Thomas H. Purvis Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Merriam-Webster Dictionary scintilla: spark, trace --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Policy of “No Agents” on the President’s Limousine Information from Vince Palamara’s “Survivor’s Guilt” 2005 The Evolution of the Myth. The Warren Commission was curious apparently, along with members of the media and the public, why there were no agents protecting the President Kennedy during the Dallas motorcade on 11/22/63. by being posted on the back of the Limo on either side. Or why no agents were not walking or running along side of the car.?(1). Agents had performed these duties since the days of FDR. In response, and only because they demanded an answer, Secret Service Chief James J.Rowley had agents , Jerry Behn, Floyd Boring, Emory Roberts, John Ready, and Clint Hill write their reports in relation to their experiences with JFK on the matter of security,(why Roy Kellerman, the agent in charge of the Dallas trip , and the other Texas agents weren’t asked, is not known.) Most interesting is that nothing is mentioned specifically by the WC about 11/22/63..as requested by them. On first glance all five reports support the notion that the President did not want agents on or near the rear of the limo. However that is at first glance. Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House detail (WHD) Gerald. A “Jerry” Behn, not on the Texas trip, stated unequivocally in his report 4/16/64 that JFK “told me that he did not want agents riding on the back of his car.” This came from the man who was the leader of the WH detail, “the man who was the direct pipeline to the President, this alleged presidential edit seems to be an authoritative and conclusive fact. However, during the course of three separate interviews with Vince Palamara, Mr.Behn let out a most unexpected bombshell: “I don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on the back of his car”. He went on to further add” that newsreel footage from that period will bear him out on this point.” One of many examples being the June 63 trip to Berlin (and many others from 61 to 63). “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Behn said. Brehn’s reputation was and is impeccable. Agent Maurice G.Martineau told Palamara on 9/21/93.. “No one that I can think of would have been better positioned to give you the information than Jerry Behn…( he was ) as well informed as anyone I can think of that you could contact”. Behn garnered the utmost respect from his colleagues that the author spoke with”. Mr.Behn however ended his report by stating..” As late as Nov. 18(63)… he (JFK) told ASAIC Boring the same thing (or so Boring claimed). Assistant Special Agent Boring was also not on the Dallas trip, he had dealt primarily with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip in his report ( dated 4/8/64) while also he mentioned the 7/2/63 Italy trip, alleging that President Kennedy made this request for both stops. Boring made the Florida trip in place of Mr.Behn. That said, in yet another contradiction that caught the author off guard Boring exclaimed: “No, no that’s not true..(JFK) was a very easy going guy…he didn’t interfere with our actions at all”, thus also contradicting his report. Assistant To the Special Agent in Charge (ATSAIC) Emory P.Roberts (on the Florida and Texas trips) the commander of the SS follow up car …the late Mr. Roberts (he died in the 60’s) deals exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip in his report ( dated 4/10/64): Boring was Roberts sole source, via radio transmission from the limousine ahead of his follow-up vehicle, for JFK’s alleged request. Special Agent (SA) John David “Jack” Ready (on the Texas trip) ..Ready’s very brief report (dated 4/11/64) dealt exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Ready was not on that specific Florida trip. Boring was, once again, his source for JFK’s alleged request .Ready would not respond to written inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05 and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip, Ready stated : “Not on the phone (will I answer you ).I don’t know you from Adam. Can you see my point ?”. SA Clinton J,”Clint” Hill (on the Texas trip) …Hill also deals with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Borings second-hand in his (strangely undated) report: Mr. Hill was not on the Florida trip either. Mr. Hill’s brother is former agent David B. Grant, a former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida and Texas trips with none other than Mr.Boring. So of the five SS reports, four have as their primary source for JFK’s alleged request Agent Floyd Boring, including one by Boring himself, while the remaining report, written by Mr.Behn, mentions the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do.Both Behn and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at different times, independent of each other, to the author. In addition, agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63 and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests, as the film and photo record proves.