Slanted Coverage

I am reading The Earth is Weeping by Peter Cozzens.

It was sold to me as a rebuttal to Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and it's been anything but.

It took a bit, but I caught the slant.

The atrocities of the Indians are mentioned in passing and the crimes of the Whites are described in detail.

The author can say that they gave both sides, but they don't really.

Having read other sources about some of the events, some of the author's slant is more pronounced.

At the battle of the Rosebud, General Crook did get caught flat-footed because his Crow scouts weren't really doing their jobs as scouts.

Some blame lands at The Nantan Lupan in not exercising some control over these auxiliaries, of course; but the author, I think, confuses command style for incompetence.

When word of the approaching Sioux and Cheyenne attack came, he stayed at his tent and continued a game of cards he was playing.

The author makes it seem like Crook was ignoring the fight, but orders were issued and messages exchanged.

I think we're seeing studied nonchalance and not dereliction of duty.

It exuded confidence that his subordinates had this and he didn't need to trouble himself to micromanage the battle.

At the end of the battle his losses were relatively light and his command was still cohesive.  His main problem was logistical in that they'd fired so much ammo they were combat ineffective from the lack of cartridges.

His supply train took two weeks to link up with him after that.

Many modern authors forget how supplies travel in the trackless prairie.

Logistics was a constant problem for the Army during the Indian wars.  Lack of food, water and fodder is a recurring theme in dispatches.

Something else to consider is many contemporary accounts have scores to settle against the famous names mentioned.

Crook retained rank after the Civil War and passed many officers ahead of him in line.  He was also promoted past these same officers as well.  It is doubtful they wrote of him in admiration in their memoirs.