| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 25 2005 : 5:20:07 PM
|
Sigh. By paragraph.
1. It's hard to say what ignorances of yours are most illustrated by this post. That of Wall St., I'm betting. The Sioux didn't understand the value of the Black Hills, they were told that the whites wanted it. They only knew that white men were coming for gold, which was an item they did not mine or use or have use for in the period between the die off and the settlers. In any case, none of this is 'strategy,' but observation. When men make a pointless stand 'against all odds' (what a brown nose you are)they don't have much sense, no. To sacrifice yourself for a cause that might win because of your sacrifice, sure. Or even just to benefit your people down the road, okay. But what they did was to make it worse on their people to no purpose other than they didn't know what else to do but to treat an enemy with railroads, guns, and apparent antqueens as producers the same way they'd treat an annoying group of 24 Apaches who made a wrong turn and stole some horses is pretty damned dense, in truth. Strategy?
What are you talking about our history is never say die? You're trying to find refuge in vague myth.
2. Coincidence. They were coincidently informed of Crook and coincidently enough people cared enough to hit him before he got closer.
3. No, you're blathering Wild. Read Gray's chapters again, it's in there. Scouts saw Indians other than the breadbox crew. Further, are you postulating that after hourly drumcasts back to the Main Mobile Combat Center from the Yellowstone where they reported Gibbon and Terry joined that this same cast of Sioux Ultra operatives somehow missed Custer heading south? (Did the 7th use Stealth tech?) That contradicts your position right there.....
4. Why? It's not relevant (or true). "But at least...." is not the hammerblow in debate you seem to think. Rather the opposite.
5. Now, Wild, who in the world will think that a witty retort? No one on this board. It's also rather silly.
6. "Straining for any shred of argument....", "Posing ludicrous images unrelated to contention....", "Posturing smoke screen attended by involuntary urination....", none of these really and totally captures the idiocy of this, Wild. Just say "Okay, you win." |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 25 2005 : 9:00:38 PM
|
Guys, may we keep this thread only for research oriented things, and quick observations of such?
Thanks for your consideration.
Billy
|
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2005 : 06:26:06 AM
|
| Sure BJ. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 2:31:25 PM
|
While checking out a new search engine, I found this site which has some good pictures of the area of Fetterman's "massacre", the Wagon Box fight and Ft. Phil Kearny.
http://home.comcast.net/~theangle/RedCloud/redcloud.htm
If you go to the home page of the author, you will find out that he is *gasp*, a gamer and his site is devoted to wargaming.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 4:24:21 PM
|
Regarding the Fetterman section:
Nice pictures. And I agree PK is a beautiful spot, and I remember saying that anyone transferred there from Ft. Apache would consider it heaven.
Aren't those cutouts supposed to be soldiers, like Ten Ecks or whoever, and not Indians? One of them, anyway. What's the distance from the cutouts to the monument? A lot closer than between LSH and Weir Pt.
I'm again reminded to be suspicious of the number of Indians able to hide there or were required to do this.
He says the cavalry was 'tired from the pursuit' of a few miles although the 7th was contended by some to be sparkling fresh at LBH....
He knows it is, in fact, merely a game site, and not an academic prime source page like yours often are which he pretends is a book and then dares us to find on the web as a demonstration of our computer prowess. Different, you know. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 5:17:40 PM
|
quote:
Aren't those cutouts supposed to be soldiers, like Ten Ecks or whoever, and not Indians? One of them, anyway. What's the distance from the cutouts to the monument? A lot closer than between LSH and Weir Pt.
Both of them are supposed to be Indians. This site has a decent picture of one (which doesn't look Indian to me either):
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/fetterman_battle_wyoming.htm
Anyway, I have an email out to Bob Wilson at the park to get the definitive answer to your question as well as the distance from them to the monument.
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 27 2005 : 6:46:27 PM
|
Sorry, Markland, I wasn't demanding info but rather in talking aloud mode, didn't mean for you to have to dig that up. Apologies. It looks to be about a mile, I'm guessing from what I remember. For some reason, probably stupidity, I recall the far left cutout looking to the fort from the monument had a cavalry or cowboy hat.
