask it to find "old" on some, on
others you can ask it to display "all" or "all thread", etc.
I have mine set to display "new thread only". You may be able to
access older messages this way, if you've been on all this time.
Ray
George Szaszvari wrote:
>
> In article <3407EC...@powernet.net>, par...@powernet.net says...
> >
> >I have been subscribed to this group for six months and this is the
> >first posting I have seen. But, according to the references, there
> have
> >been eight postings recently that I never received. Anybody have any
> >ideas as to why I haven't seen those postings?
>
S. O. Teryk
You say he is Mounted? I'm curious if the horse has one or both front
feet on or off the ground?
Thanks
Ray
Kari Cmolik
Actually, Sheridan presented Mrs. Custer with the surrender table. I'm
kind of a Custer buff and am looking for someone to compare notes with.:=)
Got anything interesting?
Kari
Civil War Buff
>
>
> > Sheridan later presented Custer with the table on which
> > the terms of surrender were written.
>
>
> Now this is taken too lightly by people. Notice how Sheridan
> didn't present this to Merritt, or Devin, Or Mackenzie, or
> Crook, etc. He presented it to Custer (with the note we
> are all familiar with, I take it). Don't look into this too
> much, tho', for you might find out something like Sheridan
> presenting those others with an even larger piece of
> furniture.
>
>
> Bob T.
>
>
>
Jamie Adams
"S. O. Teryk" <Bud....@dark.web> wrote:
>You say he is Mounted? I'm curious if the horse has one or both front
>feet on or off the ground?
> Thanks
> Ray
The myth that the number of hooves off the ground has something to do
with the rider's fate continues to circulate. An inspection of the
equetrian statues at Gettysburg will disprove this. The myth is also
discussed in a book _Sculpture at Gettysburg_. Don't have complete
citation at hand, but can get it if necessary.
Linda Terrell
In <01bcbc03$ccfeb6a0$52f0aecc@cmolik>, "Kari Cmolik" <cmo...@direct.ca> writes:
>Actually, Sheridan presented Mrs. Custer with the surrender table. I'm
>kind of a Custer buff and am looking for someone to compare notes with.:=)
>Got anything interesting?
> Kari
> Civil War Buff
You are in one of the right places. Custer Page has a forum for
discussing Custer too: http://www.garryowen.com And I welcome
any personal e*mail re anything Custeriana.
Jamie Adams
Gary England <geng...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>There is only one statue at Gettysburg that breaks the tradition: the
>most recent one, and the artist has taken some heat.
I beg to differ, but it looks like I will have to quote chapter and
verse to make my case <g>.
David Hendren
> I was wondering if anyone would mind removing this discussion of the
> Civil War from alt.native, the discussion of the LBH battlefield does
> have relavence. But tactics have little to do with alt.native And
> trying to convince Indians that Custer was cool won't fly,just cause
> trouble.
--
/// ///
\ // / / Respect all, Grovel to None
\ //// _/ /
\_ //// / David Hendren
\___/ /
/ \_ http:\\www.unicom.net\peltier\index.html
/,)-_ ( \_ \
(/ \ \ / \\\\ Still Strong
//
<- - -(('- -<<<
~~~````~~``~~~~```` ~````~~~~~```~~
Gary England
Linda Terrell
Let me recommend a good new book. Greg Michno's
LAKOTA NOON -- the LBH battle all from the Indians' point of view
utilizing their testimonies by putting them into chronological order and
geographical area. One can really see the battle unfold this way.
Good book and worth the price. Ther's a LOT of research in this one
too.
George Szaszvari
In article <34182...@news2.ibm.net>, lin...@ibm.netª says...
Thanks for the recommendation.
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
** check out the Loch Ness swim: http://www.cybercities.net/monster **
Bob Tiernan
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Rob Mead wrote:
> He was ordered to the LBH, but way upstream from where he actually
> struck it.
>
> He chose to cross the divide from the Rosebud on his own volition,
> not under express orders.
Not quite.
> The only question was how much lattitude Terry gave him to do what he
> did. Terry actually stated the location of the Indians (probable at the
> time - he had it right)
No he didn't. These "orders" have been very controversial since the
fight ended, and much about them are falshoods passed on from person
to person. If you read what was written *at the time* the orders were
cut (from those close to the strategy session between Terry, Gibbon,
Custer, and Brisbin) *before* the battle, it's clear that Custer had
the strike force with very flexible orders. Unfortunately, too
many people get their history by using quotes written by those who
suddenly twisted the meaning and facts to make it appear that they
knew what might happen if orders were "disobeyed", or from history
written by people who only read the post-battle comments on the orders
rather than the pre-battle comments on the orders, or pre-controversy
comments about the orders and general knowledge of the situation.
