There was no such thing as a squadron of cavalry in 1876. There were battalions, and companies. Squadrons and troops, were not designated as such until 1883. In 1876 there were companies that could be formed into battalions as needed, much like we for a task force for a specific purpose today. There were squadrons of cavalry that existed before and during the civil war. They consisted of two companies, commanded by the senior captain of those two companies. Battalions could also be formed before and during the civil war, and they consisted of two squadrons. That is what the three Majors in the regiment were there for, to command battalions. Battalions were only assembled if required. Most times the regiment would fight in a six squadron configuration. After the civil war the idea of squadrons was dropped in favor of a flexible battalion organizational structure. Anything that contained two or more companies, operating together was a battalion. The maximum limit on the number of companies in "a" battalion was six. This is the reason the designation of "wing" was dropped at or about the same time. When Custer was on the march toward LBH the organization, properly termed, was a regiment, consisting of two battalions, of six companies each. There is no question at all that old terms were in use despite them being officially discontinued.
Here is where we differ. I believe if someone tells a lie or misrepresentation that it occurred can be truth. People are charged with perjury or even false statements. What they said has to be historical truth in order to have a conviction. I guess you would have to look at the date of the Camp/Edgerly interview. I accept that Edgerly stated it and Camp recorded it. Just because Benteen did not know the task organization does not mean that Godfrey did not know it - does it?
You do not KNOW if Yates or Keogh commanded anything more than Company F and I respectively - do you? Know is the operative word.
I know that testimony was given and that is sufficient. That testimony is historical truth. "Why would squadron commanders be together?" They would not, but you do not KNOW if there was any organization sandwiched between Custer and those five companies - do you? Again know is the operative word
I rely on others just as any historian would do unless they were a participant and only write about what they saw. You are taking it on faith that every one who commented on this matter at or near the time, and those that have written about it since, including Godfrey knows what he is talking about. I take nothing on faith. I do not even take Godfrey on faith. I think that Godfrey has the most likely picture of task organization based upon what I see, and that to me indicated that E was on Cemetery Ridge with another company, and that F was on BRE with at least one other company and probably two others. Someone was delaying while three companies withdrew. Had they all started from the same place, I could readily see E and F being together, but you and I both well know they all did not start from the same place, which in turn means that two someones were conducting two separate delays in two different places.
Godfrey was involved with the organization and the five companies were fixed and destroyed without Godfrey having any first hand observation. You still have not answered how if your theory of E and F together is correct, how they were not immediately surrounded, and how if F was on Cemetery Ridge, they got back to LSH when that place between those two features was full of Indians. It is a fair distance between the Cemetery and LSH and all of it uphill.
I posted the sworn testimony.Moylan admits his knowledge of the matter is after the fact. Edgerly was not a company commander. To my knowledge there was no general officers call. So how does he KNOW? Now if Moylan a company commander found out about this after the fact. How did Edgerly, who was not a company commander, obtain this knowledge? I do not know these answers, and no one else does either.
Moylan states he confirmed the organization with someone who knew. That you can't question him now is a given. I see no reason for him to like about it.Sworn testimony does not mean that which is sworn to is true. It means that to the best of the person's knowledge it is true. If you start with imperfect knowledge then what you swear to, may in fact not be true. How many eye witnesses have you ever heard about that swear under oath to something they are mistaken about, thinking all that time they are swearing to the truth? If sworn testimony is always absolute truth, why are people wrongfully convicted?
Asked and answered. Recorded testimony is truth to what they said whether right or wrong. Is it possible to know something that is wrong? It happens all the time in my experience when conducting interviews. Some intentionally lie others recall things different. Not having first hand information would mean juries and judges should never make a finding of fact unless they were there and observed the alleged crime. You already pointed it out that finding of fact sometimes error. You don't need to know as you use it to make an informed opinion. It's that simple.
Regards
Steve