|
Post by quincannon on Oct 6, 2016 15:53:43 GMT
Agreed. You answer only what you are asked.
|
|
|
Post by mhoyt on Apr 16, 2021 20:23:34 GMT
This misunderstanding is in how we of a modern day look at it I believe. Some, incorrectly give it the weight of a criminal, or at least civil trial, I suppose because of the word court. It was not. Some, again incorrectly give it the weight of what would be today, a grand jury investigation, or in the military an Article 32, UCMJ. It was not that either, exactly. Some would suggest that it was a review of the battle, and it was not that either, but rather simply an inquiry into one's man's actions during that battle. A complete after action review and report was not done on this battle in the aftermath, as that was completely impossible due to the inability of some of the key players to write clearly and legibly from the grave. The RCOI was the period version of the Brown Board, where because of attempts at character assignation, Reno felt compelled to try and clear his name. That is all it was. Nothing more. In the U.S. Army, I think today it equates roughly to the modern day 15-6 Investigation with a formal board; which is roughly equivalent to a hearing, and is a collection of evidence to see if there is something that requires going forward for UCMJ. This is why Reno had a board of officers present to review the evidence that was collected at the inquiry, and why there was presentation of evidence both pro and con. There are many situations where a 15-6 can be called, and it doesn't have to be just the commander wanting it done. It is more of a hearing, obviously Reno's conduct was not called into question by his leadership at the time or the hearing would have been earlier.
A point about the presentation of evidence is that the "defendant" does not have a duty to reveal anything that could incriminate himself; and witnesses tend not to disclose anything that could potentially hurt their careers as they are all basically still active duty officers. So to think this was historians giving 100% accurate unblemished truth about what happened to other historians - well its not that. (And I don't think Reno was drunk). Do I think most of it is accurate, and people are honest - yes. Do I find many things were left not said - yes (for example Benteen saying later on to Goldin, that when he got to the top of the hill he would never forget the sight of Moylan blubbering -- now having said this years later is this the truth - probably?).
To me, why the delay in the board. It wasn't needed, none of Reno's leadership thought he had been drunk, and I doubt in his leadership chain many thought he was a coward. I think that several thought he made a bad decision when he moved from the timber -- but field commanders get some discretion here, and they probably gave him that. Reading the other comments, at the time it was a small Army coming to terms with a grievous loss of many officers and men, who I am sure given the small size of the Army at the time, had many friends they had loss. There was a campaign to still fight, so many issues to cover in 76-77, and then the Nez Pierce Campaign itself.
|
|