Posted on 05/10/2007 5:43:50 AM PDT by drzz
“he was know for his courage in battle.”
know=known
Hey,
Benteen and Reno didn’t support their troops in the middle of battle.
Being soldiers don’t save them of military rules. What about the 210 men on the hill, surrounded by enemies ? What about Custer, who draw a battle plan and was, after his death, tarnished and tarnished again because 2/3 of his regiment wasn’t in the battle ?
Benteen betrayed 210 soldiers and left them behind without supporting them.
“Reno proved incompetent and Benteen showed his indifference – I will not use the uglier words that have often been in my mind. Both failed Custer and he had to fight it alone.”
Private William Taylor, 7th cavalry, February 20, 1910
“I don’t know what axe you have to grind here with this conspiracy theory, but it just doesn’t hold water.”
Conspiracy theory ? Oh, well, that’s how you react when you don’t have evidence to counterattack?
Custer fought for his flag, so did his men. Where was the support ?
I wrote a book on the subject. And let your sarcasm out of the debate. I am not Frenchie and I am not impressed by this kind of low attack.
Have you read the Reno Court of Inquiry ? of course, no.
Have you read what US general in chief said? Of course, no.
So what? Is that what you got ? Please...
Custer’s brother was tortured. Throat cut open, head scalped etc. A hell of a job.
Custer ORDERED Reno and Benteen to go where they did. Say what you want about Reno, He saved most of his command. Benteen arrived from miles away, where he was sent BY CUSTER, to help save Reno and his own command. Benteen fought bravely, once again, and was decorated for his actions.
STOP slandering American Soldiers.
If that idiot Custer had brought his Gatling guns, he mighta won. But he didn’t want be slowed up...
Custer got about what he deserved. Its sad that he took so many soldiers with him, though.
“I wrote a book on the subject.”
LOL. What’d I tell you.
Gatling guns were so heavy that even Terry, who brought them with him, regretted it.
It’s simply not true.
Reno attracted the Indians by attacking them, and Fred Gerard and Sergeant Davern, Reno’s orderly, said that it was exactly what Custer wanted : “to bring Indians to battle” (Gerard). Not to “charge the village”, as Reno said in 1879, but to “charge”, as Reno wrote it in 1876. Indians were believed to be fleeing, Custer had to force them to stop. To bring them to battle. And it worked.
Reno’s position in the timber was strong, much stronger that Reno said afterwards to explain his rout. Lieutenant Hare testified at the Reno Court of Inquiry (RCOI) that the troops were not fighting the entire Indian forces and that the field itself was good for fighting: deep woods, with a kind of breastwork which protected the soldiers from the Indian fire. Indians had a lot of difficulties to go in the timber, suffered casualties (two warchiefs) and didn’t want to fight around Reno anymore. Red Feather testified that the position was very good and that the Indians were frustrated to be shot down without hurting the soldiers. Cheyenne chiefs told George B. Grinnell that if Reno had hold the timber, they would have never defeated him, an opinion which was shared by Lieutenant Hare, Lieutenant DeRudio (the position was “impregnable”, Reno could have hold it “four hours”), Fred Gerard and almost all the officers of the batalion. Indians testified that chiefs even warned their warriors not to attack the timber.
When Reno left the timber without any organization, Indians were very surprised by the movement and most of all told interviewers that it was the strangest movement of the battle. They didn’t understand why Reno had left while he was in the strongest position. It was a tactical disaster.
US general in chief Miles, Reno Court of Inquiry chairman Jesse Lee, Colonel Gibbon and most of the officers of Reno’s batalion (except Captain Moylan, who had left the woods with Reno, and McIntosh, who was killed during the rout) agreed that the position was good. Lee even said that it was the strongest position of all the battlefield, and Lieutenant Hare, of Reno’s batalion, said that holding the timber was evidently made to support Custer’s flank attack against the village.
But no flank attack was ever made, because Reno left the village after only 30 minutes of light fight (Fred Gerard spent 21 bullets, the men in general 30 to 40 according to Gerard, Davern spent 13, Culbertson spent 20) - and Custer’s attack was already failing, but not because of Custer’s plan.
The plan was good - attacking in front of the village, to stop the body of Indians, an attack in the flank, to surprise and defeat them. According to bugler Martini, Custer’s plan was this (Martini heard Custer telling this to his subordinates) : Reno in the fron of the village, Benteen in the center and Custer in the extreme opposite. Altough Benteen and Reno later said that Custer didn’t tell us anything, in fact, he did, and Martini heard it.
210 men were betrayed in the middle of action, I am asking for justice for them (and for Custer who has been tarnished since then by the US public opinion) and I AM the one who isn’t paying respect to the US soldiers ? Are you kidding ?
Benteen wasn’t decorated for his actions, BTW.
The plan was insane. Proof is in the outcome.
You claim to have been to the battlefield. You saw the terrain. You saw the coulees Custer took his command through.
You know Custer ordered Benteen miles away and the type of terrain Benteen had to travel to get back.
How can you claim it was a good plan?
Your desire to defend the honor of this man is quite strange.
Yup. I regret saying that. Gonna watch the videos. They sound great.
“I am asking for justice for them.”
Justice for them? The men who died with Custer don’t need your defense. No one is denying their bravery.
You are slandering other soldiers to defend the man who caused their deaths.
It’s a desire to fight for the truth, and fighting for a dead soldier isn’t that strange. He fought for your flag and you are unable to take some time to look for the facts that doomed him?
The outcome of the fight means nothing. Nothing at all. Custer drew a battle plan that included his whole regiment, but 2/3 of this regiment wasn’t fully involved in the battle. A majority of these 2/3 was involved in the battle to only 2% !
Custer had to look for satellite villages around his objective. The coulees helped Custer for surprising the village - and it worked. Benteen moved far too slowly and even Captain Weir, of Benteen’s command, was so angry about the delay that he moved on his own initiative towards Little Big Horn. He later made a new movement because Reno and Benteen didn’t want to join Custer in the fight.
2/3 of the regiment out, 1/3 in full battle, what’s strange is that you don’t see anything strange in all that. http://www.custerwest.org
No. I am not slandering anyone. Watch the videos. The evidence is overwhelming.
Even the US general in chief of the army wrote that Benteen and Reno had betraxed Custer. And he wrote it in his personal Memoirs.
Again, watch the video, and then the others (”from my user”)
2/3 were not with Custer because he separated them. They found themselves in their own battle for survival. What part of that do you not understand.
The coulees also hid Custer from Reno/Benteen’s position.
I don’t know if you’re serious, but anyway, hope you’ll enjoy them and you’ll see that there are strong evidence, pointed out by high member of the US army and by serious historians, that Benteen and Reno betrayed.
I got to go - watch the videos, Garry Owen !
My take also.
I have watched enough of your videos and the evidence is not overwelming.
Simple tour of the battlefield terrain supports Reno and Benteen.
Not so sure you have earned the right to say Garryowen, but it is a nice thought. Will agree with you on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.