New Article on Custer's Last Stand

[WayneK]

I'll say! I just got caught up in a wiki walk through it. He's a solid supporter of White Cow Bull as Custer's killer, which seemed reasonable to me since I first read Miller in the '80s.

He uses Peter Thompson as a credible witness. Enough said.

After you finish that, you can go over to one of the truther sites to get the REAL scoop on 9/11.

So Crazy Horse knew Custer was at the Crow's Nest and lured him into a trap? Wow, I really learned something. Anyone who can say that with a straight face has zero credibility.

David Humphreys Miller at least had some credibility. But interviewing possibly senile Indian warriors 60 years after the battle does not overturn everyone else's testimony.

And his "most complete" list of eyewitness testimony is far from it.

Just send him some money and he'll reveal the secrets that no one could figure out but him. The only thing I didn't see was "...but wait, there's more". It's probably in there somewhere.

One of the reasons I started posting here was to show how complicated and interesting this battle is and to encourage people to learn more about it. There are a lot of excellent resources for doing that. The linked website isn't one of them. Surely you can tell by the breathless tone, garish formatting, and super-salesman claims that this isn't a source of legitimate, unbiased information. It has some primary source material, which is fine, but it's mixed in with strange and unfounded ideas about the battle.

 

[dropzone]

I'm especially fond of how, if you linger too long on a page, it returns to the sales pitch. I know a True Believer when I see one. I just have liked--no commitment, just liked--White Cow Bull as a suspect for a long time because I'm charmed by the thought that Custer was dead for his own last stand. Or wounded, and saved his last bullet for himself, explaining the temple wound. Which is also explained by lots of people shooting in his general direction, but where's the romantic irony in that?

 

[WayneK]

I'm especially fond of how, if you linger too long on a page, it returns to the sales pitch. I know a True Believer when I see one. I just have liked--no commitment, just liked--White Cow Bull as a suspect for a long time because I'm charmed by the thought that Custer was dead for his own last stand. Or wounded, and saved his last bullet for himself, explaining the temple wound. Which is also explained by lots of people shooting in his general direction, but where's the romantic irony in that?

Fair enough. I didn't read a whole lot there but it looked like he was trying to support his case by establishing what Custer was wearing and checking that against the descriptions given by the Indians claiming they knew who killed Custer. That's a good line of analysis. I have no problem with that at all. But if you spend much time clicking around the site, you soon run into a pretty big hill of hokum.

 

[bluesjnr]

I'm especially fond of how, if you linger too long on a page, it returns to the sales pitch. I know a True Believer when I see one. I just have liked--no commitment, just liked--White Cow Bull as a suspect for a long time because I'm charmed by the thought that Custer was dead for his own last stand. Or wounded, and saved his last bullet for himself, explaining the temple wound. Which is also explained by lots of people shooting in his general direction, but where's the romantic irony in that?

That has always been and will always be my pet theory. Admittedly, a number of other participants were wearing buckskin but the disintegration of the 7th so soon in the battle helps bear this theory out.

I conclude that he was badly wounded and rendered unable to command at, or near, the river then taken away by his troops. This action meant that the "hammer" blow never happened and gave the field to the Indians.

Reports vary about the torso wound being "below the heart", on "the left side" and the flawed Bigelo Neal claim of his wound being "high on the left shoulder" which confuses the issue but all suggest that he wasn't killed outright. The temple wound is textbook suicide (if Custer was compus mentis) or a despatching shot on prior order.

 

[WayneK]

That has always been and will always be my pet theory.

Seeing as you've proclaimed your immunity to evidence and argument, I'll just say the White Cow Bull story is improbable.

[Yes, I can see that I'm being antagonistic here. I apologize.]

 

[bluesjnr]

Seeing as you've proclaimed your immunity to evidence and argument, I won't bother shooting holes in the improbable White Cow Bull story.

Fill your boots with whatever suits you, I'm finding your posting style a little antagonistic anyway. Every now and again you write like you're spoiling for an argument and that fact and that fact alone means I'm out of this thread. I'm sure my contribution won't be missed and would like to thank you for that which I have learned. I certainly wouldn't advance anything I have to say on the affair as expert.

On that note, it might benefit you to remember you're not considered, by me at any rate, to be the last word on this subject.

 

[WayneK]

Fill your boots with whatever suits you, I'm finding your posting style a little antagonistic anyway. Every now and again you write like you're spoiling for an argument and that fact and that fact alone means I'm out of this thread. I'm sure my contribution won't be missed and would like to thank you for that which I have learned. I certainly wouldn't advance anything I have to say on the affair as expert.

On that note, it might benefit you to remember you're not considered, by me at any rate, to be the last word on this subject.

I apologize for anything I said that was antagonistic. That wasn't my intent. You tend to get more irritable as you get older and I find it's something I have to monitor and fight against. Sometimes I fail.