The village was found farther north than Terry speculated. In that
kind of warfare, that between a conventional force and and those
who were very non-conventional, it was foolish to make plans such as
Terry did (if, in fact, he did). Whether it was the British in India,
Africa, or Americans in the west, much latitude was given to column
commanders when they were sent out on their own, even if other
columns were supposedly attempting to coordinate their movements.
There was just too much that could happen to completely change
the situation, and to lock columns in precise orders was stupid.
The evidence indicates that Terry's plan gave Custer such
latitude, while at the same time it showed signs of being a
plan formulated by a novice - Terry. Either way, Custer acted
in a way that he would have done even he had been the only
column in the field, i.e. by the "Indian campaigning" book. Terry's
giving Custer 15 days of rations is revealing.
> when he gave Custer his orders at the mouth of the Rosebud.
> He told Custer to go to the LBH headwaters then sweep North to
> meet him at that spot on the day Terry actually arrived there.
Again, this is false. There is absolutely no evidence that there was
to be a joint attack. The northern part of the LBH valley was merely
a rendezvous point, just as there had been others like this along the
streams to the east. If Custer were ti find the Indian trail turned
to the east, for example, he was to follow it until he overtook the
village, even if that was after the 15 days rations ran out. Custer
was like this, and Terry knew it. So the coordinated plan of attack is
just a myth that proves to me that the books you've read on this subject
were merely routine 6th grade stuff. Go back thru Deja News a few months
and you'll find many posts covering this in great detail.
> Terry went on to give Custer lattitude to act as he saw fit on the field
> at the time, and that's where the controversy is. The military question
> is not whether Custer had express orders to go strike the LBH at that
> point and on that date (he clearly did not), but whether or not he met
> the intent of his orders in going to that point earlier than ordered.
But if he was given wide latitude then there's no such thing as
*earlier* than ordered. What Custer did was what any experienced
commander would have done even if he was commanding the only
column in the field. Custer's column was supplied with rations
for *fifteen days*, far more than was needed had Custer merely
taken that route up the Rosebud and then down the Little Big Horn
toward terry. He was sent to pursue the Indians. Had the
trail turned east Custer would have followed it all the way to
the agencies and might not have seen Terry again for months.
This would have been normal for this type of campaign. Terry
was clearly out of element, and out of his league here.
> It's thought he did that because he thought he had been detected and
> the Indians would disperse, but no one will ever know for sure.
Oh, we know for sure. But even so, the decision to attack that day
for apparent discovery reasons cannot be criticized because we know
that he *was* spotted by more than one handful of warriors and
herders. Considering what Indian warriors and villages usually
did under these circumstances, he had no real choice except to
attack. If you need to have this explained to you then you have
not read enough.
> That question can't be answered by us, because it is simply not possible
> to know what is on the mind of a tactical commander without being there
> with him (and even then it's guess work). He definitely made a bad
> decision, but why he did it, and whether or not it was based on sound
> principles is something you cannot judge without being there with him.
Hmmmmm, we don't know why, or what he was thinking, but it was
"definitely" a bad decision? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
> A more interesting *military* question is why he decided to split his
> forces like that. Benteen was taken out of the equation entirely,
> something which may have swung the whole day if it had not happened.
Benteen may very well have run into some warriors, or a small
village, off to the left. In the end, he took his look-see
and got back to the trail fairly quickly but then dawdled too
much. His appearance later amounted to reserves showing up.
Same with the packs.
Bob T.
Linda Terrell
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>No he didn't. These "orders" have been very controversial since the
>fight ended, and much about them are falshoods passed on from person
>to person. If you read what was written *at the time* the orders were
>cut (from those close to the strategy session between Terry, Gibbon,
>Custer, and Brisbin) *before* the battle, it's clear that Custer had
>the strike force with very flexible orders. Unfortunately, too
>many people get their history by using quotes written by those who
>suddenly twisted the meaning and facts to make it appear that they
>knew what might happen if orders were "disobeyed", or from history
>written by people who only read the post-battle comments on the orders
>rather than the pre-battle comments on the orders, or pre-controversy
>comments about the orders and general knowledge of the situation.
In addition, we have part of the "instructions" indicating that Custer
should feel south as far as the headwaters of the Tongue. If he had
done so, he would have been 30 or more miles *futher* away from the
mythical meeting place and date. Roger Darling puts this into perspective
in his SAD AND TERRIBLE BLUNDER.