It does illustrate how unproductive taking the high ground sometimes is. Here anyway, and at the LBH. Just exposed and vulnerable with no cover. I'm thinking, seeing these which illustrate the issues well, how difficult it is to show, via photographs, how bad the land is at LBH. It always looks far more flat and innocent than it is. Maybe photos need to be taken in winter like this to show what the 7th dealt with. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 05:55:34 AM
|
quote:
Military Crest...
For those unfamiliar with that term, the definition is:
quote:
Military Crest - shoulder of a hill or ridge rather than its actual crest. The military crest is the highest contour of elevation from which the base of its slope can be seen without defilade. When surveying an area for surviving earthworks, it is often useful to search along the military crest.
from the National Park Service Earthworks Management web site Earthworks glossary (A-C given in URL):
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/hli/currents/earthworks/glossaryA_C.htm
Which promptly brings up this question, "Was Custer & his men on LSH at the military crest or below it?"
DC, no problem about getting those answers. I was glad to verify what I thought I know is actually so and not something told me and not verified. Plus the silhouettes do give a visualization to what things actually looked like at a distance. Those are supposed to be "life-sized" which I presume until I get an answer from FPK to be about 7-8 feet tall.
A couple of interesting sites I found which have little to do with Custer or the 7th but:
Measurments & Equivalents:
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/
Plains Horses:
http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_horse.htm
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 06:46:08 AM
|
Shoot, can't create a sub-topic.
Anyway, while over at Ft. Leavenworth Wednesday night doing research on Army casualties, I was poring over the 7th Cavalry's monthly Regimental Returns. I begin to understand and see why Custer had the deserters shot in 1867. I did not write down any desertion numbers but can, if necessary, go back and supply those. I only started mulling over this during the 45 minute drive home. The 7th, during 1866 through 1867, was losing men of about 45-55 men per month by desertion. This was for the months of basically March through October. There were several months were practically whole companies would disappear. I seem to recall Michael Sheridan's company alone had 45 men desert in one month. There were several months were 65 men or more would depart if memory serves me.
Basically, my belief is that Custer, already frustrated with his personal conditions (demotion, life on the frontier, life away from Libby) plus professional frustrations such as catching an elusive foe, training a green regiment, and constant desertions; simply lost it when he saw men brazenly deserting from camp in daylight.
As far as why he only got his "hand slapped" in the sentencing? I believe that Grant, Sherman, et al thought that what he had done might "encourage the others" not to desert because of the chance of fatal consequences. I find it interesting that desertions after the shootings went down to low double-digits (if not single-digits) and that the month of Custer's conviction, something like 155 men deserted.
I will try to get those numbers extracted Saturday for 1867.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2005 : 11:51:58 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I'm thinking, seeing these which illustrate the issues well, how difficult it is to show, via photographs, how bad the land is at LBH. It always looks far more flat and innocent than it is. Maybe photos need to be taken in winter like this to show what the 7th dealt with.
So true, D.C. That's why I try to take most of my photos at LBH in the early morning or late evening because the shadows reveal the ravines and coulees so much better. In turn, it highlights the true structure of the battlefield.
I was hoping to get more winter photos next week while up there, but there is no snow on the ground. During the Friends' board meeting last Wednesday, Superintendent Darrell Cook told us they had days that reached 70 degrees.
My daughter and I will be living onsite in one of the apartments so I plan to get plenty of morning and evening shots. I just hope it decides to snow for us. Actually, no snow is better to show the ruggedness of the land. I can always use Photoshop to add leaves to the trees and then pretend they are summer shots? No, I wouldn't do that.
