|
Post by thehighwayman on Sept 13, 2008 9:51:14 GMT -5
Strange, my young friend, I cannot think of any single writer who could begin a posting by mentioning his ‘undies,’ and (within the space of four short paragraphs) cover fifty years of presidential history to end on the topics of ‘animal neglect’ and its relationship to ‘facism.’ All on a thread bemoaning the loss (temporary, I hope) of a thoroughly competent Custer era scholar.
Amazing. My hat’s off to you.
highway
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 13, 2008 23:23:43 GMT -5
Strange, my young friend, I cannot think of any single writer who could begin a posting by mentioning his ‘undies,’ and (within the space of four short paragraphs) cover fifty years of presidential history to end on the topics of ‘animal neglect’ and its relationship to ‘facism.’ All on a thread bemoaning the loss (temporary, I hope) of a thoroughly competent Custer era scholar. Amazing. My hat’s off to you. highway At the end of the day, I'm a simple patriot who likes to dig in the rain. Many are given to lies and coercion But stories are most sweet when they arrive at your feet and you are much scarier to meet in person Yea, the Strange PS No, I did not visit a cemetery. Just my backyard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2008 10:57:25 GMT -5
Just to refresh Markland's memory, I do not think I ever said "Darkcloud" never contributed anything. He did, in fact, goad me into reading the RCOI earlier than I had planned. But then, so did Gordon Harper... so credit where credit is due. What DC fails to contribute is anything positive about this whole event. All he does is mock and deride others' theories, then he picks and chooses who he is going to side with. His constructive contributions can be measured on the head of a pin and the only positive thing he has come up with is his constant howling about Reno and what more could the man have done as he left the timber. When "conz" or I addressed DC's issues, he merely ignored our responses, constantly hammering at his usual and now-hoary mantra, coming up with impossible-to-answer questions. That kind of stance clearly pinpoints his lack of understanding of military matters and further points out his hypocrisy in his praising of combat vets, yet ignoring the answers they provide (though I do not believe "conz" was ever in combat, his USMA learning and his subsequent military experience gives him a formidable voice in these things).
Then, when he finally did pose a theory of what he thought happened at Ford B, it was the usual run-from-reality position of Custer being killed there, therefore all other bets are off and all other theories are worthless. That gives him all the wiggle-room he needs to continue mocking others. When I challenged him on his so-called "theory" he could never properly or intelligently respond.
And yes, if some of you thought I was pandering to him, at times I was. I admit it. But at the same time, there was method to my madness. And it worked. He backed off my ass, totally, until of course I decided the fight was no longer worth it and I departed Mrs. Merkel's boards once and for all. (Don't let my continued "gold name" presence there fool you; it is called "convenience.")
Sometimes, Billy, you should pay more attention to what I tell you on the telephone than what you read for some public consumption. Things are not always as they appear, especially when one deals with a fool like Darkcloud. Some of the greatest scoundrels of all time had good minds too. No one said DC didn't.
Best wishes, especially to Billy, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 18, 2008 16:57:29 GMT -5
Just to jump in for a moment.... Its VERY difficult to deal with some of the people who think Custer was shot early on in the battle. Recently I came across this website which has a lot of good accounts to read from, but its also ABSOLUTELY OBSESSED with trying desperately to inform the reader that Custer was stiffed early in the battle ........ www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/who_killed_custer.htmlOn a fascinating note, in regard to their top ten Indians who might've killed the General, they seem to purposely place a few Indians which can immediately be proven wrong so that they can make their main guy look more favorable........ and these people are obsessed with the idea that White Cow Bull put Custer on ice. (Of coarse I'm very happy to discuss White Cow Bull, and our resident JohnBryan started a great thread which I had fun with. So I'm not discouraging any discussion) The website I'm mentioning, astonisher.com, is absolutely blunt headed. And its a real shame because that website has plenty of information, its only irritation is its constant goading to lead everyone to the eventual conclusion that Custer was killed at the opening. I think there's far too much to the battle to believe that the major officer, or officers, were killed right at the first inkling. There are alot of things happening, a lot of land to travel back and forth on, which makes any quick assault by the Indians to be a little obsolete unless Sitting Bull's magical hallucination led every warrior to plan hours before and hide in the exact places where Custer moved. We know Custer started on the offensive, and it probably took some time before Indians can really flip that around. We have the fact that the major fight was made in three different places by soldiers on the move. We have Indians like Two Moons who are clearly taking responsibility for more than they were worth. And then we have Indians like Red Horse and Gall, who, while they might be conflicting on few things, will paint some consistent pictures about each interval. If the Indians, in some wayward universe or dimension, numbered as high as 10,000; it would take them extra time to move around. Bulky numbers are not easy to mobilize when you have several many Indian leaders of similar rank and position who want to do different things. The great size of the village, with more likely less than 3,000 active battle participants, was the major flaw which decided the fate of the Indians in the overall war. This mistake lands right on the head of Sitting Bull when he gathered so many tribes into one place. The Indians, in the way they fight, are more useful with 5 men as opposed to 5 thousand. The Indians are not stupid or unorganized, they simply get sloppy with bigger numbers because it does not match the economics of their warfare. The bigger the numbers you believe, the longer the battle goes. Lots of terrain. Fetterman faced a higher number of Indians, with only 80 men to his stable, and even he put up a pretty good stand. You had a brawling bugle boy and couple hunters who caused a great amount of damage with their fancy new rifles. That would be just three people who were considered very effective in the fight. Now Custer has over 3 times the numbers of Fetterman, and he's still working without the other two thirds of his regiment. And on top of that, Custer was facing even less Indians. Custer might not win, but any one would be damned to say he went down easy. Strange
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 18, 2008 21:37:15 GMT -5
If White Cow Bull was right and somebody got shot at the ford, could it have been Yates? He was also blond and wearing buckskins.
