Captain Robert Carter, 4th Cavalry Nov 9, 2013 1:15:23 GMT -5
Post by keogh on Nov 9, 2013 1:15:23 GMT -5
Capt. Carter responds to this by saying:
"General Miles does not hesitate in his talks with me to call Reno's conduct rank cowardice, and I had much rather take his, General Gibbon's and General Godfrey's judgement as to Reno's ability to stay in that timber till hell froze over---eating his horses if necessary---as Sandy Forsythe did on Beecher's Island in 1868, than Hare's, Varnum's and others [like Wallace] who, after Reno's fear, timidity, or whatever Webster or anyone else may term it, had communicated itself to them to the extent of stampeding them, so that they themselves were not loath to get out of that timber, and make the charge to the rear with them. That would not do, however, to tell the Court."
The reason I post this is not just for his opinion but the word circumstances. The circumstances of a battle can be just as important or more so than the actual physical attributes of the position.
I could not agree more.
The people you cite Carter, Miles, Gibbon and even Capt Benteen as stating that Reno could have held out for hours all have one thing in common. None of them were there with Reno in the timber to see the circumstances that he was under. All they can do is look at some timber and guess, or think, or give an opinion on how long they could have held out.
Yes, but I also cite DeRudio, French, Gerard & Herendeen who were there and agreed with Carter, Miles, Gibbon, Benteen, Weir, Edgerly & Godfrey, not to mention the Indian informants of Gen. Miles who were there likewise.
The fact is that every single man that testified and knew both the position and the circumstances said that Reno did the right thing leaving the timber when he did.
You seem to be forgetting the testimony of DeRudio, Gerard & Herendeen.
Now if you want to discuss the way he left the timber, that is a whole other kettle of fish, one which I am divided on.
Well, it looks like we may have found some common ground on this.