Misc., complaints, requests, etc. Nov 25, 2011 0:00:49 GMT -5
Post by keogh on Nov 25, 2011 0:00:49 GMT -5
Nov 24, 2011 10:19:11 GMT -5 @brittles said:Did this woman fire the first shot on Lexington Green, row one of the boats across the Delaware, and service the guns with Molly Pitcher at Monmouth Court House too?
I take it this is a blatant and feeble attempt to denigrate Mary Crawler's account for no other reason than her account does not support one favored by either yourself or your friends. So sad, really.
Where does this say that she was describing the Reno fight? She says she heard an alarm, they went to the hills for thier horses, and joined the concentration to meet the "advance". What advance? Whose advance? Did she know what the word advance means? This is leaping to a conclusion on your part.
She does not say the Reno fight. I surmised that from her reference to this being the first of the action. We do know Reno's fight began first. Thus when Mary speaks of hearing an alarm that the village was being attacked, and then Lemmons uses the word 'advance' to describe the LBH attack on the village, we can be fairly certain -- based, of course, on logic -- that she was referring to the Reno fight. Of course, there may be some who imagine that Mary, her father and her 2 brothers were all deaf, dumb and blind to Reno's fight at the Garryowen Loop and remained in the village sewing or fishing or sunbathing themselves until Custer appeared at Ford B about an hour later, but most people would have a problem with that. The fact that she does not mention Medicine Tail Ford at all would also suggest she was not referring to Custer's initial attack there. Thus, there is no "leaping to a conclusion" here.....just common sense and basic logic.
The words "ambush" or your translation "trap" both require some form of preplanning. Neither word fits what happened, unless you are telling me that the hostiles feigned surprise, and were not caught off balance initially. To march right into, there must be something to march into.
Right. There was no preplanning involved. I suggested that Mary was attempting to describe the ground along Battle Ridge as a perfect place for Indians to "ambush" or trap an enemy. There ground was surrounded on all sides by deep coulees and ravines that allowed warriors to crawl up close and rain thousands of arrows down onto the trooper positions. The warriors were also able to use these deep coulees and ravines as staging points to assemble large masses of warriors to launch mounted attacks at vulnerable positions along Battle Ridge from both the east and west. The troopers marched onto ground that was perfect for an ambush or trap and then made the mistake of staying there for a period of time, thus allowing the hostiles to occupy this ground in such force that it became difficult for the troops to extract themselves from it.
This is a clear case of the hostiles reacting faster than Custer could adapt to a changing situation, and the key factor is that the hostiles had such a numerical advantage that which ever way Custer proceeded he was confronted by different bands of warriors proceeding to the battle from different directions. That is not an ambush or a trap. That is circumstance.
Unfortunately, that is not what Mary Crawler said. She made it clear that the Custer/Yates squadron had escaped the trap and moved off to the northwest (ie. Cemetery Ridge or the north fords). She alludes to the fact that the Custer/Yates squadron was relatively safe there until they decided to return in an effort to rescue the besieged Keogh battalion, still trapped on Battle Ridge. I agree with you that the word 'ambush' was a poorly chosen word used by Lemmons in attempting to tranlate Mrs. Crawler's words. Its a shame we don't have the actual word Mary used in Lakota. I doubt very much it meant 'ambush', as we understand the term. This is a great example of the kind of mistranslation endemic with so many Indian accounts of the battle. She simply meant to say that the troops were trapped and in great danger as long as they remained on Battle Ridge. Custer had escaped this trap by moving off Battle Ridge and reaching the open ground on Cemetery Ridge, or even the low ground along the river by the northern fords.
This narration was for a 1924 audience, where the hero of the nation fell among the wiley hostiles and was overcome by their clever backstabing ways, telling the white man what the white man wanted to hear.
The narration was actually for the ears of a trusted friend who had managed to win her confidence over the span of 20 years. It was not given for any other audience at all. That said, I will agree with you that Lemmons later publication of her story was written for a 1924 audience and he may have felt inclined to use words such as 'ambush', etc. to play to the sensibilities of that audience.