Maybe I gave a completely different impression but my primary interest in the battle is trying to figure out the mystery of what happened. I look to sort through the evidence and try to develop lines of reasoning to resolve the many discrepancies.

It's a big jigsaw puzzle and I like messing around with it. I like seeing the pros and cons of arguments and weighing the two to reach tentative conclusions. I love it when someone comes up with an angle I haven't thought of and I'm glad to put that in the mix. I enjoy discussing the evidence and am ready to change my mind at any time if I'm given a good reason to do so (though we probably tend to overestimate our own open-mindedness).

There are things about the battle that are established facts, some that are probable facts, some that are maybe facts, and some that are pure conjecture. It can get confusing when a narrative is constructed that freely mixes these without distinction. In this thread, I've been trying to sort some of those out, but apparently badly.

I think I'll bow out, too, because frankly it's taking a lot of time to research my posts so I'm not led too astray by my memory. Again, I really encourage people to learn about this battle if you have any interest in historical mysteries. Keep an open mind and remember that there's a lot of misinformation on the internet.

I do appreciate getting "called out" for coming across as a know-it-all. Time for some self-reflection.

 

[bluesjnr]

I apologize for anything I said that was antagonistic. That wasn't my intent. You tend to get more irritable as you get older and I find it's something I have to monitor and fight against. Sometimes I fail.

Maybe I gave a completely different impression but my primary interest in the battle is trying to figure out the mystery of what happened. I look to sort through the evidence and try to develop lines of reasoning to resolve the many discrepancies.

It's a big jigsaw puzzle and I like messing around with it. I like seeing the pros and cons of arguments and weighing the two to reach tentative conclusions. I love it when someone comes up with an angle I haven't thought of and I'm glad to put that in the mix. I enjoy discussing the evidence and am ready to change my mind at any time if I'm given a good reason to do so (though we probably tend to overestimate our own open-mindedness).

There are things about the battle that are established facts, some that are probable facts, some that are maybe facts, and some that are pure conjecture. It can get confusing when a narrative is constructed that freely mixes these without distinction. In this thread, I've been trying to sort some of those out, but apparently badly.

I think I'll bow out, too, because frankly it's taking a lot of time to research my posts so I'm not led too astray by my memory. Again, I really encourage people to learn about this battle if you have any interest in historical mysteries. Keep an open mind and remember that there's a lot of misinformation on the internet.

I do appreciate getting "called out" for coming across as a know-it-all. Time for some self-reflection.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position and having done so I completely withdraw my accusation. Please accept my apologies.

I would urge you to continue on this thread as its clear that, unlike me, you have something of worth to contribute.

 

[anglolawyer]

Whether WayneK continues or not, I just want to say how much I have enjoyed his posts. Great stuff. We are very lucky here sometimes. Many thanks.

 

[dropzone]

Okay, all four of us have strongly disagreed with each other at least once in the past few days, so we got that part of standard academic debate out of the way. Ain't the internet grand? Newton and Leibniz had to write letters back and forth. Through most of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries self-styled experts resorted to debate via letters to professional journals, and a single exchange would take months. We can get it done in minutes or hours!

Now we can get back to the topic, which is something about Custer, as I recall.

At first, at least, White Cow Bull only claimed to have shot an officer on a sorrel horse with four white stockings (which matches Custer's horse) leading a charge across the river at Medicine Tail Coulee. That appeared to stop the advance as others picked him up. They never regained their momentum, and the rest is history. The story may have been embroidered as time went on, but that is the way of soldiers' stories.

 

[WayneK]

Whether WayneK continues or not, I just want to say how much I have enjoyed his posts. Great stuff. We are very lucky here sometimes. Many thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. I'll follow through on my commitment to talk about Benteen but it may take me a while.

 

[WayneK]

Okay, all four of us have strongly disagreed with each other at least once in the past few days, so we got that part of standard academic debate out of the way. Ain't the internet grand? Newton and Leibniz had to write letters back and forth. Through most of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries self-styled experts resorted to debate via letters to professional journals, and a single exchange would take months. We can get it done in minutes or hours!

Now we can get back to the topic, which is something about Custer, as I recall.

At first, at least, White Cow Bull only claimed to have shot an officer on a sorrel horse with four white stockings (which matches Custer's horse) leading a charge across the river at Medicine Tail Coulee. That appeared to stop the advance as others picked him up. They never regained their momentum, and the rest is history. The story may have been embroidered as time went on, but that is the way of soldiers' stories.

Sure, I guess it could have happened. I just have a hard time seeing it as likely. It really would take quite a few hours of research to work up a decent list of pros and cons. I'm not going to do that but a few things come to mind without getting into any kind of formal research.

I feel like I'm overdoing it with detail here so I'll leave it up to you to tell me if you'd like to hear some of the things that jump out at me when I read Miller's account. Or we can just leave it and move on.

