|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 10, 2017 12:55:16 GMT
Here is the page; linkGreat to re-visit these old threads again, I know it was only ten months ago, and everyone was not only singing off the same hymn sheet, but singing each other's praises too.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Aug 10, 2017 15:20:29 GMT
Will, First I would enjoy your participation in the Ford D discussions. Second I would disagree with my friends statements above. Chuck, most times, does argue from deeply held beliefs, but on occasion he can go off the reservation to poke the hornets nest, somewhat aggressively. And, Mac, let me say this, I have dealt with a number of UP folks, they did not get in that school, or out of it without superior reading skills, comprehension ability, and are much better than average critical thinkers. Also with what little I know about Montrose's military background I would say that Montrose has read or been read in on more than just the tables, charts, and manuals Ian has alluded to recently.
Should you choose to dip your toes into the Ford D discussion, you will not be dealing with just the other Lt. Col., but AZ, Colt, me, and others. You will help strengthen our theories, in our mind, or weaken them. This then is your call.
I would at this point ask you. Why were Kellogg's and Sharrow's bodies found where? Chuck also has a favorite privete's body he likes to bring up? The bodies found and buried across US HWY 212? The artifacts found on BRE? The Cheyenne horses across the river, not on the benches? other artifacts found by Doug Scott, in the Ford D area?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 10, 2017 15:36:27 GMT
Tweed from Company L found very near Kellogg's body, and not known to have any other reason for being there other than being with his company.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 10, 2017 15:54:05 GMT
Chuck, where did you get the info for Tweed from?
Richard Fox and Fred have him on LSH. But he could have been fifty yards from Boston Custer and he was supposedly found either on LSH or along the south skirmish line.
The book “Where Custer fell” just says he made it to the site of the last stand.
Things didn’t go well for Tweed, apparently he was found with arrows in both eyes and split up the crotch.
Private Glenn told this account to Walter Camp;
The first men were found on the ridge, and on a little knoll was the Chief Trumpeter with three arrows in his head and one in his right shoulder. The next was [Mark] Kellogg, the New York reporter, [who lay] about 50 yards from the Chief Trumpeter [and] who only had arrows in his body. [Then came] first a [single] horse and then there were ten or twelve horses and their riders. Most all of these men were mutilated and nearly all had arrows put in them.
Further up the ridge we found scattering soldiers and their horses. Thomas Tweed of L Troop was a young man that I enlisted with. He was cut up the crotch and his left leg thrown over his left shoulder and he had three arrows in his face, but was not scalped. They had not time to scalp all of these men for there [were] about 280 [sic] men that were killed on the ridge. There was not any horse with Tweed, but there was a horse that had been wounded and [still] alive not far from Tweed.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 10, 2017 16:51:18 GMT
Glenn suggests that Tweed was further up the ridge from Kellogg and Voss. What ridge was Kellogg's body found on. Going on Glenn's description alone you must assume it was Cemetery Ridge.
What makes this Glenn story stand out is that he was with Benteen when he crossed the river for the first time to view the field and these three bodies according to Glenn.s story were the first three they came upon.
If anyone has another explanation of where Tweed was found then I will certainly listen BUT:
1) It must be kept in mind that Tweed was not known to be anyplace but with his company
2) The likelihood of Tweed traversing the mile or so from Calhoun Hill to anywhere LSH or beyond on foot is highly unlikely being as there were a bazillion Indians about trying to kill him. The chances of that are so low they near nonexistent.
3) Wagner and Fox were not there. Glenn was.
4) Where is the site of the "Last Stand"? Which last stand? There were are least four. Were any of the people who wrote "Where Custer Fell" present when bodies were identified?
The problem with all this guesswork and blather about who was where, and who escaped to take refuge with whom, cannot ever be addressed adequately. The reason is that we have absolutely no knowledge of who made the last of the last stands. It is highly possible that the two companies left in the north were the first to completely fall, while those further south resisted longer. The reverse could also be true. It could also be true that E resisted longer than F.
Glenn identified his buddy Tweed very early in the process. The only clue he gives us is that it was somewhere near Kellogg. That is all we have to go on.
He makes his statement troublesome by further saying that the were 280 men killed in that ridge. That is not true of course, the number was lower. What you must ask yourself then is what does he mean by ridge. The only conclusion you can draw from his raw statement is that he considered in that 280 that the ridge extended from Putts all the way to F-F, and encompasses Cemetery Ridge, Battle Ridge Extension, Battle Ridge, Calhoun Hill and F-F Ridge. Tweed does not give us much help does he?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 10, 2017 18:13:06 GMT
There are other things to consider here as well.
Shan pointed out to Colt recently that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. See what a change of computers can do. Colt however made a very good contribution to the overall study of the five company theory, and I was surprised that Montrose was as receptive as he was.
Evidence of presence on the other hand does not always give us the tools to make definite conclusions on presence.
Smith and T. Custer on LSH are two examples.
1) Smith being found there is no evidence of Company E being on LSH. Smith alone may be accounted for in many ways. Had Smith been found there with say ten from E, that would be a different story.
2) T.Custer was found on LSH leading to the conclusion that he was serving his brother and not commanding his company. Were he the only member of Company C found there, that conclusion may have validity. He was not the only member of that company found there, and Godfrey tells us that when last seen T. Custer was commanding his company.