|
|
|
Post by cisdyd on Sept 19, 2008 2:16:03 GMT -5
Just to refresh Markland's memory, I do not think I ever said "Darkcloud" never contributed anything. He did, in fact, goad me into reading the RCOI earlier than I had planned. But then, so did Gordon Harper... so credit where credit is due. What DC fails to contribute is anything positive about this whole event. All he does is mock and deride others' theories, then he picks and chooses who he is going to side with. His constructive contributions can be measured on the head of a pin and the only positive thing he has come up with is his constant howling about Reno and what more could the man have done as he left the timber. When "conz" or I addressed DC's issues, he merely ignored our responses, constantly hammering at his usual and now-hoary mantra, coming up with impossible-to-answer questions. That kind of stance clearly pinpoints his lack of understanding of military matters and further points out his hypocrisy in his praising of combat vets, yet ignoring the answers they provide (though I do not believe "conz" was ever in combat, his USMA learning and his subsequent military experience gives him a formidable voice in these things). Then, when he finally did pose a theory of what he thought happened at Ford B, it was the usual run-from-reality position of Custer being killed there, therefore all other bets are off and all other theories are worthless. That gives him all the wiggle-room he needs to continue mocking others. When I challenged him on his so-called "theory" he could never properly or intelligently respond. And yes, if some of you thought I was pandering to him, at times I was. I admit it. But at the same time, there was method to my madness. And it worked. He backed off my ass, totally, until of course I decided the fight was no longer worth it and I departed Mrs. Merkel's boards once and for all. (Don't let my continued "gold name" presence there fool you; it is called "convenience.") Sometimes, Billy, you should pay more attention to what I tell you on the telephone than what you read for some public consumption. Things are not always as they appear, especially when one deals with a fool like Darkcloud. Some of the greatest scoundrels of all time had good minds too. No one said DC didn't. Best wishes, especially to Billy, Fred. Fred, first things first. I ALWAYS pay attention to what you tell (or lecture) me about the Custer-Cluster. I think that things you personally tell me on the telephone are not for public consumption and I hope that you will honor that. That means that I will not tell anyone that you said * has breath so bad that it would make a NY taxi shut off due to lack of oxygen. Just kidding to prove a point-we only can use the words printed on the ether. Whether you adore or despise DC is not my concern, I am only providing feedback based upon your written assessment at the time. Face it, DC is a royal pain in the * but still, when he is not trying to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, he does hit some pertinent things. I am not forgiving his hissy-fit which aggravated and forced Elisabeth off of the board as he was totally being an asshole. Given a choice between Elisabeth's comments and DC's, well DC enjoy the winter in Boulder. I'll talk with you later you damned Yankee! Billy *inappropriate comment removed by mod.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 19, 2008 10:50:02 GMT -5
If White Cow Bull was right and somebody got shot at the ford, could it have been Yates? He was also blond and wearing buckskins. To broaden the scope of this inquiry, the ford could have been one of the Ford D's, as well. Wish Elisabeth was here to chime in! <g> I do miss her wonderful ability to express the ENGLISH language... Clair
|
|
|
Post by bc on Sept 19, 2008 12:12:59 GMT -5
I dipped the rim of my coffee cup in salt before reading the astonishing article mentioned by Tokeca Wanji. I still don't rule out that Custer fell first. It could have been both he and Yates leading the charge. I suspect if Yates was dehorsed in the river, Custer would still continue on and especially if it was ford D. If it was ford B, they could still keep the NAs engaged at ford B from across the river while Custer moved to Ford D until they began to be flanked and forced to withdraw to Calhoun Hill. If Ford B, Custer may have already moved North and it was Tom, Keough, or someone else with a buckskin clad officer leading a failed charge at ford B. Although locations are disputed, it would be nice to hear where the camps that White Cow Bull refers to were located (by ford B or D). I know some don't put any camps on the D area and some do. I don't put much stock in someone being so specific about remembering one horse with 4 white socks and expecially when the horse was knee or belly deep in water. Sounds like a little coaching occured later on in regards to the horse description but that don't mean the rest of his story is inaccurate.