In short, I don't think it's impossible but when I try to come up with supporting evidence, I mostly come up with negatives. That's why I'm skeptical.

It's exactly the kind of topic that interests me. Who knows, if I do look into it later, maybe I'll find some good arguments to support it, and be convinced.

 

[WayneK]

If you're interested in reading a good, unbiased overview of the battle without investing the time in a full-length book, I recommend the 1969 Battlefield Handbook by Robert Utley. Despite its age, it holds up pretty well though a few things are dated (for example, he estimates 2,500-4,000 Indians vs the current lower consensus):


https://archives.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/2450/665/CUSTER;jsessionid=2B476B346D2763E0D85ECE58E59A5BCD?sequence=1

Or you can look at the current Handbook:

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/1a/hh1toc.htm

 

[dudalb]

If you're interested in reading a good, unbiased overview of the battle without investing the time in a full-length book, I recommend the 1969 Battlefield Handbook by Robert Utley. Despite its age, it holds up pretty well though a few things are dated (for example, he estimates 2,500-4,000 Indians vs the current lower consensus):


https://archives.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/2450/665/CUSTER;jsessionid=2B476B346D2763E0D85ECE58E59A5BCD?sequence=1

Or you can look at the current Handbook:

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/1a/hh1toc.htm

Anything by Robert Utley on American West is to be recommended.

 

[dudalb]

BTW Little Big Horn was probably NOT the biggest defeat every dealt out to the U.S.Army by Native Americans. Most historians consider the defeat of St Clair;s army in 1790 in what is now Ohio to have been a more humliating and disasterous defeat.

 

[WayneK]

BTW Little Big Horn was probably NOT the biggest defeat every dealt out to the U.S.Army by Native Americans. Most historians consider the defeat of St Clair;s army in 1790 in what is now Ohio to have been a more humliating and disasterous defeat.

Yes, I try to remember to say "biggest army defeat in the Western Indian wars". Thanks for the reminder of the Battle of the Wabash. That would be a good day trip from where I live. Unfortunately, it looks like the battlefield is almost entirely covered by modern Fort Recovery.

 

[WayneK]

Benteen has been criticized by John Gray and others for his slowness in coming down Reno Creek. Maybe he deserved it. I haven't examined the issue myself but do respect John Gray immensely. I'd just keep in mind that even if he was slow he did have some justification. He'd made a scout over rougher ground than that traveled by Custer and Reno, and had gone farther. He was likely trying to conserve his horses coming down Reno Creek.

When he reached Reno, I think the correct decision was made to wait for the pack train before moving towards Custer. Reno had wounded men who could not be moved until the packs arrived and litters were created.

Benteen's performance on the evening of June 25 and all day on the June 26 was magnificent. He did more than anyone else to ensure the survival of the remaining men on Reno Hill.

 

[anglolawyer]

Benteen has been criticized by John Gray and others for his slowness in coming down Reno Creek. Maybe he deserved it. I haven't examined the issue myself but do respect John Gray immensely. I'd just keep in mind that even if he was slow he did have some justification. He'd made a scout over rougher ground than that traveled by Custer and Reno, and had gone farther. He was likely trying to conserve his horses coming down Reno Creek.

When he reached Reno, I think the correct decision was made to wait for the pack train before moving towards Custer. Reno had wounded men who could not be moved until the packs arrived and litters were created.

Benteen's performance on the evening of June 25 and all day on the June 26 was magnificent. He did more than anyone else to ensure the survival of the remaining men on Reno Hill.

And did his orders not say: bring packs?

 

[WayneK]

And did his orders not say: bring packs?

Yes. And his orders said "Be quick". Which would you choose to do? When Martin reached Benteen, the packs had just passed the Lone Tepee 3 miles to the rear. Should Benteen have turned around and gone back to get the packs? How would that have helped anything? He wasn't going to be able to make the packs go faster.

I think Benteen tried to move forward rapidly while keeping his battalion between the Indians and the packs for protection.

The pack train was poorly managed for a variety of reasons and was a contributing cause to the disaster. I just don't know what Benteen could have done to change that. Some have suggested that Cooke meant to write "PS bring ammo packs". In other words, cut out the ammo packs from the train and rush them forward. I don't know if that was possible from where the packs were. They were pushing the train as fast as they could already.

Note that as the pack train neared Reno Hill, it did become practicable to rush the ammo packs forward over a relatively short distance. Lt Hare was dispatched to do this but still the ammo packs made it to Reno Hill only 5-10 minutes ahead of the rest of the train.

It'd be interesting to hear from an expert on 19th Century cavalry about how the pack train was handled that day. If Custer's primary concern was hurrying the packs forward to get access to the spare ammunition, maybe there was a better way that could have been done. Maybe they could have distributed some of the spare ammunition to the individual soldiers so they carried 150 rounds instead of 100. That would still leave a reserve with the packs, I believe, and would make them less vulnerable to running out of ammo before the packs could be brought up.