Halfway through it now--will comment later. A falsehood indicates a deliberate effort to conceal what is known to be the truth. Nothing is "known" here, but there are many opinions. Are you a liar for saying Reno was drunk, if I don't agree? Or do we have a difference of opinion? I'm still not sure what I think about that, by the way. I find my opinions changing constantly as a result of reading numerous different opinions from all sides, and then thinking for myself.
Snelson said that 600 Indians were charging Reno at the beginning of his fight. The witnesses said that no Indian was in sight when Reno charged and only 100 to 150 ultimately charged the lines. Indian witnesses agreed. Most of them were not ready for battle until Reno left the timber.
Finished it. There are 16 footnotes for eight pages, and Boyes has 38 for nine pages--I didn't count the first page because it's mostly a picture.
You may find errors in these articles, but that doesn't make them lies. A lie is something done deliberately to mislead, and to call anybody who makes an error a liar is extremely insulting, especially to historians.
I was interested in Snelson's statement, "...Lieutenant Mathey claimed, that upon the train's arrival, Reno had lifted his half-full flask of whiskey saying, 'Look here, I have got half a bottle yet.' Mathey told interviewer Walter Camp that he believed Reno was intoxicated but did not wish to be quoted." I'm not aware that Mathey had any particular bone to pick with anybody--if I'm wrong about that, somebody please correct me. I have a feeling that there was some collusion at the RCOI by the officers who did not want to show the Seventh in a bad light.
For the most part, Snelson's article is pure speculation, and as far as I'm concerned, he is certainly allowed to speculate. As I said above, I really want to look into Boyes' claim that there were much more specific orders than we have been led to believe, and then consider the whole thing and form my own conclusion.
What is not acceptable in Snelson's article is that he states "Reno was facing 600 warriors" although he knows that it was Reno's perjury at the RCOI. Boyes' article is quoting witnesses, but Snelson's defends Reno and Benteen (especially Benteen) with... Reno's and Benteen's own words. Words that have been largely proven to be lies.
For example, Snelson's states that there were "900 warriors" around Reno Hill, although he knows that the Indians began to leave the hill right when he arrived. Accounts by officers, Indians and soldiers abund.
What is interesting for the overall study of the battle is that a Benteenist must use Benteen's own lies to defend the Captain.
Try "falsehoods". I have no problem with the editor at all- quite the contrary. The editor wrote a masterpiece on Custer's plan. What should be obvious to all Custer buffs is the difference between Boyes' excellent piece and Snelson's article, the latter being full of known falsehoods (entirely taken from Benteen's and Reno's well known perjuries).
Post by benteeneast on Apr 9, 2008 21:51:08 GMT -5
If second hand information is cited I take it with a grain of salt. I have not seen so many: my father told me, I consider it as good as if I were there myself,he knew what was in Custer's mind, Mary Crawler heard the plan???, a Lakota states he had a well laid plan, Reno was told to wait thirty to forty minutes, Reno ordered to wait thirty minutes and then give them hell, starting at the lone Tipi we began the charge, Stabbed carried a message(this was before the great Martin message?), he directed Reno to take 7 Company's, as I was not there I got the account from A friend of mine, Reno was to be supported by Benteen (if so it kind of ruins the theory on Keogh waiting for Benteen), Captain Reno, told Reno to take 5 companies, Reno's orders were were to attack the village at the upper end immediately upon arrival, so that the two attacks should be simultaneous(I like that one), Martin stated the "The General motioned for Colonel Reno and he rode up the General told the Adjutant to order him to go down and cross the river and attack the Indian village and that he would support him with the whole regiment. He said he [Custer] would go down to the other end [of the village} and drive them and that he would have Benteen hurry up and attack them in the center"(apparently Martin never read the message he carried since it would be a lot more vague then the statement he said he heard)(also funny he didn't mention the trooper taking Yates horse back the pack train, why not use him for the message to the pack train rather than Kanipe),Edgerly - Custer's idea was the Indians would scatter and run in all directions.
The plan did not change. Reno attracted the warriors and Custer was about the flank them with Benteen. Benteen's part was to join the regiment except if he found satellite villages. Benteen never sent any message to Custer with the results of his scout and never joined his superior at all.
Reno and Benteen made the plan change. Their participation to LBH was simply aid to the enemy.
Reno's "600 warriors" in front of him when he charged
Benteen's "we had 900 warriors around us" on Reno Hill
Indians still there on Reno Hill when Benteen arrives (Snelson adds "they would soon leave", but "soon" is enough vague to pretend that Benteen and Reno were assailed although we all know that they were not according to the witnesses)
Those are some of the PERJURIES (edited) copied and pasted in Snelson's article without any explanation. Interestingly enough, these forgeries help Snelson to build his case for Benteen and Reno. It is logical, because that's why they were created.
Last Edit: Apr 11, 2008 9:51:03 GMT -5 by custerwest
"Forgery: the illegal production of something counterfeit." I don't think that is the correct term in this case. Your implication is that Snelson has done something illegal. That is certainly not the case, and you should probably be careful about using terms like that.
So how many warriors do you think were in the valley? Please cite your sources.