|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2015 22:13:19 GMT
No Beth, what makes sense is Custer wanting a view of the valley, and should be in the most likely event category.
3411 is an invention of Fred Wagner, who was not there. It is not holy writ. It is speculation on his part, and should be treated as such. It's good speculation for that bench mark location provides a good view of the valley. So do half a dozen other places along the edge of those bluffs, BUT IT IS A SPECULATIVE LOCATION, that has become the 28th book of the bible for no earthly reason. That said I think Custer observed from somewhere very close, within a few meters of 3411, but that is also opinion.
Traveling down Cedar Coulee is a horrible idea, a death trap, leading into another death trap MTC.
I don't believe I will get an answer to my question as to where the use of Cedar Coulee as a route has its genesis. It has become accepted fact over the years, and no one knows why.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by mac on Aug 6, 2015 22:27:01 GMT
It has always troubled me that Custer would use the valleys as an approach when it would not be necessary for concealment. Seems a dangerous place to be caught. Certainly no need to take the whole gang with him to view the valley. I tend to use 3411 as a shorthand for "when Custer viewed the valley" although it certainly is a logical spot.
Weir Point seems to have gained huge importance since Weir went there but he may well have been just making his own trail as directly as he felt he could. Doesn't follow that Custer ever went there either.
I tend to think Custer probably kept the main force back from view .
Gotta go
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 6, 2015 22:51:51 GMT
It is well known that I do not have much use for Custer as a commander, and in particular an independent (read not closely supervised) commander. I do not think he had the maturity of judgment to be left to roam about without a string attached.
I think we must all assume that the manner in which Custer moved was prudent. You can be prudent in the execution of a stupid, irresponsible idea. Going into Cedar Coulee then would have been imprudent, unless it was a risk taken for a specific purpose, unknown to us. Concealment is not a good enough reason, when the route we have discussed these last days also provides that concealment, has the advantage of all high ground vice low, and with good long distance field of view to prevent massive surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 6, 2015 23:32:35 GMT
No Beth, what makes sense is Custer wanting a view of the valley, and should be in the most likely event category. 3411 is an invention of Fred Wagner, who was not there. It is not holy writ. It is speculation on his part, and should be treated as such. It's good speculation for that bench mark location provides a good view of the valley. So do half a dozen other places along the edge of those bluffs, BUT IT IS A SPECULATIVE LOCATION, that has become the 28th book of the bible for no earthly reason. That said I think Custer observed from somewhere very close, within a few meters of 3411, but that is also opinion. Traveling down Cedar Coulee is a horrible idea, a death trap, leading into another death trap MTC. I don't believe I will get an answer to my question as to where the use of Cedar Coulee as a route has its genesis. It has become accepted fact over the years, and no one knows why. Sorry my mistake. I tend to think of '3411' as just shorthand for 'the edge of the bluffs looking down towards the valley' as apposed to Weir Point which though it was high and give you an overall look around, but I do believe that it doesn't allow you to see the areas in the valley closest to the bluff. Nor I am not sure exactly were in the valley would be be able to see someone on Weir Point but suspect it would have to be pretty far back. I will try to use bluff's edge or Weir Point in the future for clarity. M I am not sure if Custer would view Cedar Coulee as a death trap at the time he used it--again if he did- or as a quick path. (thought I agree he should have). To me at least his movements speak of covering ground quickly over thinking about safety. At the time he thought the NA were in the valley and perhaps believed his presence on the bluff was undiscovered which would give him more liberty of movement. Would the ease of following a coulee to higher ground be more appealing than scrambling tired horses over and around gullies, coulees and ravines? Maybe I am wrong but I've always looked as all the coulees and ravines on the battlefield as playing a deadly game of snakes and ladders. |
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 6, 2015 23:38:45 GMT
It is well known that I do not have much use for Custer as a commander, and in particular an independent (read not closely supervised) commander. I do not think he had the maturity of judgment to be left to roam about without a string attached. I think we must all assume that the manner in which Custer moved was prudent. You can be prudent in the execution of a stupid, irresponsible idea. Going into Cedar Coulee then would have been imprudent, unless it was a risk taken for a specific purpose, unknown to us. Concealment is not a good enough reason, when the route we have discussed these last days also provides that concealment, has the advantage of all high ground vice low, and with good long distance field of view to prevent massive surprise. You are talking about a guy who shot his own horse out from under himself while aiming at a buffalo--while he was miles from everyone else. A prudent man would have either dismounted, made sure his horse's head wasn't in his line of site or perhaps wonder what was to be gained by shooting the buffalo to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 7, 2015 0:57:59 GMT
I knew you were using 3411 for shorthand, and many of us do that as well, including me.