(2).Needless to say, with Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports , the official SS ‘ explanation’ falls like a house of cards. Brehn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any SS or Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. Also Hill’s report is undated, an unusual error to make in any official government that has been requested by the head of the Secret Service. Yet, all are supposed to be evidence of JFK expressing his desire to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in Tampa, Florida..? Importantly ,no mention is made of any alleged orders via President’s Staff. And, again, there is nothing about what JFK said or “requested” on Nov.22/63.The critical day in question. Above from page 4-5. Notes: p.210 (1) Vol.18 WC: p.803-809 “From now on , this designation, the standard one used in the literature, will be adopted as follows: However, the hydraulic side steps which swung out were rarely used because of their narrowness and their potential lethal capability to unknowing spectators on a motorcade route : “The Death of a President,” p.36 ( All references to Manchester’s book are from the 1988 Perennial Library edition) “Presidential Limousines” video by Rick Boudreau .1996. When Kennedy’s specially-designed Lincoln Continental limousine was delivered to the White House in June 61, detachable rear grab handles were included ( Press statement ,Ford Motor Co. June 61).In early 62 ,grab handles were permanently added to the rear of the car. It should also be noted that President Eisenhower’s limousine (and even one of the two 56 Cadillac convertible follow up cars) was also, out of necessity, used from time to time. (2) Regarding Italy: See also “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O’Donnell, Kenneth P., David F .Powers, and Joseph McCarthy, (Boston: Little Brown & Co. 1972) page 433 (Note: All references to this book are from the Pocket Book paperback edition published in 73). The Myth… Floyd Boring and quite a few of his SS colleagues denied to Vince Palamara what William Manchester reports in the best seller “The Death of a President”: “Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa Nov.18/63 just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to ‘keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car’ Boring wasn’t offended .There had been no animosity in the remark”.(3) But incredibly Boring told Palamara that “I never told him that”. As for the merit of the quote itself, Boring said “No, no—that’s not true”. Thus contradicting his own report in the process. Incredibly, Boring was not even interviewed for Manchester’s book! We may never know the source for this information as Manchester told the author on 8/23/93 that “ all the material is under seal and won’t be released in my lifetime”, and denied the author access to his notes. Manchester has since passed away. (4) Interestingly Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts, his probable but also very questionable source.(5) As a result Manchester left his mark on the issue.(6) In Jim Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”, he simply repeats the written record of the WC and the previously mentioned five reports all taken at face value. Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. Mr. Bishop,also now dead, his information rests with him. But he did sum up the situation the best. “ No one wanted to weigh the possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult to hit President Kennedy” he also noted “The Secret Service men were not pleased because they were in a “ hot” city and would have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President’s car with two motorcycle policemen between him ( JFK) and the crowds on the sidewalks”. Thanks to the SS reports above ( and, in large part to Agent Boring himself ) three massive best sellers still in print ..The Warren Report…Manchester’s “The Death of a President”….and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”…have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and had ordered the agents off his car..and like a ,dangerous myth that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media , thus doing great damage to the true historical record. The Secret Service Myth..Blames the Victim. Clint Hill: “I never personally was requested by President John F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy had made such requests.” “This would have been between Nov. 19/63 and Nov 21/63 “.He could not recall at the time what specific agent had given him JFK’s alleged desires….note the dates. But during his WC testimony, he revealed it on 3/9/64 under oath to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer for the WC. Specter: “Now had there been any instruction or comment about your performance of that type of duty (moving to the rear part of the limo) With respect to anything President Kennedy himself had said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas ?” Hill” “Yes Sir, there was. The preceding Monday, the President was on a trip to Tampa. Florida and he requested that agents not ride on either of those two steps”. Specter: “ And to whom did the President make that request?” Hill: “Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring”. Boring was also in charge of planning the Texas trip for the Secret Service.. From p: 6, 7, 8. *********************************************** Notes p.210 (3) Manchester p.37-38 .He also wrote “It was a good idea, for example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly. The trouble was they were always there.” (4)Author Walt Brown mentions Palamara’s controversial contact with Manchester in his book “Treachery In Dallas”. 