CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!? Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A Kanipe eBook ARTHUR C UNGER
Download As PDF : CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!? Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A Kanipe eBook ARTHUR C UNGER 
From the author of
The ABC’s of Custer’s Last Stand Arrogance, Betrayal, and Cowardice.
ISBN 0-912783-38-9, 2004
The Original Handwritten Transcript of the Reno Court of Inquiry
ISBN 978-0-615-23576-9, 2008
This work is the product of five years of extensive research, the culmination of which debunks a story that has been held as fact for over 135 years. It clearly establishes Sergeant Daniel A. Kanipe was not a messenger sent back by Lt. Colonel Custer and neither carried nor delivered a message to or for any officer of the 7th United States Cavalry.
Upon learning the truth, every battle student will have to revise their theory of how the Battle of the Little Big Horn began, what actions Lt Colonel Custer took in the early stages of the battle, and expurgate from their concept of the battle all the bogus tales told by Sergeant Daniel A. Kanipe.
Contained within this book are over 25 letters from Daniel A. Kanipe to Walter Mason Camp and nine photographs of Daniel A. Kanipe and the Little Big Horn Battlefield all of which are believed to be previously unpublished.
CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!? Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A Kanipe eBook ARTHUR C UNGER
While I am still mentally digesting much of what I read in Mr. Unger's book, I will say this: I give him much credit for questioning this particular part of the fight which nobody else seemed to question for over 135 years. My own mental jury is still out, but to me personally, the fact that they did NOT have Kanipe testify at the Reno Court of Inquiry and the fact that Kanipe could produce no WRITTEN order to back up his claim are the most damning pieces of evidence. Kanipe's changing his story over time to me is less important. As he aged his memory may have been going dim. I'm still reading so I'm still not sure how the possible de-bunking of Kanipe's story otherwise changes how the other details of the battle should be studied. A very fresh perspective on a little known part of a famous (perhaps the most famous) Indian fight.Product details
|
Tags : CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!?: Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A. Kanipe - Kindle edition by ARTHUR C. UNGER. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!?: Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A. Kanipe.,ebook,ARTHUR C. UNGER,CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!?: Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A. Kanipe,CUSTER1876 PUBLICATIONS,HISTORY Military United States,HISTORY Military General
People also read other books :
- Tell Me What to Eat Before, During, and After Cancer Treatment Nutritional Guidelines for Patients and Their Loved Ones 9781601631091 Medicine & Health Science Books @
- Killer Robots Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons, Armin Krishnan, eBook -
- Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne and Paris Do It Yourself Train Vacations eBook Sam Dave Morgan
- Peter Rabbit What's That Noise? Peter Rabbit Naturally Better (9780723264354) Beatrix Potter Books
- Outlook 2010 All-in-One For Dummies (9780470487730) Jennifer Fulton, Karen S. Fredricks Books
CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!? Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A Kanipe eBook ARTHUR C UNGER Reviews
Wow, a house fire destroyed much of Unger's Custer collection. That is just sad all the way around, for him and history. While I understand the interest in collecting, its too bad this stuff wasnt in a museum under glass with sprinkler systems etc to protect it.
AN EVALUATION OF ARTHUR C. UNGER’S “CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!? DEBUNKING THE STORY OF SERGEANT DANIEL A. KANIPE”
By Charles R. Russell, Ph.D.
It appears that revisionist history or negationism is still alive and kicking in the U.S.
This book has it in spades. Exactly why this author has chosen to debunk one of America’s relatively unknown heroes can only be explained by the notoriety of sensationalism and the greed of money.
How does one do such a thing? Firstly, find a subject that has a fair amount of interest to the general public. The Battle of the Little Big Horn or as some call it, “Custer’s Folly”, is such an event.
Secondly, make certain that the event occurred far enough in the past that there are no eyewitnesses around to counter one’s claims. Since the Battle of the Little Big Horn took place on June 25, 1876, there are no such eyewitnesses still alive. Plus, there were only two soldiers who could attest to anything that happened to Custer’s command Sgt. Daniel A. Knipe (Kanipe) and John Martin (aka Giovanni Crisostomo Martino).
Thirdly, in negative revisionism, ensure that whoever is the object of your ridicule or criticism is unable to refute your assertions. Neither of the two survivors of the Battle of the Little Big Horn is still alive, both died in the 1920s. That was over eighty years ago. Even their children are probably not alive today.
In all fairness, the author, Mr. Arthur Unger, is not a certified or generally accepted historian of the Battle of the Little Big Horn. He is an amateur history buff, albeit an enthusiastic and vocal one.
His character assassination of Sgt. Daniel A. Kanipe in this book strikes a rather dissonant chord with me. Such incivility smacks of bad manners and rudeness and is boorish and ungentlemanly. This type of behavior is not considered to be a professional demeanor.