As you point out, the ending sentence, to report to Terry no later
than the time rationed for -- FIFTEEN DAYS -- is very telling on
Terry's part.
But for years several sentences were NOT in the *published* versions
of the "orders." Terry's brother-in-law Hughes conveniently kept out the
part about if Custer should see "sufficient reason" to deviate from
proposed course.
Too many "amateurs" diving into LBH history today neglect the
Military mind and military mechenations. And that Terry was way out
of his depth there and *knew* it. And that to "report" to him on June
26 did not mean meet him -- a courier could be sent.
Terry was also basing his ENTIRE PLAN on Crook being on Station
in the South. Which he no longer was.
>There is absolutely no evidence that there was
>to be a joint attack.
This seems to have come about *after the fact* to cover Terry's butt.
Again Darling's SAD AND TERRIBLE BLUNDER does a good job of finding
this out.
>The northern part of the LBH valley was merely
>a rendezvous point, just as there had been others like this along the
>streams to the east. If Custer were ti find the Indian trail turned
>to the east, for example, he was to follow it until he overtook the
>village, even if that was after the 15 days rations ran out. Custer
>was like this, and Terry knew it. So the coordinated plan of attack is
>just a myth that proves to me that the books you've read on this subject
>were merely routine 6th grade stuff. Go back thru Deja News a few months
>and you'll find many posts covering this in great detail.
by the way, I got a copy of Callwell's "Small Wars." It should be
mandatory reading for everyone interested in LBH.
>But if he was given wide latitude then there's no such thing as
>*earlier* than ordered. What Custer did was what any experienced
>commander would have done even if he was commanding the only
>column in the field. Custer's column was supplied with rations
>for *fifteen days*, far more than was needed had Custer merely
>taken that route up the Rosebud and then down the Little Big Horn
>toward terry. He was sent to pursue the Indians. Had the
>trail turned east Custer would have followed it all the way to
>the agencies and might not have seen Terry again for months.
>This would have been normal for this type of campaign. Terry
>was clearly out of element, and out of his league here.
Had the trail turned east, then it would have completely floundered
Terry's "plan" The strategy meeting aboard the FAR WEST there seems
to have been no mention of the possibility that the trail might turn east.
(well, it may have been mentioned but it never got written down nor
did Hughes refer to it) All of Terry's "plan" was based on the trail turning
west and Crook being on Station and Custer being a fighting force.
And as for splitting forces, why do ALL the amateurs and some
"experts" carp on that? Splitting forces against Indians was Military
SOP. And Callwell backs this. Custer was doing on a small scale what
Terry had set up on a large scale: three columns moving against hostiles.
You can't five orders written in concrete to a FIELD Commander.
(I know you know this Bob, I am writing for the lurkers)
cheers
lin...@ibm.net
Stacy R. Swain
>Crazy Horse was a medicine man as was Sitting Bull. There
>is no record of him killing anyone.
WHAT!!
Then what about the Fetterman Massacre, another 'mass slaughter' in
which he ALSO took part in?! I certainly find it hard to beleive that a
warrior such as Crazy Horse would have been merely sitting in the
side-lines, eating popcorn!!
Stacy Swain
Steve Grimm
Honuda wrote:
>
> Crazy Horse was a medicine man as was Sitting Bull.
Huh? It was Crazy Horse who was tryng to change the fighting techniques
of his people to match those of the US militia. Crazy Horse knew that
the old custom of coup was not going to work against these invaders.
You have been reading to many western dime novels. Whether Crazy Horse
actually killed anybody is not relevant. It was Crazy Horse who
directed the defense the attack against Crook at the Rosebud and against
Miles at Wolf Mountain.
--
Steve Grimm
sgr...@dimensional.com
Linda Terrell
In <19971106184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, hon...@aol.com (Honuda) writes:
>Custer was not the commanding officer and he order to follow. He took off on
> his own .
Incorrect. Terry was the commanding officer and sent Custer's 7ty
out as a fighting force. Several officers wrote of it in letters home that
custer was expected to find the Indians and take them on.
John Neihardt books about Black Elk covers this very well by people
> that was there. Crazy Horse was a medicine man as was Sitting Bull.
Crazy Horse was NOT a Medicine Man. He was a warrior-chief in that
he inspired others to follow him into battle. He killed plenty at LBH
and before.
There
> is no record of him killing anyone. He tried to divert the soldiers from the
> women and children at the camp.
He took on Reno at the upper end of the village. When Csuter was seen
downstream, Crazy Horse headed that way and left Reno.