95. P.338. (5) Manchester p.667 Of the 21 agents /officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts, Greer, Kinney and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the advance agent for Tampa,( riding in the lead car), Greer drove JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the commander of the follow-up car. Roberts is Palamara’s main suspect of the four being Manchester’s dubious source for this quote.: he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio transmission. The others Greer, Kinney and Blaine ..were not asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had access to this report while writing his book. Also unlike the others, Roberts was interviewed twice and while Greer never went on record with his feelings about the matter ,one way or the other, Kinney denied the veracity of Manchester’s information , while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although he DID mention the ‘Ivy League charlatan’ remark coming from a second source .Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by Manchester .Blaine is the only agent ---save two headquarters Inspectors ( see next note)---whose interview comments are not to be found in the text or index. In addition two other agents Lawton & Newman mention the remark as hearsay, it is likely that Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its significance ..AND attributed it to Boring, while his actual source was probably Roberts (and or Blaine). Again since Boring was not interviewed the comment had to come second hand from some other agent, who in turn received the remark second hand from Boring. In the end the question is: Did Boring really give out these orders on instructions from JFK.? (6) Interestingly Manchester having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for his book (p.600-669), chose to include interviews with SS Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner...What’s the problem? These men who were not even associated with the Texas trip in any way, were interviewed more than any other agents, 4 times each (Peterson 10/9/64..11/7/64..11/18/64..2/5/65. Warner 6/2/64..11/18/64..2/5/65..5/12/65. Only Emory Roberts, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two each. While all other agents/officials had one. More importantly, unlike all other 19 agents, save one Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent). These two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or index? Their comments are invisible to the reader. It appears that Manchester’s book was an officially sanitized book more so than we thought (as most everyone knows the book was written with Jackie Kennedy’s approval, it was her idea. Manchester had early access to the WC itself. Warren appointed him an ex-officio member of the Commission. He approved an office for him in Washington’s VFW building. Where the commission met, and where copies of reports and depositions were made available to him.(p: XIX) Inspector Peterson was prominent in the post-assassination press dealings. Sorrels testified “I don’t think at any time you will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or television that we said anything because Mr.Kelley ,the Inspector ,told me “Any information that is given out will have to come from Inspector Peterson in Washington”.(7H359). Burrill Peterson became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968.(20 Years in the Secret Service “ by Rufus Youngblood. 1973 p: 220. Jack Warner went on to become Director of Public Affairs till in the 90s Acting as a buffer to critical press questions during assassination attempts on President Ford and other related matters.(The Secret Service :The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency 2003:Phillip Melanson and Peter Stevens: p 101,201,224,237. Jack Warner would also later become a consultant to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In The Line of Fire” .Which dramatized the life of Clint Hill. Hills testimony: Clinton J.Hill WC Testimony http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm His original report. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm B..... -------------------- Biography http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic My appreciation for having posted this! It speaks quite clearly for itself as to exactly how much "spark" and how much "trace" there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Known facts: DPD motorcycles were stripped from JFK's limo by the Secret Service; A carload of armed detectives that DPD intended to be directly behind the limo was removed by the Secret Service; A press truck for photographers was removed from in front of the limo by the Secret Service, according to Dillard; A military officer who usually rides in the middle of the limo's front seat was removed by the Secret Service; JFK's personal physician who usually rode one or two cars behind the president was sent to the rear; The limo was slowed to a crawl by SS agent Greer, looking back at JFK although he denied it under oath and despite an order to get going, till a fatal shot was struck; No action was taken by the Secret Service during the shooting, except for Greer slowing the limo, Kellerman telling him to get going and using the radio, agent Youngblood promptly going to the protection of Lyndon Johnson, and the sprint to the limo by Hill who didn't know any better; It definitely looks like someone in the Secret Service knew what was up, or what was going down. Post-assassination: the Secret Service stole the body, and Greer sent JFK's clothes to the White House for storage instead of to the autopsy. I've probably left some facts out, but the above facts together clearly point to Secret Service complicity in the assassination, except for those who simply don't want to believe it or have an agenda to argue otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Hello Ron I no doubt am confused about something ! What prevented Fritz and his detectives from proceding directly to the TSBD ? The difference in relative motorcade positions only represents "seconds" of time ? What prevented them from rushing in, only seconds later, with their rifles and machine guns and apprehending the culprit ? Was his explanation a reason or "an excuse" ? Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Excellent review, and Ron doesn't mention the windows and overpasses failing to be assessed in advance.......... the list is so long it looks like an inside job, indicting those in the government and (unlike the cover up enacted by the Warren Commission and FBI) this performance by the Secret Service was simultaneous and close in, contributing (and not an ambiguous post=assassination failure like the FBI investigation...... it was failure on the day and in place, like Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar >>>>>>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) What prevented Fritz and his detectives from proceding directly to the TSBD ? The difference in relative motorcade positions only represents "seconds" of time ? Good question. I checked Fritz's testimony, and Fritz and two detectives were at the Trade Mart. They went to Parkland Hospital, arriving just as Curry did, and Fritz said that he ought to go to the scene of the crime and Curry told him to go ahead. Fritz arrived at the TSBD at 12:58. The only detectives in the motorade were apparently Senkel and Turner in the pilot car. I was going by Curry saying that Fritz and his detectives were at the end of the motorcade. Curry apparently didn't know what he was talking about. Here is his testimony: Mr. CURRY - . . . Captain Fritz told me later, he said, "I believe that had we been there we might possibly have got that man before he got out of that building or we would have maybe had the opportunity of firing at him while he was still firing" because they were equipped, would have been equipped with high-powered rifles and machineguns, submachine guns. Representative FORD - Where were they instead of being at the motorcade. Mr. CURRY - Actually they were not in the motorcade at all. They followed up the motorcade. Representative FORD - Were they in a car following up the motorcade? Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir; they were in a car. Representative FORD - How far away would they have been? Mr. CURRY - I think they would have been at the rear, I believe. IOW Curry believed that his ace homicide guy and his detectives drove right by and through the crime scene to go to the hospital. Then immediately turned around and went back. Edited June 20, 2007 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Hello Ron Thanks for the explanation. There was so much apparent confusion among the "players", it is easy to see how damned near everything was ridiculously "bungled" by the great majority of those involved! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's my opinion, but I put the blame of the Assassination right square on the Secret Service, who did nothing to protect the President on Nov. 22, 1963. And I think Clint Hill is just as responsible. A photo exists where he's on the car behind the limo and it looks to me like he's wearing some sort of early generation bullet vest. Could such a thing be impossible? Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's my opinion, but I put the blame of the Assassination right square on the Secret Service, who did nothing to protect the President on Nov. 22, 1963. And I think Clint Hill is just as responsible. A photo exists where he's on the car behind the limo and it looks to me like he's wearing some sort of early generation bullet vest. Could such a thing be impossible?Kathy Interesting you should mention this Kathy. Some time ago we had a loooong topic about hands and shoes. In one of the photo's on the way to Parkland, it looked (to me, but I thought of not mentioning it till some reason came along) like that is what he had under his coat. It's the one where his back is shown and is stretched taught because of his position, ditto a vague outline of a left shoulder holster rig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter McGuire Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Hello RonThanks for the explanation. There was so much apparent confusion among the "players", it is easy to see how damned near everything was ridiculously "bungled" by the great majority of those involved! Charles Black I have often confused the ACTOR Clint Eastwood and Clint Hill for some reason! Long before I KNEW what the man did , I had a gut feeling he was putting on a show. Clearly there was guilt, but that was because he knew what he really did. ( Or didn't ) do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 (edited) The following is excerpted from Palamara's section on Clint Hill: Despite riding on an automobile that was only a scant five feet away from JFK's slow-moving car (less than 12 mph) at the start of the shooting, Hill could only arrive in time to "protect" Mrs. Kennedy, the person to which he was assigned to protect. Mrs. Kennedy thought highly of Hill, regarding him as the brightest agent on the White House Detail and "one of us." In fact, "Hill had not been scheduled to make the Dallas trip, but came only after Mrs. Kennedy made a personal request." Although Hill was the only agent to overtly respond to the shooting of JFK, and in spite of the award he received for this action, the agent had much survivor's guilt. Mike Wallace asked Hill in 1975: "Is there anything that the Secret Service, or Clint Hill, could have done to keep that [the assassination] from happening?" After a long pause, Hill answered: "Clint Hill, yes." Wallace: "’Clint Hill, yes?’ What do you mean?" Hill, speaking somewhat in the third-person, responded: "If he had reacted about, oh, five-tenths of a second faster, maybe a second faster, I wouldn’t be here today." Wallace: "You mean you would have taken the shot?" Hill: "The third shot, yes, sir." Wallace: "And that would have been alright with you?" Hill: "That would have been fine with me." Wallace: "…you surely don’t have any sense of guilt about that?" Hill: "Yes, I certainly do. I have a great deal of guilt. It was my fault…if I had reacted just a little bit quicker, I could have, I guess…[sigh]…and I’ll live with that to my grave." Hill added: "[The doctors said] I have a severe neurological problem…they recommended psychiatric help…they trace it all back to 1963." The year 1993 saw a renaissance for Agent Hill---as previously mentioned, the movie "In The Line of Fire" ( starring Clint Eastwood ) was released, which was a somewhat veiled ‘tribute’ to Hill (and, in the movie, he gets to redeem himself for his failings on 11/22/63). In addition, Clint Hill did an "update" of sorts for the 25th anniversary special for "60 Minutes" during November 1993. Like his appearance on the 1995 documentary "Inside The Secret Service," Hill mentioned that he struggled with guilt for almost 30 years. It was here that Hill picked up the story, the same one he revealed in November 1993 to "60 Minutes": he and his wife went to Dealey Plaza in 1990 (straight from a nearby annual Secret Service reunion, according to Agent Sam Kinney). He walked it for about 2 hours, studying every angle and every possibility. Hill let everything run through his mind. He then came to the conclusion that he did the best that he could, and that he didn't have a chance. Well, regardless of Hill’s newfound feelings on the matter, the real question is: what about agent John Ready’s actions, responsibilities, and feelings? He was unnamed---he was the one responsible for JFK, NOT Hill, assigned to Jackie. The song remains the same. Many people have empathy for Hill, including many of his colleagues. Agent Lawson wrote to the author: "The thing I am confident of is that, although there were no more shots, Clint saved Mrs. Kennedy’s life by vaulting up on the back of the car using the steps and hand holds and keeping her from falling off. I’m still amazed at how quickly he got up there, didn’t fall and get run over by the heavy Cadillac follow-up car and, more amazingly, how he managed to hang on during that frantic high speed race to Parkland Hospital." However, through photo analysis of the Zapruder film and the Altgen's photo, the author has discovered that Agent Hill was looking directly at JFK upon the moment of the first shot: his guilt is well-founded, for he let several crucial seconds (at least five) go by before belatedly coming to the President's "aid". As author James Hepburn wrote: "Clint Hill, who was later decorated, was the first to move, and it took him 7 or 8 seconds to react. In eight seconds, the average sprinter can cover 80 yards." In addition, photo analysis reveals that Hill did not even push Mrs. Kennedy back into the limousine—she crawled back into the backseat on her own. Also, like Agent Ready, Hill was involved in the drinking incident the night before. However, in Hill’s defense, at least he tried to do something, Roberts and Boring notwithstanding, and on more than one occasion: 1) his four brief appearances on the back of JFK’s limousine, on Jackie’s side, albeit well before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza and 2) his attempt to help Jackie and, by extension, JFK, by running to the limousine on Elm Street. Also, Hill later wrote shortly after the assassination: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat…[during the autopsy] I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." In addition, Hill later testified to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter on 3/9/64: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car…one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head…[later, during the autopsy] I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." From Hill’s description of the wounds, it would appear that a shot from the front killed JFK (entrance wounds make small holes while exit wounds make larger holes) AND that a wound too low to come from Oswald’s rifle hit the president in the back, not the neck. That said, Hill later said on national television: "There were only 3 shots---one gun, 3 shots." Interviewer: "Are you satisfied that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?" Hill: "Completely." Hill’s White House Communications Agency (WHCA) code name was Dazzle. ********************** Agents who believed in Conspiracy....... http://www.geocities.com/zzzmail/palarma.htm B....... Edited June 23, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 23, 2007 Author Share Posted June 23, 2007 Hello Kathleen Please do not take the following as being confrontational, but I deeply question the "meaning" of your statement, that you place the JFK assassination blame "squarely" on the Secret Service. You cannot believe that the Secret Service, as an agency, had even a hand in the planning of this ! As an agency, why would it matter to the Secret Service "WHO" was the President ? The actions of a couple of the more "senior" agents I will agree are questionable.......the performance of the detail, almost to the man, was deplorable... But this, IMO, is far from placing the assassination "squarely" on the Secret Service. In the order of the qualifications of and "payscale" of SS agents.....they are not to be considered as "the top of the heap" ! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 But the back story, if you will, of Custer's demise defies simplistic telling. One of the more recent books on the subject: The Day the World Ended at Little Bighorn: A Lakota History by Joseph M Marshall III From Booklist: Marshall, raised on the Rosebud Indian Reservation and author of several books on Lakota culture, here analyzes the legendary Battle of the Little Bighorn by placing it in the broader context of Lakota history, telling the "real story" passed on by ancestors who were present on that June day in 1876. Varying from the "white military version" of the battle, which traditionally attributes U.S. casualties to troop miscommunications and underestimation of the number of Lakota lodges in the valley, Marshall's account illuminates overlooked factors inherent in Lakota tradition. First is the valuing of leadership, which produced a steady supply of well-seasoned leaders, not limited to Crazy Horse, and which continues today. Second, Lakota men were trained from birth to function as warriors, hunters, and protectors. Simply put, Marshall maintains that the Lakota warriors encountered by the U.S. cavalry were "better trained and more highly skilled" than the soldiers they faced. Marshall offers a thoughtful and enlightening alternative look at this iconic chapter in American history http://www.amazon.com/Day-World-Ended-Litt...4664&sr=1-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Michael, The "victor's" perspective on the LBH has been minimized -- almost criminally so -- from day one. A notable exception to the racist rule: Dr. Thomas Bailey Marquis, who practiced medicine in Montana, also was the USG's physician on the Tongue River-Cheyenne Indian reservation. He ended up forsaking his medical career and devoted his life to interviewing and writing about the Lakot and other native peoples. Two important Marquis contributions to the Custer story: Wooden Leg: A Warrior Who Fought Custer, and Keep the Last Bullet for Yourself. The Day the World Ended at Little Bighorn is a worthy contribution to the literature. Thanks for your interest. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted June 24, 2007 Author Share Posted June 24, 2007 Charles D. & all interested There is another excellent work "Archeology, History and Custer's Last Battle" by Richard Allan Fox, Jr (U. of Oklahoma Press, 1993). It is an archaeological study based on the location of retrieved bullets and shell casings and the placement of where the bodies of the troopers, who were with Custer, fell; which also took into account most of the recorded Indian accounts of the battle. It almost inarguably supports the LaKota reports of the battle which is not at all similar to what most have been taught. Custers troops were highly disorganized and conducted themselves poorly. The La Kota warriors seemed to have been both better trained, better armed (many with repeating rifles), and used better battlefield tactics. There is an indication that the U.S. Cavalry expended but little of their ammunition, and many of them may have comitted "suicide" as was reported by many of the victors. It was a poorly led cavalry attack which was undertaken, much in keeping with Custer's previous battle tactics. It was a "too hasty" and poorly planned attack which was conducted without the benefit of any useful reconaissance, which led to panic among many of the green and inadequately trained U.S. troops, who were outnumbered by better equipped, better trained and much more highly motivated natives. My long study of Custer has led me to personally believe, that this officer, who received a record number of demerits as a West Point Cadet, and who had been previously court martialled and suspended from duty without pay, was an arrogant and undisciplined lout......who with combined factors of being in the right place at the right time, a willingness for his troops to suffer an inordinate number of casualties, and a great deal of LUCK (which should never be discounted), actually "stumbled" into rapid Army promotion in rank during the U.S. War Between the States. I feel that the La Kota on this day in June, 1776, were blessed that the U.S. forces were so inadequately commanded, by an officer who divided his already grossly inferior numbers, into three evem weaker batallions, and had "No Battle Plan" of which "even one officer under his command" was aware. What is even more amazing to me is that reconaissance had always been the "primary purpose" of the cavalry. His (Custer's) unique and personal method, was always to lead a lightly armed group of cavalry as if they were "shock troops". A history of blind charges into the unknown. In my personal opinion, with which some will disagree, Lt. Col. Custer was a brave and arrogant self seeker who lucked into early glory, and was lucky to have not had both himself and his command decimated a decade and a half earlier. "Custer's Last Stand" would be more appropriately referred to as "Custer's Last Mistake" ! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Charles B., Seriously, thanks for the reference. I own Fox's books and they are indeed important and revealing. As for your analysis of Custer and LBH -- Well, let's just say that once again I find absolutely nothing with which I can agree with you. So it goes. Charles D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now