|
Post by quincannon on Sept 26, 2016 14:01:10 GMT
Chuck's opinion does not and should not carry any more weight than any other.
I too think it will be a long thread, but the thread cannot start at an examination of Terry's order to Custer, or even the direction of the Grant administration. Doing that only means we examine the content of what was said, the direction given, and the orders issued. That is the easy part. The hard part is an examination of how the direction and orders were received by the man charged in carrying them out.
There should only be one standard, the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, but the fact that this is so very old, leads me to believe that it is the civil standard of preponderance of evidence that is the only standard of practical use.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 27, 2016 13:45:59 GMT
Are you talking about verbal conversations that took place before and after the written order?
What I am looking for in the written order is not whether Custer obeyed or disobeyed. I want to be sure of the details that Terry wanted to be accomplished by the order.
For instance if there is a distance to be traveled would it not also include a scouting of that route?
I would also like to know the protocol for information from scouts such as Herendeen to make it to decision makers.
The prologue in The Fights on the Little Horn starts with Terry's order.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 27, 2016 15:00:56 GMT
No, what I am thinking is how a man like Custer would receive these orders. What would be the amount of command discretion that HE would read into the written word, based upon how the order was constructed.
My thoughts on the matter would say that he read a hell of a lot into it. I do not believe he would flagrantly disobey an order if the words YOU WILL were written into it a lot more than once. The more confining the order, the more rigidly it is constructed, the less opportunity there is for opportunistic judgment calls, such as the turn to follow the trail, Tullock's Creek, and the "discovery"
Commanders normally, when given an order, follow it as far as directed and implied tasks go. SO would another commander, indeed most commanders, take that same document and use it to obtain a different outcome? I think they would. If that is a given, then it is not the order itself, but the personality of the receiving commander that is at issue.
Most subordinate commanders believe that an order is firmly directive in nature. In other words the order contains what the superior commander wishes the subordinate commander to accomplish. The superior commander is under no obligation to tell the subordinate why he wishes thus and so done, only that this is what I want done. The wise superior commander does tell the subordinate the reason why, mainly as both motivational factor and an exercise in team building.
Other subordinate commanders view an order as a suggestion, which they are not. They see leeway when no leeway is intended. Sometimes these guys get away with it, and are hailed as heroes, EXCEPT by the guy who issued the order, and these matters are normally settled by a visit to the woodshed AFTER, the subordinate commander gets his Silver Star pinned on his chest.
Still other commanders take it one step further, and trumped by their own hubris and arrogance, do what they please. Eventually all of these end up badly. They know more than the generals know, and usually in their last moments in uniform, find out that just is not so.
To determine all this we must go back to the birth canal, because these traits we all suspect, just did not settle into a person in the month of June 1876. They are the sum total of life experience and outlooks. You know from your own experience Steve how a fellow officer will look at the same thing or situation that you see, but differently, even though you both have been trained under the same methods, standards, and conditions.
Terry does not get off the hook here. He certainly knew enough about the personality of the person he was dealing with to construct an order that would be more restraining.
Thank God we no longer construct orders in the manner of the 19th century. Had we the Marines would still be in the Belleau Wood, and the Army mired in the Meuse-Argonne.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 27, 2016 17:48:12 GMT
Guys, what I was trying to say was as an EM, whether an order is written or verbal and legal, it is my job to comply. If the order is vague, I ask questions for clarity, also we generally know that we must do our best to comply. There is also following the spirit of the order, as near as possible. Shortcuts are responsible for more bad outcomes than we know.
The decision to turn left towards the LBH, early, was the first domino, what was the rational or reason for that decision?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 27, 2016 19:50:28 GMT
I know I am not military but it seems to me the key part of Terry's order is the line "he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them"
Obviously Custer felt he had sufficient reason for departing from Terry's orders but would any other person of equal rank view the situation at the time in the same way?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 27, 2016 19:59:55 GMT
Fetterman, for sure, although not of equal rank.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Sept 27, 2016 21:16:42 GMT
I believe any other officer would have possibly sent a small detail toward the LBH river, following the large NA trail to gain intelligence on terrain, village location, etc., but he would have taken the main body to the headwaters before turning west to join the LBH valley. It was pretty clear in Terry's order that he wanted Custer to go to the headwaters before moving toward the LBH valley. Probably because he knew Crook would be somewhere in the area and by scouting further south, there was a chance of a link-up, and with a link-up, the 7th commander could inform Crook of the current situation regarding Gibbon and Terry. And when the scouting party returned from following the NA trail west, they would now have a ton of useful intelligence on the situation.
I think Terry allowed for leeway on the possibility that Custer might strike hostiles somewhere other than the area of the LBH and might be forced to deviate due to a combat engagement. I don't think he wanted Custer to galavant off as soon as the trail turned west, and since no messenger was sent reference Tullock's creek, Terry was really left in the blind, and with Terry accounting for Custer's travel time to the headwaters, he was expecting all units to converge on the village around the 27th, which should have occurred if Custer had proceeded to the headwaters. Since he didn't, Terry had no way to support Custer's early attack.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Sept 27, 2016 23:51:47 GMT
Colt Do really think Terry was surprised that Custer attacked alone? Did he really anticipate GAC would have learned how to play well with others and wait for the hook up with him and Gibbon's columns? Am I wrong to believe that Terry anticipated Custer attacking and grabbing the glory for him and the 7th Cavalry? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 28, 2016 4:38:41 GMT
Colt: Your first paragraph is on point Nowhere in that order does Terry tell Custer why he wants him to go to the headwaters of the Rosebud. He should have and this should have been a YOU WILL moment.
