|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 11:44:30 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 11:44:30 GMT
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 15:42:19 GMT
Post by quincannon on Jun 27, 2018 15:42:19 GMT
Tom: There is a back story on Reynolds' court martial, one I learned about from the people at the 3rd Cavalry Museum when it was at Carson. I subsequently read the same story but cannot recall where. Don't think it was "On the Border with Crook" but just cannot recall where.
Reynolds was involved in a misappropriation of funds incident. It was discovered around the middle of 76. He was also a friend of Grant's. The court martial of an O-6 would require a lot of senior officer exposure, that was probably not such a good idea in the middle of 1876. Short story is that he was charged with those charges you named above, not charged with misappropriation, found guilty, sentenced to a year suspension of pay and command. That sentence was overturned as it was thought most certainly to be. In return Reynolds resigned from the Army and the financial matter never brought into public view. Now that is from memory, and some of the details may be out of order, but it does not change the fact that the whole thing was an effort to weed out dead wood, show that the army would not tolerate bad performers, keep the heat off of Grant, especially after the congressional hearing involving Belknap and Grant's brother earlier in the year, and finally spare Reynolds from being the poster boy for People Magazine or Vanity Fair. In the end, I believe it could be rightly said that the President, and the Army didn't want any inquiry into the Reynolds's matter any more than they did the Reno Court. Reno of course did not want any part of his name being ruined and insisted on an inquiry, while Reynolds' was just as happy not having one that involved the real cause of his problems being uncovered. The whole thing was much like a cooperating plea deal to avoid a more harsh sentence, in return for the Army being rid of him without a whole lot of very adverse publicity.
You asked about responsibility. I do hold the commander responsible for what happened in the 1876 campaign. That commander was Sheridan, and he did not do his job at all which was the root cause of what happened. I am not a Crook fanboy. All I am saying is that he did not have an overall commander closer than Chicago, and neither he nor Terry had the supervision required for a campaign that involved two departments with two department commanders, with the center of expected action straddling the boundary between them.
Where do you see in orders Terry being directed to coordinate with Crook? Where do you see in orders Crook directed to coordinate with Terry? Where do you see in his orders to Custer, for Custer to make contact with Crook? They were in fact two blind men that had no knowledge of the others whereabouts or what they were doing. Worst thing of all was that Terry was receiving his orders via Bismarck, and Crook from Cheyenne via Fort Fetterman. You of all people know how long that trip is from Cheyenne to Sheridan.
Recognizing that the first part of the 1876 was not anyone's finest hour, I still ask the question - What's the hurry? Those Indians were contained in a very small corner of a very big place. As long as they stayed together they would outnumber any force sent against them. Within eight days that had stopped cold a 1000 man plus force, and destroyed a regiment of cavalry. It was then the end of June. By the middle of August in normal times the bands of roamers would break up, and those off the reservation would return. So why not wait until you can reverse the force ratios at the point of contact. If you hit them in winter like Crook did, using McKenzie, a small tactical victory for you will be a catastrophic loss for them.
Think beyond the haste of the present, for the promises of what can be accomplished with patience in the future.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 16:56:19 GMT
Post by herosrest on Jun 27, 2018 16:56:19 GMT
Column 5, Washington, Mrs Marsh Testifies.
The Evening News, Indianapolis, March 24, 1876.
There is a back story on Reynolds, linked . He did find himself in some hot muddied water during 1876 and it was to do with property. I was aware of this from scouting the Belknap intrigues years ago and here ya go.
A minor anecdote - if I may. Belknap was impeached on the 25th June, 1876. He resigned or already had but there is one hades of co-incidence.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 17:13:44 GMT
Post by Beth on Jun 27, 2018 17:13:44 GMT
Herosrest, that is a subscription only site. Is is possible for you to relay the information it contains?
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 17:43:07 GMT
Post by quincannon on Jun 27, 2018 17:43:07 GMT
I would like a refresher course on Reynolds as well.
If I recall correctly it dealt with matters stemming from his time in Texas that came to light later on, and was not concurrent with the events in 1876.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 17:54:29 GMT
Post by herosrest on Jun 27, 2018 17:54:29 GMT
It's fascinating article and runs of comment. I can go half way with the immediately relevant part and attach.
I didn't hit a pay wall opening the site, so i'll mull that a moment or two.
qc - It was scandal, growing, with Clymer digging deeper and deeper and pulling in more and more troubles. There had been long standing complaints and growing concern that they were not addressed. Pure politics with Clymer.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 18:01:45 GMT
Post by herosrest on Jun 27, 2018 18:01:45 GMT
This newspaperarchive.com/indianapolis-news-mar-24-1876-p-1/ pops up the newspaper image for me, when I click it.
