Military Chronicler
Charles M. Robinson III on Mackenzie, Crook and Bourke.
By: Candy Moulton 07/01/2006
Sandwiched between his first writing and editing jobs with the Valley Morning Star in Harlingen, Texas, and his current gig as a history professor at South Texas College in McAllen, Texas, Charles M. Robinson III has written of sea stories and classic cars, but mainly has followed the men of the frontier army from Texas and Arizona to the Northern Plains.
Subjects have included George Crook, Ranald Mackenzie and George Armstrong Custer. His last three books—plus the next several awaiting his attention—involve the diaries of John Gregory Bourke, aide-de-camp to Crook and unofficial “press agent.” Robinson is completing volume four of Bourke’s diaries—that includes the years 1872-96—-and figures he is halfway done with the project. His military histories include A Good Year to Die: The Story of the Great Sioux War; General Crook and the Western Frontier and Bad Hand: A Biography of General Ranald S. Mackenzie.
TW: You have written about Crook, Mackenzie and Bourke. Who is the more interesting character?
CMR: Each was interesting in his own way, and I really can’t choose between them. All three were fascinating. They served together on the Northern Plains. They had the same opinions that Indians, once pacified, deserved a chance to make it on their own. And they all shared a loathing of Nelson Miles.
TW: They all had strengths and weaknesses?
CMR: I think Mackenzie’s great asset was his tactical genius; he understood cavalry as did a few other American officers. Unlike so many of his peers, he also realized that Indians did not study the West Point manual and adapted to their mode of fighting. His weakness was his mental instability.
Crook showed great tactical skill in the Northwest and in Arizona, and spent the remainder of his career resting on those laurels. His performance on the Northern Plains was abysmal, as Generals William T. Sherman and Phil Sheridan both realized. He came very close to being annihilated at the Rosebud, yet he insisted it was a victory. The low point probably was the Horse Meat March that ruined both men and animals. His greatness comes in his efforts on behalf of the Indians. Undoubtedly, he was behind the suit that Standing Bear filed against the federal government, and which was a turning point in Indian rights.
Bourke was the scholar and diarist, whose writings of campaigns and investigations of Indian life and culture have been invaluable to researchers for more than a century. His weakness was his loyalty to Crook, and he is largely responsible for Crook’s undeserved image as the country’s self-effacing premiere Indian fighter.
TW: How important was the press in developing Crook’s image?
CMR: Crook utilized the press in the same manner as Douglas MacArthur of a later generation. Friendly correspondents achieved an “insider” status. Unfriendly reporters were ostracized. Crook did his best to make certain that all official reports and correspondents’ dispatches portrayed him in the best possible light.
Comments (1)
Douglas McArthur may have known who his detractors were. There is nothing wrong with giving "friendly correspondents" a place at the table. That does not mean that these correspondents aren't going to be informative and provide a balanced picture to their readers. You assume that the "unfriendly" reporters would be unbiased in their reporting but oftentimes they serve as shills instead of reporters.
FDR had his "friendly correspondents" around him and these friendly reporters kept the public ignorant of the evidence that FDR had foreknowlege about the impending Japanese "sneak attack " at Pear Harbor.
Post A Comment