|
CCOI
Jun 25, 2018 18:33:42 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 25, 2018 18:33:42 GMT
The title is correct, we can read about the RCOI for Reno but not the CCOI for Crook, as it never took place. Here might be some reasons it should have. Crook lost more Indian scouts than soldiers, still with better than a thousand troops he bailed, did not follow his quarry, didn't even try to contact/warn Terry/Custer. He probably was complicit in the massacre. The info below was provided by "The True Exploits of Ben Arnold (Annotated)" by Ben Arnold, Lewis J. Crawford. Arnold was contracted as a messenger by Crook.
"Crook retraced his steps to his camp on Goose Creek and settled down to the enjoyment of weeks of fishing and hunting. It was estimated by some of his men that the members of the command took over 15,000 trout out of the streams and the number of deer, mountain sheep, elks, and bears brought in ran into the hundreds. The season was luxurious and the attitude of the soldiers was more that of summer picnickers than of soldiers sent on a serious expedition against hostile Indians. "
Crook was informed of the Custer massacre by Ben Arnold on his return trip from Ft. Fetterman on July 10. Informed again on July 12 by messengers from Terry.
"In the meantime General Sheridan had started reinforcements to General Crook—seven companies of infantry under Colonel Chambers from Fort Fetterman and ten troops of cavalry under General [Wesley] Merritt, from Fort Robinson, Nebraska. Sheridan advised Crook to await the coming of the troops before attempting to join General Terry if he thought best. In this matter Crook was to use his own judgment, and since he did not stir out of his camp it is to be inferred that he thought it unsafe to venture the attempt until Merritt could come from Fort Robinson, a distance of nearly four hundred miles. Merritt’s cavalry did not arrive until August 5, and then his command and Crook’s started to the Rosebud. Merritt had with him two noted scouts—Buffalo Bill and Capt. Jack Crawford (known as the Poet Scout)"
Any thoughts?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 26, 2018 19:01:47 GMT
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2018 19:01:47 GMT
Before anyone goes after Crook for not following, they must make the case for a sense of urgency. You must successfully and convincingly answer the question what was the hurry. I see none.
Having said that though I can readily see why others may have thought differently, that there was an immediate need to move. That is Victorian era nonsense. We must avenge (fill in the blank). More nonsense. "First scalp for Custer", even more nonsense.
Crook was smart enough to know that there was a lot of ground to be covered in tracking down and decisively defeating the Sioux/Cheyenne confederation, and he could not accomplish that with the forces available to him on 18 June 76. Nor could he do it with the logistics on hand at his Sheridan depot. He must have both more troops, and an increase in logistics to where he could sustain the total force for at least a year.
He may have also realized that the Indians would eventually disperse, which would be playing into Crook's hands if only he were patient. That is after all how he and Miles beat them, a little bit at a time. Bite size pieces are easier on the digestion.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 26, 2018 19:25:27 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 26, 2018 19:25:27 GMT
Then I guess you think he had no responsibility to contact Terry/Gibbon/Custer with some sort of update. He knew approximately where they were. As soon as he was informed on the 10th of July, he attempted to send Arnold immediately to contact Terry. Arnold was ill, so Crook gave a miner $300.00 to get through to Terry, it took the miner 3 tries. CYA? Terry's scouts got through from Powder River.
Crook had supplies at Goose Creek, obviously, he used ammunition to hunt. I like to hunt as well, but it never kept me from work. He did not do anything until August 5th, then this logistic wizard had to have a "Starvation March" and survive on horse meat until Deadwood miners bailed his ass out.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 26, 2018 19:27:21 GMT
Didn't Crook have any part of the Terry/Gibbon plan? I have heard that the three columns acted independently, which sounds crazy to me. I know that the distance between Terry and Crook virtually ruled out any communication, but I feel that if any of the columns had to pull out of the plan, then the other two must be informed as soon as possible.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 26, 2018 19:30:11 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Jun 26, 2018 19:30:11 GMT
Its a pity they didn't have Iron Rations back then.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 26, 2018 19:48:00 GMT
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2018 19:48:00 GMT
As a matter of fact Tom, I don't think he had any such responsibility. Where is any such responsibility contained in any of his orders? I have never read of such.
Ian: It is crazy. Unity of Command is a Principle of War for a reason. and defining who was in command and what they were responsible for, in light of the fact that the Wyoming/Montana border was also a command boundary, was a essential that was not stated, and there is no evidence it was even thought about as being essential.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 26, 2018 20:21:47 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 26, 2018 20:21:47 GMT
Well if that isn't just like a silver oakleaf sucking up to a Brigadier.
Crook had a strong force from his leaving Fort Fetterman on 29 May, the 1,051-man column consisted of 15 companies from the 2d and 3d Cavalry, 5 companies from the 4th and 9th Infantry, 250 mules, and 106 wagons. On 14 June, the column was joined by 261 Shoshone and Crow allies. Based on intelligence reports, Crook ordered his entire force to prepare for a quick march. Each man was to carry only 1 blanket, 100 rounds of ammunition, and 4 days' rations. The wagon train would be left at Goose Creek, and the infantry would be mounted on the pack mules.
This is the same man who threw Col. James Reynolds under the Conestoga, after the Battle River in March.