BTW -- I'll be giving my new Nikon D70 Digital SLR a test run, so I can't guarantee how well the photos will turn out.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 07:02:11 AM
|
While rereading Marcus Aurelius' post on academic vs. non-academic writers over on the "Favorite Historian" thread, page 1, I remembered having bookmarked this site. This is more for use in research than being specifically related to LBH or the Indian Wars.
http://www.library.georgetown.edu/internet/eval.htm
Also of use and to be found at the same site:
http://www.library.georgetown.edu/internet/cite.htm
I thought they might be of use to any who research or have a kid in school.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2005 : 3:50:10 PM
|
| BJ, a belated response to your "Regimental Return." I could not agree with you more. While no one would applaud Custer's tactic in dealing with deserters, we may certainly understand why he did what he did. As you said, these men brazenly went on the "jump" without regard to the welfare of the men they left behind. Grant and Sherman understood that desertion did not begin with Custer's disciplinary efforts, as some would have you believe, but, were part and parcel of the post, Civil War Army. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2005 : 04:29:00 AM
|
quote:
Grant and Sherman understood that desertion did not begin with Custer's disciplinary efforts, as some would have you believe, but, were part and parcel of the post, Civil War Army.
Wiggs, that is very true. On the Regular Army Enlistment rolls I am using for research, there are many, many pages (50 names per page) with less than 5 men on that page who served their full term of duty or were discharged for disability or died while in the service. The remainder deserted. Simply unbelievable!
As far as the research I am doing, the numbers are beginning to look like they are going to be far larger than anyone might have expected. So far, having gone over about 120 pages of enlistment records, the 38th Inf. (2/1867-12/1869) & the 7th Cav. (9/1866-12/1868) regimental returns, Heitman's Register of the Army vols. A-H and the Arizona Territory Interment Records, I am up to about 300 names of troops who died of various causes. That excludes approximately 70 men who died with Fetterman as well as the casualties of the 7th at LBH, in the Nez Perce war and at Wounded Knee. Including those combat casualties we are looking at easily doubling that number of known dead. I am guessing that, conservatively, we will be looking at around 2,000 troops who died on the frontier of all causes.
Does anyone know if a book or good article has ever been written about the 1867 cholera epidemic? The 38th Inf. alone lost 51 men dead in July 1867 from cholera. They also had desertions (I wonder how many of those ended up dying on the trails from cholera?). And that was just one regiment. Looking at the 7th's return for 1867, I see were only 8 are listed as having died from cholera. I guess being on patrol away from the posts helped isolate the men from infection.
Sorry about being disjointed, keeping one eye on this and both ears and an eye on a work project we have going on.
Later,
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 31 2005 : 11:12:07 AM
|
DC, here is your answer from Bob at the FPK site:
"The silhouettes are in two locations, one set (suppose to be indians,
total 3)[are] on horseback on top of Sullivant Hill, about 3/4 of a mile from the fort. There are two lower down, about 300 yards from the fort, but nobody sees them as they are painted life-like and blend into the background (one soldier one indian, both on horseback saying "How" to each other, ...[personal observation redacted-lol]). The other set I was talking about are on Lodge Trail Ridge to the southwest of the monument, one, a soldier is on the skyline and very visable heading towards the fort (I jokingly refer to him as Fetterman's last soldier) the other, 100 yards north of him and down off the horizon is an Indian waving a blanket (meant to be Crazy Horse, I guess). These two figures are about 5-600 yards from Fetterman monument at the most, the other 3 are probably 4 miles from the monument."
Hope that clears it up for you as it did me (that one described as "Fetterman's Last Soldier" did not look like an Indian to me so I guess that explains why.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2005 : 10:32:17 AM
|
Since there was such a "lively" discussion regarding whether the Amaerican Indian was the victim of genocide, I thought it appropriate to list this article from the History Network. My impressions of it so far is that it seems objective but I have not finished reading it yet.
http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 01 2005 : 11:12:13 AM
|
| I also think anyone interested in this should review the url I posted from Frontline on genocide and, as well, read the article "1491", referring to the year before Columbus arrived, in The Atlantic Monthly on relatively new studies and finds. If true, and it looks pretty convincing, we really don't know squat about pre-Columbian America, and neither do the Native Americans. In any event, lots of upside the head smacks in that article. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2005 : 04:22:35 AM
|
Out of curiousity DC, what did the "1491" article have to say?
