Fights on the Little Horn-Discussion of Gordon Harper's book

[Beth]

Oct 4, 2016 15:52:20 GMT yanmacca said:

This creek, Reno, Ash whatever, now according to Martini he met Benteen at this location, now I know I have been here before with this meeting place, but did Custer and Benteen water their horses at the same spot?

It is important because with this info we can determine which trail he was following, because it sounds as if he was following Custer's.

So if Reno had stayed in the timber, then Benteen would have carried on over the bluffs and kept on Custer's trail.
If this is true then so much for these Reno haters who called him rotten for running, because if he had stayed, Benteen may have missed him altogether.

I think that Reno's command would have been annihilated is they would have stayed, which I suppose would have bought Custer some time, which would have made no difference as there may well have been enough Cheyenne to defeat his 209, and give  Benteen a headache too I would imagine.

I suspect if it wasn't for the pure chance of Reno and Benteen meeting when they did the BLBH would have been remembered as the defeat of the entire 7th.  Ironically I don't know if people would have remained as interested in the battle 140 year laters if everyone was killed. 

[yanmacca]

Sorry everyone as I don't want to mess up the Harper thread, but Martini stated at the RCOI that he met Benteen near the same place that we (Custer) watered our horses.

[Beth]

I think we need to have a discussion thread for the RCOI, if it doesn't already exist. I am begining to believe that it is the most overused and misunderstood document involving LBH.

[azranger]

Be back Sunday

Chapter 1 reviews and comments

Probably the most significant chapter will be Gordie's north to south flow.

Regards

AZ Ranger

[Beth]

I agree on the north to south flow. It is what makes Harper's book unique.

[yanmacca]

This maybe slightly leaning back to the notion of Custer leaving Keogh behind, but I need to ask it, I am sure Richard Fox said that Custer may have thought that once he arrived on cemetery that Keogh was still ok, he mentions that the amount of firing coming from that direction would be low because the Indians were down to using hand held weapons rather than bullets. So Custer would not realize how bad Keogh's position really was.

But I take an issue with this, as the amount of dust and Indian activity would be enormous, so he knew that Keogh was over there and I suppose Custer was no fool, so giving the circumstances he must have knew that this formation was in real trouble, they could have fallen or on the verge of falling, or they could have took off east, but in my view Custer would have been thinking the worse over the Keogh sector.

So for the people who regard the Keogh staying behind and holding theory, then this could be one of the reasons why Custer never attempted to go back and re-unite his five companies.

[Beth]

Is the above post in the wrong thread? If so either I or the other moderator can move it.

[yanmacca]

It has not attracted any attention Beth, so leave it for now please.

[azranger]

The first chapter clearly displays Gordie' s feeling about Benteen. It seems to be one of those that had lived in the area and knew each other. Weibert, Harper, and my friend at the 7th Ranch all have one thing in common which is an association with Henry Weibert and his theory.

I don't buy it but they provide evidence for forming their opinion.

Now that I know more about Herendeen and the 1874 Expedition I find the reason for sending Benteen on his route questionable. Herendeen could absolutely tell Custer of his encounters in SFRC. He could tell Custer how much easier it would be to send Benteen up SFRC and then move toward the river if the desired result was to only reach the valley further south.

In fact it would be foolish to send Benteen the direction he was sent to reach the LBH valley in time to stop fleeing Indians.

I think the alternative is that Herendeen had knowledge of his engagement 2 years prior in SFRC. He also knew it was a travel corridor used by the Indians.

Without eliminating that Benteen was sent to the LBH valley at right angles to the drainages, it makes more sense to me that Benteen would be approaching upstream SFRC and pitch into any Indians found there.

I sat horseback where Gibson looked toward the LBH river and it is questionable what he saw. What is not in question is that he could not see anything south of the junction of Reno Creek and the LBH.

So when Benteen turned he had not reached a point where he could see Indians fleeing south of Reno Creek.

If the essence of Custer's order was to prevent Indians from fleeing south than Benteen disobeyed. That he had the ability to make the choice does not change that Benteen was not going to be able to prevent Indians from fleeing south up the LBH valley if they wanted to.

If Custer did not share everything he knew and the reason for sending Benteen when he did for me is the real question.

There is zero chance that Custer or any horseman thought it would be a short cut to take the route Benteen was sent on. The quickest route to move south without being seen would be to move down Reno Creek and short of the LBH follow a drainage south the cross to the river.

Regards

AZ Ranger

 

[azranger]

The important point is that Gordie has established his opinion on Benteen and its not favorable. So his later opinions are not based upon being a Reno or Benteen supporter.

AZ Ranger

[Beth]

Thanks for continuing on with Chapter 1. I really appreciate it.