You have provided an excellent analysis of what was not, but should have been, OR as an alternative at least send "scouts out" in that direction with the main body remaining dormant near the trail, until sufficient intel could be collected. History tell us that Crook was not there, but the signs of battle were there, and I suggest that either the going or the scouting solutions are viable.
Dave: I do not believe that Terry had a firm grasp on Custer's apparent emotional near collapse. That point can be argued until the second coming I suppose, but unless there was some outward sign of internal distress, then Terry had no way of knowing what was churning inside Custer. That is why I said, and will repeat, that we must know this man Custer, and not attribute anything either good or bad to him until that knowing is complete as possible.
All: Just think in this regard of people you have known or heard about that commit an irrational act. The first thing that is said about them is - I saw no sign of this - complete surprise - Blah de blah blah. What they are really saying is that they were not paying attention, for the signs are always there. Not paying attention is not abnormal in our society, and I have every reason to believe that it was more pronounced in that day, when those things were just not discussed. Anyone that looked at Booth's life for instance in depth, could have predicted that he would have a bad end. The same could be said for Oswald, and so very many others.
We should start and ultimately proceed here, with a complete dismissal of any fact not in evidence, and conduct a very rigorous investigation of those that we ultimately conclude belong in.
There should be no preconceived notions, favorites, fools, factotums, can kickers, scapegoats, drunkards, dawdlers, or cowards. We should put competence and incompetence, as terms, in a lock box, waiting for the final result.
We call no one a lair, when we cannot relate what was said is in fact a lie, a deliberate attempt at deception. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a person the other day who called another person a liar. In my naivety I asked what did this person lie about. The answer given - No Shit - was --- I don't know but this person is a liar, because that person told me so.
We NEED NOT that kind of bull shit in these precincts.
We cannot allow ourselves to be the playpen of prejudice we find on the other boards. That serves no useful purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 28, 2016 7:03:35 GMT
I checked since Terry was a lawyer to see if the "you shall' was legalize. I found this on the meaning of 'shall' in a legal document. "To correctly use "shall," confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 940–941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995)." linkAlso even if you don't look at it as legalize people used to be more inflexable about grammar other way to look at the usage of shall instead of will is that Victorians were more-inflexible-when it came to grammar so even though we feel that it should say you will, you shall would be correct (and in the 1870's the preferred choice among educated gentlemen. It would be "I will" but when talking about someone other than yourself or a group "you shall" or "they shall" was considered the more correct form. (all those years reading historical romances have not been squandered) I tend to think that Terry had more reason to believe that Custer would stick to orders than not, first there are the stories that allegedly Custer gave Terry is word--at a time when giving your word was extremely important. Also there was Custer's reaction to Reno's scout. Perhaps Terry could have thought that since Custer was so incensed by Reno's disobedience that Custer wouldn't do the same thing. I suspect Custer could be both charming and convincing when he wanted something and he wanted Terry's trust.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 28, 2016 10:54:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 28, 2016 11:09:24 GMT
Colt,
Your post above is certainly proper as to what an officer should do and probably others would do. But, what prompted Custer to disregard/deviate from what appear to be orders. Patton and a prisoner of war camp come to mind here. It is just wrong and self serving. Why did I do it, because I wanted to, and I could. Patton, if he succeeded, would have be seen as a hero for the act and so would have Custer. Both may have received some heat from above for their acts, and loses. Patton had the force and intel to pull off such a stunt, Custer had neither.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Sept 29, 2016 12:03:35 GMT
I think we are missing the verbal conversations that would involve what Herendeen knew of the area.
There is a lot of ambiguity in Terry's order but this seems fairly clear to me.
"He thinks that you should proceed up the Rosebud until you ascertain definitely the direction in which the trail above spoken of leads. Should it be found (as it appears almost certain that it will be found) to turn towards the Little Bighorn, he thinks that you should still proceed southward, perhaps as far as the headwaters of the Tongue, and then turn toward the Little Horn, feeling constantly, however, to your left, so as to preclude the escape of the Indians passing around your left flank. "
I don't think you create exigent circumstances by not following orders.
I think Custer had sufficient time to send scouts in both directions and then make an informed decision.
I believe that Terry was aware of what Herendeen knew and I think that was shared with Gibson and Custer.
Herendeen was aware of a travel corridor from Lodge Grass through SFRC to Reno Creek. He had several fights including Lodge Grass, SFRC, and the divide. He knew that the Indians were willing to fight and unless you gave them a fight with shooters they would continue the fight. They did not give up easily and came back several times.
The evidence that Custer knew this when he turned and followed was sending Benteen with three companies to the left. I think it was to block SFRC. Benteen turned when Gibson had a clear view of SFRC and little to none of the LBH valley.
There is no way that Benteen could arrive at the LBH in the direction that Custer sent him in time to block the LBH from movement to the south.
We need to find out everything that Herendeen shared with Terry. It is possible that it does not exist by what he experienced in 1874 exists and I find it hard to believe he would have not disclosed this to Terry.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 29, 2016 18:53:00 GMT
Is there a first hand account from Herendeen? If so that would obviously be a 'witness statement' if not we would have to look at his experiences in area and assume that he would have informed Terry, Gibson and Custer. We should also look at the experiences of the other guides in the area like Bouyer (which is the prefered spelling Boyer or Bouyer/) Bloody Knife, and Reynolds.
Do you think that the fact that so many of the scouts and guides went with Custer (Reynolds, Herendeen and Bloody Knife) was a factor in Custer's defeat?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 29, 2016 20:35:49 GMT
Beth, the poor use of those scouts and others may have contributed to Custer's defeat.
|
|