For many years, I have counted some members of the Kanipe family of North Carolina as close personal friends. These friends are unique in their chosen professions one is a well-qualified regulatory scientific consultant; the other was a highly-experienced physicist who was mentored in college by one of America’s foremost Manhattan Project mathematicians/physicists.
I admit that my relationship with the Kanipe family leads me to consider that a personal attack on this family is not warranted. The high caliber of conduct and bearing that these individuals exhibit is completely exclusive of any traces of self-aggrandizement, chicanery, or deception.
From my knowledge about Sgt. Daniel A. Kanipe, I have not found any iota of shameful or boastful actions by him. In fact, accounts of his actions and demeanor contrast greatly in comparison to his detractor, Mr. Unger.
Mr. Unger’s enthusiasm for the Battle of the Little Big Horn led him to personally collect related artifacts (diaries, personal effects, etc.) over most of his lifetime. A recent house fire in his home has apparently destroyed most of this personal collection. Most of these items were irreplaceable and were of the “one-of-a-kind” nature.
It is almost certain that much of his collection has never been expertly studied by genuine historians. Private collectors tend to secrete and hoard such valuables away from the eyes of others. On the other hand, if they had been donated to a museum or large library, chances are that those artifacts would still be extant and available for scholarly research.
Now, they are lost forever.
I hope that Mr. Unger realizes this loss and its impact on American history. His actions in this regard are and were not professional but more indicative of a spirit of meanness, concealment, and possession.
Excellent book on yet one more of the myths and false stories that came out of the battle of the Little Big Horn. Very interesting story backed with painstaking research to bring the forth the truth of the story of Sergant Daniel A. Kanipe.
Mr. Unger gives us a fact based explanation to shed more light on the events of this ever famous battle.
At the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Sgt. Daniel Kanipe of C Company claimed to have been sent to the rear with a message to hurry the pack train. As Arthur Unger has uncovered, however, everything Kanipe said about his heroic assignment was an invention to cover the fact that the wise sergeant was simply heading away from all those Indians.
Few historians/writers will take Kanipe seriously again. Unger writes "The entire story of Sergeant Kanipe is a lie, concocted to get Kanipe out of trouble for being where he should not have been." He adds that Kanipe, rather than serving as messenger, was simply another "straggler/deserter."
Unger is a heavy-handed author and absolutely sure of himself, but his argument regarding Kanipe is persuasive.
He writes that the fact that Kanipe was not called to testify at the Reno Court of Inquiry, two years after the battle,even though he was still a sergeant in the cavalry, "speaks volumes." Unger believes that the court did not want to "exacerbate the disgrace that befell the Army from the battle with sordid tales of multiple desertions from Custer's command. It was better to let the lie persist and go unexamined than risk the disgrace scrutiny would surely bring."
Thanks to Unger's detective work, we can see the myth developing through Kanipe's letters to the first serious LBH researcher, Walter Camp, and interviews Kanipe gave to reporters in the early 1900s. Very possibly, even Kanipe began to believe what he was saying and inventing. Certainly his family did both his son and his nephew added details to the story, muddying even Kanipe's versions and helping create the myth.
Two of Kanipe's quotes ring true. Telling of other C Company soldiers who made it safely back to Reno's command, he added that the enlisted men knew about the desertions but no officers asked. Kanipe said "No officer would consider talking seriously to an enlisted man, much less take his word for something." Now that sounds right.
And it's possible that Kanipe will continue to be quoted as having heard Custer call out, "Boys, hold your horses, there are plenty of them down there for us all." It's possible Kanipe actually heard that, before he headed in the other direction, and it certainly sounds like something Custer would call out.
But as for anyone believing again that Tom Custer or anyone else sent Kanipe back to hurry the pack train, that, as they say, is history.
Instead, Kanipe becomes just another of the five deserters from C Company who made it back to safety. The story of those five has yet to be written. Maybe Unger will write it.
Presented lots of facts, raised many questions. But in the long run, who do you believe. Seemed to believe testimonies by Curly and Thompson (whose testimonies had been discredited by some ). Repetitive
While I am still mentally digesting much of what I read in Mr. Unger's book, I will say this I give him much credit for questioning this particular part of the fight which nobody else seemed to question for over 135 years. My own mental jury is still out, but to me personally, the fact that they did NOT have Kanipe testify at the Reno Court of Inquiry and the fact that Kanipe could produce no WRITTEN order to back up his claim are the most damning pieces of evidence. Kanipe's changing his story over time to me is less important. As he aged his memory may have been going dim. I'm still reading so I'm still not sure how the possible de-bunking of Kanipe's story otherwise changes how the other details of the battle should be studied. A very fresh perspective on a little known part of a famous (perhaps the most famous) Indian fight.
0 Response to "≫ Download Gratis CUSTER'S FIRST MESSENGER!? Debunking the Story of Sergent Daniel A Kanipe eBook ARTHUR C UNGER"
Post a Comment