At least we know who first said 3411. Who first said Cedar Coulee?
Evidently these discussions of routes, intentions, going here, going there are not new. All you need do is read the last quarter of the Century article. They could not agree among themselves and many of them were there.
As you know Beth I am a model builder. I am in the hobby for the sole purpose of teaching myself patience, something I sadly lack. It works half the time perhaps a little better, but there are those times when I find myself in such haste, that I start to give little attention to detail, make silly errors, like failing to wash metal or resin models to remove mold release agent before assembly and painting. When I do these silly things it only ends one way - badly. Such it is here. Haste makes waste, or in this instance haste gets you wasted. Always remember you can do the wrong thing correctly, or you can do the correct thing wrong. You get the same results both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 7, 2015 1:52:13 GMT
Was Martin the first one to refer to that they traveled that route? Or did he just say they traveled via a coulee/ravine and everyone else decided he had to be referring to Cedar Coulee.
The nice thing about discussing theories about an event that happened nearly 140 years ago is that no one gets hurt-except maybe feelings if the discussion gets too hot. Tell me why Cedar Coulee is such a poor choice, other than it would be like the ducks in a shooting gallery if anyone was in it. and if the NA came up through it or around it?
What do you think Custer did and what would you do? Remember Custer was moving blindly--as he didn't know the terrain, and only can chose from the routes he can see, either from Weir Point or the bluff's edge, depending on which you think it the more likely place.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by mac on Aug 7, 2015 2:53:30 GMT
Custer does have Bouyer around so maybe not quite so "blind". Still as QC said hard to see why he would put all eggs in one coulee/basket.
Martini's testimony is variable as to where exactly and we need to remember that for him, at the time, it was just another job; so why would he make any effort to remember exactly where they were? If I were him I would be more worried about heading out alone in that territory, and certainly planning on staying with Benteen or the packs if possible rather than returning. After the event he finds he is a key witness. Now where were we..?? Umm
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 7, 2015 3:18:49 GMT
Beth: High is always better than low. Seeing far is always better than only being able to see close. Traveling with high ground on one side of you is bad. Traveling with high ground on both sides of you is worse. Traveling with high ground close about you on both sides is suicide.
1)Traveling over Sharpshooter first gives you a good view of what lies in front to the north.
2) By traveling over Sharpshooter then to Luce and N-C you dominate the low ground in Medicine Tail Coulee.
3) The distance away from the valley provides some concealment of your movements, as evidenced by the Indians in the village(s) not knowing Custer was there until he showed himself at Ford B.
Martini may be the source of Cedar Coulee, but Martini also got closer to where Custer died with each telling of the tale. If you look at that map again, you will see the point where Conz thinks Kanipe left. My guess is Martini left very near there, and shortly after Custer returned from his OP and before any further movement was initiated. If I am correct Martini would not know Cedar Coulee from the Grand Canyon.
We follow the trail from Reno Hill to Weir Point because that is the way Weir went. What do Reno and Benteen do but follow Weir. We fixate on this route, which is meaningless, as if it were El Camino Real. Therefore being fixed all the answers MUST be ancillary to the Weir route. I am saying that should not be, it need not be, and it is just another blind alley in 140 years of blind alleys.