Crook the commander of the Department of the Platte, marched north with the Big Horn Expedition from Fort Fetterman on March 1. General Crook's objective was to strike against the Indians while they were at their most vulnerable in winter camps. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and their followers were thought to be on the Powder, Tongue, or Rosebud rivers. Crook's force consisted of 883 men, including United States Cavalry and Infantry, civilian packers, scouts, guides, and a newspaper reporter. HMM a newspaper reporter.
General Crook with the other four companies and the pack train was not there, as he had camped ten miles to the northeast and had failed to inform Colonel Reynolds of his location. Sound familiar? Maybe he was hunting.
Crook had Reynolds Court Martialed. You always say the commander is responsible, what gives. CYA, as I asked before?
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 26, 2018 23:12:13 GMT
Post by quincannon on Jun 26, 2018 23:12:13 GMT
That was uncalled for and insulting. That is not the way to start off any conversation when your objective is to change minds and alter opinions.
Reynolds faced a court martial for having his fingers in he cookie jar.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 27, 2018 0:02:24 GMT
You will find at this link, The Annual Report of Maj G.L. Gillespie, Corps of Engineers, for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1876; dated July 11,1876. The report summarises operations in the Military Division of the Missouri and in offering considerable useful information, outlines contraints which formulated the plan of campaign undertaken by the several columns of troops in the field operating against hostile Sioux Indians. The nuts of it begin at page 566, first paragraph; 'I accompany this report with a map...' Those who have not previously entertained this Report to the SoW, will find numerous reports from the field. One method of finding 'stuff' is with Hathi Trusts 'Search in this text' - box above the page text - BUT not the top most 'Search words about the items' in the dark banner. For example search Stanton. Those of you who undertake this minor task will be happily rewarded at page 704, with the report of Captain W.S. Stanton, Crook's Engineering Officer. Page 713 covers June 17th.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 10:13:49 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 10:13:49 GMT
Thanks HR good stuff.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 10:39:06 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 10:39:06 GMT
Chuck, did not mean to hit a nerve. The silver oakleaf and brigadier served and retired roughly 100 years apart. Crook retired and died in 1890, at age 59. Sorry about poking the hornets nest.
Colonel Reynolds was accused of dereliction of duty for failing to properly support the first charge with his entire command; for burning the captured supplies, food, blankets, buffalo robes, and ammunition instead of keeping them for army use; and most of all, for losing hundreds of the captured horses. In January, 1877, his court-martial at Cheyenne, Wyoming Territory found Reynolds guilty of all three charges. Nothing about cookie jar! President Ulysses S. Grant remitted the sentence. Reynold retired on disability.
Crook's and Reynolds's half-assed expedition and their inability to seriously damage the Lakota and Cheyenne at Powder River probably helped to steel Indian resistance and hatred.
Reynolds graduated from Hudson High and served from 1843 to 1857 and 1861 to 1877. Reynolds died in 1899 and is buried at Arlington. The cookie jar types don't generally get planted in those hallowed grounds.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 10:51:39 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 10:51:39 GMT
Crook, for such an "accomplished" officer in the ACW and against the Apaches conducted complete cluster puck from March until after the "Starvation March." Even after, Crook could not get along with Terry and Miles and Merritt get and deserve the majority of the credit for a military victory.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 11:00:52 GMT
Post by yanmacca on Jun 27, 2018 11:00:52 GMT
In that link it says that each column should be strong enough to defend itself against Indian attack, but was not the case and it seems like they badly judge their opposition.
If you look at the amount of cavalry contained in each column, you will see that they total up to 31 companies, but each of the column commanders were Infantry officers. Now reading some of the stuff you guys have posted about this campaign over the years and how they could have had rudimentary plans for one column to chase the tribes into the path of another, well why didn't they Simplify things with Infantry blocking the escape routs and that these routes should be blocked by Infantry with what ever support they could muster like canon and Gatling's.
If you look at the amount of Infantry gathered in each of these columns, you will see that Gibbon and Crook have six companies each and that Terry had three, again not a balanced if you take out the cavalry, if these three commander had six companies of Infantry each along with supporting fire, then this could be the basis of three equal blocking forces each commanded by good field commanders.
Now the cavalry component, 31 companies is just short of three regiments, you could call it a brigade, which is better then an under strength regiment. This should be divided into two regiments [12 and 10 companies] and the third could be broken up as a scouting force in a similar way to Reno was used prior to the battle. This could give you three battalions of three companies plus scouts.
Once the camps where located the whole force unites in a planned attack to do as much damage as possible and chase as many hostiles into one of more of the blocking forces.
Now, if you take Gibbon, Crook and Terry out of the frame and have Custer commanding the 7th with Royal commanding the 3rd and Brisbin the 2nd, but who would command the overall brigade?
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 11:32:21 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 11:32:21 GMT
James S. Brisbin was very well rounded, had a very solid ACW record and was much more familiar with MT, can't find date of rank. Royal's background says he was promoted to Lt.COL. on Dec, 3 1875, he had joined the Army in the Mexican War. Custer's date of ran was at least 1866. If that was the criteria, probably Custer, but I would guess an overall commander could appoint who he chose. Obviously all supposition.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 11:40:02 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 11:40:02 GMT
|
|