Tested again, and I am taken to the web page item. There is way too much for me type out and I do not have OCR on this m/c. Sorry. ps this basically a junk post so i'll delete it a bit later. The article covers testimony from a good and long term friend of Belknaps wife who really proved that you don't need enemies with friends like her.
Added - Link to snippet - The Army in Texas During Reconstruction, 1865-1870 (review) by......... Donald E. Reynolds. Interesting guy.
5th Miltary District link
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 19:13:16 GMT
Post by Beth on Jun 27, 2018 19:13:16 GMT
It could be that I am hitting the paywall because I have used the site for genealogy sources, most allow you so many hits per a period.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 19:41:24 GMT
Post by Beth on Jun 27, 2018 19:41:24 GMT
Or it could be I am incompetent.
Here is the information from the newspaper:
They testimony of Gen McCook today opened up a new field of investigation. He developed a strange state of affairs when he stated that he had officially reported that Gen. Joseph J. Reynolds while in command of the Department of Texas accepted a present of a house from a firm of contractors of whom he (Reynolds) was buying supplies from the army and that although his report was forwarded to the War Department in 1871, no notice was taken of the charge. He testified today that Reynolds has acknowledged to him that he had accepted the house as a present from the contractor. He also showed that in 1871, he reported officially that a clerk of General Ekin, then Quartermaster for Reynolds, know as Tome Cheney, had received a bribe from a contractor for fraudulently apprising him of a competing bid: that he had reported this not only to the War Department but to Gen. Ekin, and yet Cheney was retained in the Governemetn service and is probably now in Ekin's employ. Ekin is stationed at Louisville at prestn. This is a new scandal and giving a fresh turn to public curiosity. The point just now is to get at the reason why Reynolds and Cheney were not brought to juistice. Ekin's retention of Cheney after his crime was laid before him is presumphtive evidence that he was an accessory to the offence.
McCook was greatly bewildered and surprised at the turn the investigation took. He had no previous intimation that he was to be examined on these points, but expected to testify solely as to post traderships. He testified promptly and willing, however.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 19:43:27 GMT
Post by Beth on Jun 27, 2018 19:43:27 GMT
Herosrest, don't delete that post, I will move it in about 24 hours or so to the area I set up for your off topic posts that are too interesting to delete.
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 19:44:18 GMT
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 19:44:18 GMT
Chuck, I was not aware of any of that. Still in all, Crook was about 10 miles away with 300 troops and sat out the dance on March 17. The other issues remain, I am not a Crook hater, anymore than you are a fanboy, this expedition was not his finest, by far. I knew of the issues he had with Terry and the "Starvation March", but the focus Ben Arnold brought to the 5 week Goose Creek sabbatical really makes one wonder. He sure was not hurting for ammunition and still had a very functional command and if Terry's scouts could find him he could have connected with Terry. Makes one wonder if there were not some glory issues with Crook as well. Saying that Sheridan was the overall commander he was doubly responsible for the Custer Massacre, he wanted GAC, requested GAC and got GAC. I know Terry also is said to have requested, but Sheridan was obviously the sponsor.
HR, great find and as you showed if you move to the right you can open the pages. Thank you
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jun 27, 2018 19:46:14 GMT
Beth, I think you might as well allow HR to be a free agent!
Regards. Tom
|
|
|
CCOI
Jun 27, 2018 21:31:10 GMT
Post by quincannon on Jun 27, 2018 21:31:10 GMT
I did run across something I think will be of interest.
Robert Strayhorn a reporter for the Denver's Rocky Mountain News wrote a series of dispatches on the Powder River portion of the 76 Campaign under the pen name "Alter Ego". Strayhorn was a good friend of Bourke, and was with Crook and Reynolds during that whole time from February in Cheyenne to the conclusion.
For HR: If you are interested you will probably find Strayhorn's stories in the archives of the Denver Post. The Post bought out the Rocky Mountain News and merged the two newspapers early this century.
For everyone else: The whole collection is contained in "Eyewitness To The Indian Wars 1865-1890" Volume Four "The Long War For The Northern Plains" edited by Peter Cozzens.
Tom: I don't believe there is any question that the time Crook spent fishing did not present good visuals, in light of all the other things happening that summer. I don't know much about the Horsemeat March other than the name and the fact that it was an extension of incompetence. What I do know though is that you beat a superior force, one bite at a time. Can't get into what Crook was thinking. I don't excuse the mistakes he either made or brought upon himself in the way of unforced errors. I believe his performance in Arizona was sterling, and I have always attributed this burp of non-performance to be nothing more human than getting used to a new cast of characters, and adaptation to the vast differences between the Southwest and North Central theaters of operations. I do know he was highly regarded.
|
|