For the Montrose reasoning for Keogh being in the swale to hold any water, logic tells you that the route used by all or a good part had to be Sharpshooter-Luce-NC, and that the expected reinforcements would also come that route.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,800
|
Post by mac on Aug 7, 2015 3:27:07 GMT
Montrose's post on the Keogh position is a real light bulb moment and shows how we too freely adopt things as "facts" without due consideration of their logic and origin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Aug 7, 2015 6:11:42 GMT
Believe me I am aware of Martin's moving himself closer and closer to LSH with each telling. There are a number of testimonies that I look at with a very jaded eye--Martin's and Curly's come to mind quickly and there are others whose story changed with time. Goldin was an out and out liar and I am unsure where to place Thompson and Kanipe. Thompson I believe in my heart he was telling his truth but I am not sure if it the truth. Of course there were thousands of truths that day and each one is going to be different.
I agree about Montrose's observations. It makes me wonder how many other assumptions have to be looked at with fresh eyes.
Beth
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 7, 2015 6:18:09 GMT
Mac: Yes it was. I have thought for years that what Godfrey discovered up on those ridges had merit, but never gave any thought to Keogh's swale position being connected to that route.
I would love to know Kanipe's wording about swinging right or swinging wide, something on that order.
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 7, 2015 8:29:38 GMT
Bill Rini posted this up on the one of the other boards about two years ago, it was an interview Kanipe gave to Walter Camp in 1908;
Reno followed Benteen Creek down on main trail and forded Little Big Horn about noon. At this time, Sergeant Kanipe, of Co. C, saw Indians up on bluffs some distance beyond where Reno later fortified. (Camp Field Note: Kanipe sometimes has thought that his seeing Indians on the ridge is what determined Custer to turn to right and cease to follow Reno, and may have been responsible for the plan followed by Custer. Kanipe says that as soon as he saw 60 to 75 Indians on hill north of where Reno was corralled, he reported to Sergeant Bobo, who reported to Harrington, and Harrington to Tom Custer, and Tom Custer to General Custer. General Custer immediately turning to the right in direction of Indians. Suggestion that this event may have been what decided Custer to go down river on that side. Naturally, he would not wish to attack the camp without first driving these Indians in.)
A little beyond this, Tom Custer verbally gave Sergeant Kanipe orders from General Custer to go back and order McDougall to follow him with pack train and to hurry up. (Camp field note: The order Kanipe carried to McDougall was if any packs got loose, to cut them unless ammunition packs. Besides what he was to tell McDougall, Tom Custer said: "And if you see Benteen, tell him to come on quick -- a big Indian camp.") Kanipe met Benteen a little west of burning tepee and passed on to McDougall a little further east. (Camp Field Note: Did Benteen tell Kanipe he thought you had made a mistake in the officer, and then tell you where you would find McDougall? And did you meet Benteen east of the watering place? Edgerly says Kanipe met Benteen east of the watering place. Kanipe says no.
Going back to the Custer column; Reno’s men saw Custer’s men on a few occasions as they rode up the valley, some said they saw E Company, which would indicate that Custer did split into two wings.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679 
|
Post by dave on Aug 7, 2015 14:14:32 GMT
Is Kanipe a trustworthy source? If you believe that he fell out of formation---by happenstance or choice---and covered his actions as being a messenger, maybe you trust him and accept his testimony as valid. On the other hand you have people like me who believed he was a slacker who did not wish to follow GAC and wanted to return to and the rest of the command.
I have no proof just a poor opinion of Kanipe from my own readings and study, and Lord knows I probably would have fled from battle myself, but his story just doesn't ring true to me.
As you know it is always the lead dog which gets the coon and Kanipe was leading himself to safety as he saw it.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 7, 2015 14:30:09 GMT
I totally agree Dave, I posted it up because Chuck asked for Kanipe's verdict on the move over the bluffs.
Yan.
|
|