Of all the horses on that battlefield you leap to the conclusion that the horse was PROBABLY one belonging to the Custer brothers? What do you base this on? When you are riding a nag, any other nag that looks like a better nag than the nag you are riding is a "very fine horse"
I leap to no conclusion. I used the word "POSSIBLY" not PROBABLY! There really is a great difference between these two terms. I said the horse might possibly be that of Tom Custer, or even the General's because Mary's brother claimed to have killed an officer who had ridden the horse. The fact it was a sorrel horse limits the officers to 3 main possibilities: General Custer, Tom Custer or Harrington. Only an infantryman could possibly describe this horse -- described by Mrs. Crawler as "exceptionally good" or "exceptionally fine" -- as a nag. To a cavalryman, this description would likely refer to a thoroughbred horse. And many of the officers rode thoroughbreds.
You leap once again to unsupported speculation on you part that one wounded man helping another is George leaning on Autie, or Autie leaning on George. So she rides up an shoots one with a revolver, dismounts and stabs the other to death, all the while hanging on to a horse.
No, you have once again misread my words. I said the two wounded men walking down from LSH towards Deep Ravine were "possibly" Boss Custer and Autie Reed -- not your "George leaning on Autie" -- whose bodies were both found 100 yards or so below LSH and in close proximity to where Mary Crawler suggests she may have been at the very end of the battle. The only one consistently leaping to unsupported conclusions & misunderstandings seems to be you.
Have you ever stabbed a man while dismounted and hanging on to a horse, with the bedlam of battle all around you?
From the account Mary gives, the battle itself seems to have been over by the time she dispatched these two men, both of whom were wounded and in pretty bad shape. I doubt it took much effort at all for Mary to finish them off while holding the reigns of a horse.
If she shot one with a revolver, why didn't she shoot both with a revolver?
More than likely she only had one bullet left in her revolver, thus her decision to dispatch the other with her knife.
Don't you find it a bit remarkable that this woman participated in virtually every event of this battle that later took on some importance?
Actually, I don't see this at all. She mentions seeing nothing at all about the Reno fight in the valley because she got there too late. She mentions nothing at all about the action at Medicine Tail Ford for the same reason. She apparently did not arrive on the battlefield until near the very end of the fight and seemed to see very little of any consequence other than the fact that the Custer/Yates squadron had moved away from Battle Ridge and then returned again, where they were trapped and destroyed.
Your leap of faith that the first lines of the narrative were about the Reno fight notwithstanding, don't you think that strange that considering the distances involved she witnessed by her own account all this stuff?
Its called simple logic and common sense. The "leap of faith" you speak of can be reserved for those naive enough to believe that Mary, her father and her brothers knew nothing of the Reno attack in the valley for 45 minutes until Custer magically appeared on Battle Ridge!
PROBABLY a Kentucky Throughbred. And you conclude this how?
Another logical probability derived from the 7th Cavalry being stationed in Kentucky from 1870 - 73. Custer and many of his officers were known to have purchased Kentucky thoroughbreds. I believe Custer's horse Vic was one of them. Unlike infantrymen, Indians know their horseflesh. If an Indian goes out of their way to describe a Cavalry horse as exceptional, there is a good chance that horse is a thoroughbred.
I don't know which part of this trip through fantasyland amused me more, the part in white or the part in yellow. On the one hand the part in white was telling a bunch of folks what they wanted to hear. On the other the part in yellow was you telling me what you want me to think. All of it is tripe with a very few seeds of truth, none of which you discovered and/or commented on.
Just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Lets just say that you don't like Mary Crawler's account, neither the white nor the yellow, because it does not coincide with your own notions of what happened that day. Therefore, the account of this eye-witness participant must be entirely wrong, of course. At least, according to your own peculiar mindset.
Bill, you buy all this crap because it either fits in with what you want to believe or somehow you can find a way to wedge it in.
Lol. There is no need to wedge anything in Chuck. Her account of the battle fits very nicely into what I have been saying now for several years. You and others will naturally discount her version outright simply because you are unable to shoe-horn it into your own notion of what happened that day. Sometimes giving up a cherished theory is much harder than accepting conflicting evidence from an eye-witness participant. Hey, we can always say she was a liar and a scoundrel, just like we do for all the other accounts we are uncomfortable with. That's usually how it works.
The man in the movie said "Print the Legend" Bill, not MAKE UP THE LEGEND.
Basing an account on archaeological evidence, body locations, oral accounts and an understanding of Cavalry tactics is what we call history Chuck. Those who reject eye-witness accounts, logic and common sense, and other evidence to the contrary, in order to cling onto a mistaken notion of how the battle played out for no other reason than that it fits in with their own peculiar mindset is far more likely to be the type of legend you speak of. And yes, Chuck. I do have a degree in American History but that is not really relevant to our discussion here. One does not need a degree in history to study events at Little Big Horn.