I found Harper's opinion of Benteen were pretty typical of other authors so it wasn't surprising is how Harper cherry picks his accounts. This is not meant to be negative reflection on Harper, it is something seen quite a few books about LBH whether they are Custercentric or not. I suspect that it is possible between everything that has been written by survivors and again through RCOI to find something that will support whatever account you chose to believe. I personally find some sources problematic such as citing anything from the New York Herald which like all newspapers at the time would be extremely biased in coverage of any story. It's important to know what the bias are of any source you are using. B. F. Churchill is another cited source, one of the civilian packers that were problematic on Reno Hill who would have a huge motive to discredit both Reno and Benteen

I was struck that Harper's choice of accounts really illustrate the same thing we are finding while looking at the North South Battle flow--many accounts related by survivors can fit in more than one location. Harper uses it when it comes to Benteen's either one or two stops to water horses to account for how some people could hear firing while the horses were being watered and other not.

One thing I personally found amusing is the mention of Benteen hurrying to get ahead of the mules. When I first read it I though I would hurry too because I wouldn't want that dust in my face but then I realized that it probably a sound tactical action behind Benteen rushing to get ahead of the pack animal. (If you want to believe those statements)

BTW, I understand Harper's point that footnotes can slow down reading a book but I am perhaps one of those few readers that appreciate them and make use of them. I like to be able to at the point I come across a reference to someone's statement to be able to check what the source was. I also love to see blanket statements like are phrased with words like many, all or none to be supported by evidence.

Are the times that Harper mentions based on Grey's or his own work?

[yanmacca]

I must get a copy of the bloody book, as this seems to be a really interesting discussion.
I just wish my old friend Gordon Richards was here to add his weight to the discussion and back up his chapter in the book.

[Beth]

I actually do recommend reading Harper's book. I tend to believe it's important to read all views of LBH, not just ones that support your own particular view of the battle. Studying history means getting all the information you can find on a subject, not just those views you agree with and often time you learn even more by by reading than avoiding. There is of course the frustrating chapter not written by Harper but I truly understand why it exists and believe that Tory Harper did the best she could to get the book out.

The book that I found that annoyed the heck out of me was the Companion which is the appendices and bibliography. It is only available as an e-book and extremely overpriced for what it offered. (More than double the kindle price of the actual book). I understand they are extensive notes and show a lifetime of work but when you have sources not connected back to the actual book, it is difficult to find what Harper is basing his assertions on. He obviously knew his information extremely well but it's really important to base something an author states as fact back to the source. Fortunately anyone who has read a lot about LBH has a fairly good working knowledge of what primary source materials are out there. It's just every author will put a different interpretation on them to fit their own battle theories. It's what historians do.

I hope that no one feels I mean disrespect just referring to the author as Harper. It is a habit from reviewing a lot of ebooks on Amazon. I regret that I was not a member of the boards when he was still alive because suspect he was an interesting poster. I do not feel at all entitled to use his first name.

[yanmacca]

Oct 19, 2016 23:01:55 GMT Beth said:

I actually do recommend reading Harper's book. I tend to believe it's important to read all views of LBH, not just ones that support your own particular view of the battle.

Christmas is just around the corner Beth, so I will drop some hints!

[azranger]

Oct 18, 2016 21:22:47 GMT Beth said:

Thanks for continuing on with Chapter 1. I really appreciate it.

I found Harper's opinion of Benteen were pretty typical of other authors so it wasn't surprising is how Harper cherry picks his accounts. This is not meant to be negative reflection on Harper, it is something seen quite a few books about LBH whether they are Custercentric or not. I suspect that it is possible between everything that has been written by survivors and again through RCOI to find something that will support whatever account you chose to believe. I personally find some sources problematic such as citing anything from the New York Herald which like all newspapers at the time would be extremely biased in coverage of any story. It's important to know what the bias are of any source you are using. B. F. Churchill is another cited source, one of the civilian packers that were problematic on Reno Hill who would have a huge motive to discredit both Reno and Benteen

I was struck that Harper's choice of accounts really illustrate the same thing we are finding while looking at the North South Battle flow--many accounts related by survivors can fit in more than one location. Harper uses it when it comes to Benteen's either one or two stops to water horses to account for how some people could hear firing while the horses were being watered and other not.

One thing I personally found amusing is the mention of Benteen hurrying to get ahead of the mules. When I first read it I though I would hurry too because I wouldn't want that dust in my face but then I realized that it probably a sound tactical action behind Benteen rushing to get ahead of the pack animal. (If you want to believe those statements)

BTW, I understand Harper's point that footnotes can slow down reading a book but I am perhaps one of those few readers that appreciate them and make use of them. I like to be able to at the point I come across a reference to someone's statement to be able to check what the source was. I also love to see blanket statements like are phrased with words like many, all or none to be supported by evidence.

Are the times that Harper mentions based on Grey's or his own work?

Gray's time line was available at the time. Fred's was not.

As far as hurrying when observing the pack mules if Benteen assumed the main body was still together seeing the pack train would let him know that he was behind.

There are some footnotes but the majority of the research references were in the e-book. Gordie never had the talk with the publisher and it was all one book in his original. There were negotiations where the publisher agreed to produce the e-book with the references.

So what we don't know is what footnotes might Gordie had included if he completed the book with the publisher's restriction on pages. His daughter did a great job getting the book published.

Regards

AZ Ranger