You rant seems most intelligent & logical. I note the Tom Cleamens, whom I live near & know slightly, seems to agree & Tom (like Brutus) is an honorable man.

I wonder if I might impose a bit of a rant of my own on you. I am certainly not a Civil War scholar nor a Custer expert. I have written several books on signal systems (& was key contributor to one recent enclyclopedia). I have never been paid for talks nor writing on history (nor on communication, media, speech, nor theatre) my primary academic pursuits. I taught one year at Lehigh back in 1954, & since then have been an adjunct a decade each with UofMD, UofVA, GWU, others, & the past 13 years for Marshall U. I seldome get paid much for any of this, either. $2,500 a class at GWU was tops. I don’t get that now.

Even at GWU, that was only $20,000 a year if I’d been full time. I hold an AB ’52 San Jose State, MA ’55 Stanford, MBA Rollins/Crummer ’65 , & PhD ’76 Ohio State.

My first book A HISTORY OF TACTICAL COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES
Martin 1965, Arno 1980) has a short essay called: “A Lesson in Tactical Communication:Custer’s Last Stand.” It pointed out he violated almost very principle of accepted tactical communication. The Indians used the techniuque, but Custer did not.

IN 1993 I presented a similar paper at Fargo, ND to a floating history conference — I forget the name of the group. Great Plains, I think.

Then on recommendation of others there, I wrote an official versions
for the LBH Research Reviews. It was in either 1993 or the first 1994 issue. I cannot seem to find any reference list. I tried to buy a copy, but never got it. I’d like one now, but don’t know which issue to buy. (they also deleted my footnotes) Why have a RESEARCH REVIEW without footnotes?

I have never seen nor heard a comment on any of this. This summer I visited Yellowstone & the Grand Tetons & got back into Custer literature.
It seems to me no one wants to say or find out why the battle went as it did. They just spout off about fascinating, but totally unrelated, issues. Does Mrs. Custer’s love life really have much to do with the key issues?
Does it really matter if Custer’s genitals werre cut off or not? It seems to be far more important to ask shy Custer choose a native Italian, who didn’t speak English too fluently, to carry the most important message of Custer’s life to Benteen? Neither Custer nor Trumpeter Martin (Martini) having anay idea where Benteen was? And why did Custer break his group into three sections, but not establish any signal code to bring them back together if anyone found any Indians. By 1880 three rapid massed volleys were a standard Army call for help? Surely this was thought of & in some manual five years earlier?

In other words, many of our finest historians seem to be overlooking the hows & whys of the battle, but instead conveying reams of personal data about the various participants?

I seem to be the only one among some 800 observers who looked at the battle tactics from a signal/communication point of view? And not one of the 800 seem to have even read my book, my Great Plans paper, nor by LBH Research Reviews piece?

Are they on some other planet, or is the fault within me?

I suspect you may have a valid opinion!

You might also advise me how to find a copy of the Research Reviews that carries my article. (I have just found all my old stuff, on an old laptop in a format I can no longer open.)

Has anything come of your not-paying LBHA members issue? Shouid OI re-join or not? I guess I save on books & mag copies, but I only seem to want my one so far.

Off to CA for 10 days for a 60th HS reunion, meet some of my five daughters, & a long naval convention. Back the 15th of Sept.

David L. Woods, CAPT, USNR (Ret.)

Yep, they had to pay you because you’re not a member. I’m glad you did get paid.

Eric

Secondly, the Bible says, the workman is worth his hire. At the very least, expenses should be reimbursed if the person is willing to speak without an honorarium. That should be a “given”. If the lecturer determines to donate his time and effort because of the nature of the group he is addressing, that is very nice, but it should be HIS decision, not the group’s.

Someone once said that there is no “free lunch”, yet lots of folks and groups go forth on the assumption that they are OWED one. Frankly, that bothers me. If circumstances are such that a group CANNOT pay, then they shouldn’t be extending invitations to people to come and speak. St. Paul said, no man pays to be in the army and in the same way, if I’m extending myself to prepare a lecture and make the commitment to travel to someplace and be there at a certain time – perhaps necessitating an overnight stay – it has to be the height of hubris to believe that I should be willing to do all this on my own dime.

If enough folks say “no” to this group, maybe they’ll get the idea that they’re wrong in their policies. If not, then they’ll have to entertain themselves.

By contrast, I’m doing an event in November for the Monterey Pass Battlefield Association, which is in its infancy, and most assuredly does not have the money. I haven’t got the slightest bit of problem donating my time and effort to them and will gladly do so, because I believe in what they’re trying to accomplish.

Eric

But if you speak at conferences, RTs, etc., you’re eventually going to run into groups that think, for some reason, that you ought to do it for free. I have less of a problem with a group that pleads poverty, that they can’t cover expenses, and let you decide if you’re willing to speak. And I’ve done it for free with no expenses, because of the upfront nature of the group.

Eric, you’re spot on with your assessment.

Dave