If you fully believe the article, then I think you have to discount much happening at ford D as a fully planned movement.
Guess I'll have to read more about Thompson who they say saw Custer scouting along the ford before the attack. I can't rule him out doing something like that which may account for the extra time his command sat around MTC. Custer going to the river to look for a ford ahead of his command just sounds so much like him.
The article is compelling for the thrust of the action directed at MTC but I'll have to refresh myself with the Ford D theories.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 20, 2008 13:55:29 GMT -5
Elisabeth has pointed out that a lot of Indians seemed to be rather obsessed with that sorrel horse with white socks. It was supposedly ridden by the officer shot at the ford, the officer who was Two Moon's "bravest man," and the officer who almost got away and suddenly shot himself.
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2008 16:09:02 GMT -5
Wasn't the "bravest man" supposed to be some one from the Reno area? I might be confusing with White Bull, but there's one blond haired SURVIVOR which an Indian fingered as Custer (supposed to be French, as some of you have remarked).
I'm completely irritated at the fact that I've never read an Indian looking at a picture of Custer and saying "thats the guy!". I'm sure that, even then, a photo could've been located somewhere (he was printed in the news papers, and hell, the Indian veterans lived long into the 20th century! Just like Libbie.). I cling to the idea that there must've been plenty of Indians who could've made positive ID's of most officers with one glance of a photo.
Strange
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 21, 2008 0:53:47 GMT -5
Unless the Indians in question actually had known the guys in person, before the battle, I doubt that they would have been able to do much in the way of identifying them. Some guy in a uniform with a mustache is trying to kill you; you blow him away and move on to the next guy with a mustache who's trying to kill you--are you really going to be able to identify those two guys years later? Some of them, like Cooke, were memorable for one reason or another, but there were at least four blond guys with mustaches--Custer, Tom, Yates and Calhoun. Seeing a nice studio portrait many years after seeing them covered with dirt and blood might not facilitate ID-ing them.
I think French claimed to be the "bravest man" described by Two Moon, but I think Two Moon specified that the guy was with Custer.
|
|
|
Post by princccesstori on Jun 26, 2009 12:16:18 GMT -5
This is probably not the place to do it and I am probably dredging up more inane crap by doing so, but I just couldn't let it go. Several days ago, I looked at Mrs. Merkel's site just to read posts by Gordon Harper and Elisabeth Kimber. (When I want to find out something good, I usually turn to posts by either or both of them.) Fred. that made me smile...just due to the refference of my Dad... I read thru this whole post...as I am slowly making my way thru them all, for my Dad...did Elisabeth ever come back?
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 30, 2009 2:20:30 GMT -5
Elisabeth left the other board and has never been here, but we would really like her to be. Elisabeth, if you are reading this, it's all nice and civilized around here, nobody's sniping or losing their tempers, and we all have tea every afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by cisdyd on Jun 30, 2009 3:09:35 GMT -5
Elisabeth left the other board and has never been here, but we would really like her to be. Elisabeth, if you are reading this, it's all nice and civilized around here, nobody's sniping or losing their tempers, and we all have tea every afternoon. Mel, Elisabeth hasn't gone away, she just got tired of BS. From my communications with her, she checks both sites. Actually, Gordie, Elisabeth and I had a great round-robin conversation about a map I had found. Gordie found the provenance of it (I can't remember now but will check past emails.) Billy
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 14:11:32 GMT -5
Ah yes . . . Elisabeth . . . a voice of reason in a sea of "dark"ness.
From the movie Shane at the end when the young boy is calling Shane as he rides off:
"Come back Elisabeth, Elisabeth, come back!"
|
|