3) Then there is the matter of Bobo being found with Company I, with others from Company C with him. Did he/they escape from the debacle that was F-F Ridge, maybe BUT, what is the more likely, the more probable, reason? I for one cannot see Bobo leaving his soldiers, when the other two senior NCO's F and F did not.
4) The existence of the Keogh battalion. There is no evidence to support this, NONE. There is evidence that refutes its existence, the Godfrey article which reports only the existence of a Custer battalion. From an evidence point of view then the Keogh battalion is a fairy tale. Could such a battalion have been formed on the fly. Sure. That does not however change the fact that no evidence exists that said it was so formed.
There are positive indicators though in physical evidence, and that artifact map Mac mentioned and Ian linked is one such. There is just far too much displayed for that to have only been two companies, and the battle space it is displayed in is far too large.
Everything must be looked at and everything placed into context. If what you see appears to not fit the picture that has been built over a hundred forty years, it is the picture that must be examined, not what you see. Then they must be brought into some logical orbit, one with the other.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 10, 2017 21:46:23 GMT
Will, First I would enjoy your participation in the Ford D discussions. Second I would disagree with my friends statements above. Chuck, most times, does argue from deeply held beliefs, but on occasion he can go off the reservation to poke the hornets nest, somewhat aggressively. And, Mac, let me say this, I have dealt with a number of UP folks, they did not get in that school, or out of it without superior reading skills, comprehension ability, and are much better than average critical thinkers. Also with what little I know about Montrose's military background I would say that Montrose has read or been read in on more than just the tables, charts, and manuals Ian has alluded to recently. Sorry all and montrose especially! Let me make it clear that the reading reference was to the fact that montrose has previously shared that he has VISION issues that make it difficult for him to read large volumes, like all the thread on 5 companies. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 10, 2017 21:59:24 GMT
I have doubting the existence of the Keogh battalion ever since we started our journey to digest the JSIT account. But if you think about it, we all have question the performance of this three company unit for years, many of us have said how badly Keogh set up his defense of this area, and we have kicked this Irish Captain around like a soccer ball.
I would go to far as say that none of three companies that made up this fabled battalion, never had a clue of what was happening apart from looking after their own safety and certainly none of them really fought in support of each other.
I suppose that there could be a modicum of truth in the notion that C company tried to take the pressure of Calhoun by holding L company's right flank, but in the process wandered into a hornets nest, which in the end just added to the woes of Calhoun's skirmish line, but if they did then the reason behind it was Harrington's idea and not Keogh's or Calhoun's and certainly not Custer's.
Keogh's company looked like they never supported anyone but themselves and this could have been down to the fact that when they reached the vicinity known as the Keogh sector, then the area was already untenable.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 10, 2017 22:00:49 GMT
Good day Mac, this makes a change with me about to turn in and you all bright eyed and bushy tailed enjoying the morning.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 10, 2017 22:10:09 GMT
That is the rub Ian. Nearly everyone would agree there was something rotten in Denmark about those three companies. It was apparent that they were not positioned to support one another in some conventional sense. So then you must ask why.
There can be only two answers, either they were a complete, not just Keogh, bunch of blithering idiots, or they were not what everyone thought they were.
Montrose has been the most critical voice in this regard, but I do not believe he has ever expressed the second connection, only the blithering idiot portion.
I do wish he would completely forget his previous comments, and just as an experiment look at it from the second perspective.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 10, 2017 22:15:40 GMT
Rotten in Denmark, now that is a new one on me Chuck.
But just lets try and sum up the three companies with just one word;
L Company: controlled C Company: blundered I Company: Chaotic
Going by that, you can see how the whole situation went down hill pretty fast as more and more Indians threw themselves into the frey.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 11, 2017 1:02:19 GMT
Hamlet Ian, you may have heard of the guy who wrote the play.
The full quote is "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark"
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 11, 2017 13:08:35 GMT
Well Chuck, you are known in these parts as a "street corner Shakespeare", but I have never read anything right through by the Bard, all that olde English way of speaking really makes it hard to plough through. I am more a Dickens man.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 11, 2017 15:34:30 GMT
The one and only time I read Hamlet was in high school.
I have no use for Dickens at all. I am depressed enough.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 11, 2017 15:35:00 GMT
Here is one thing to chew on, now Tom Custer was found near his brothers on LSH, but the rump of his company was found over on the far side of the battlefield, now what would be the reasons why he would be with the HQ and not his company? Many say that he was acting as his brother's aide-de-camp, but as one officer put it, Tom was leading his company the last time he saw him.
So many think that Custer was shot at a ford, now what if that ford was ford D and that Tom left his company to check his brother to see how bad he was hit. I suppose that by the book, Tom was out of line by doing this, but these are the Custer's and this is Georges regiment so sod you all I am going to help my brother and be dammed.
Now I know that there are some who would think that this is boarding on a court martial offense, but would it be uncommon for a sibling to do this act, let's not forget Reno did exactly that when he left his battalion and went searching for Hodgson's body, and he was not even a relative.
So for Tom to be nursing George in an effort to get him back south is not that far fetched, maybe Smith did the same and left his company to check on his friend George and got cut off from his company.
Now time for the flak.
|
|