I wouldn't have thought that there would have been any huge upheavals in lifestyle, pre- and post- 1491 - at least not north of 30 degree parallel.
Well apart from the effects of disease of course, but that was later, and generally documented to some extent. And the arrival of the horse also. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2005 : 09:43:35 AM
|
In short, the article backs the argument that when the Euros came, the pandemic that swept the Americas was horrific, and millions were killed before they were known to exist. In oversimplification, there are many signs of a primary creature - Man - die off. The Amazon rainforest is exactly the sort of vegetation that would grow in down there when fields are neglected, apparently. That sounds pretty bozo - except satellite photography suggests canals and terracing throughout much of the Amazon basin.
The article entertains the increasingly plausible thought that much of north and south America - currently defended as a pristine Eden we are destroying - was created by human terraforming - farming - and that the real holocaust was caused by the original pandemics. Don't forget Gibbon noting that the Crow had a word for alligator, which is odd, but would be plausible if they were fleeing the deaths down near the Spanish visits, say three hundred years previous.
Around the Mississippi, when the Spanish went through the lower regions (DeSoto?) they described village after village with crops and more or less friendly people. Less than a half century later (from memory), the French came down and found nothing but grass and buffalo on exactly the same spot, and what people they met were crabby and warlike. The Spanish, on exeactly the same ground, never saw a buffalo. The theory is that our grasslands, the buffalo, and the passenger pigeon were the fill in bio units that rushed in to fill the void left by a huge human die off. To this day, farmers complain how easily the forest reclaims farm land in Kansas.
The great forests of New England did not exist when Columbus landed. They grew in in the century and more later as Indians died off in epidemic. This was still going on when the pilgrims came, who wrote about plundering recently abandoned villages.
As I say, compelling theory (with holes) but it explains a lot and there is much evidence for it. It's a huge argument in that field today.
Also, that huge city on the Mississippi with evidence it traded with huge areas of the continent and maybe beyond outside of St. Louis and the name I can never, ever, recall. The Indians of N America underwent a Great Mortality like the Black Death only with greater loss, and at great remove from the cause. It spread quickly because the continents were populated heavily. The theory.
They have problems explaining the lack of bone, but there are potential explanations for that. Either way, there was much more going on here than our history books knew until quite recently, with a lot more people, and it was then a healthier set of societies than Europe.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200203/mann |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 02 2005 09:45:37 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 10:32:39 AM
|
Rather, the history of North and South America as is now generally conceded by the majority of anthropologists and archaeologists. That the forests were there when the Pilgrims hit New England fostered the assumption they had always been there. And they had not.
Has anyone actually read it? Or any of the new books on this? It's pretty convincing stuff.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on February 03 2005 10:36:06 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 11:23:06 AM
|
DC,
I found your "1491" post fascinating. Thanks for writing it, I'll get round to reading the URL later.
I was going to make a few comments, positive, negetive and some merely indifferent, but I'll have to leave that to later because its quite late at night here. But just a quick comment about the New England forests. I have a hard time swallowing comments like that - unless there is actual historical data to back it up.
How did the original Pilgrims report New England? did they say it was forested, densely forested, open parkland, empty rolling plains? If they said it was forested, then how can we assume it was anything other than forested pre-settlement.
Forests don't grow overnight, we're talking 10, 20+ years to grow a decent sized forest, and New England apparently still had a fairly large Indian population into the early years of the 17th century. At least you imagine so from the empty, crumbling villages the Pilgrims found.
So in a nutshell, what evidence can the authors of 1491 supply to support the theory that New England was not densely forested? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 12:24:32 PM
|
There's only one author, Mann, and he talks about it in the article. A quote from it:
"Throughout eastern North America the open landscape seen by the first Europeans quickly filled in with forest. According to William Cronon, of the University of Wisconsin, later colonists began complaining about how hard it was to get around. (Eventually, of course, they stripped New England almost bare of trees.) When Europeans moved west, they were preceded by two waves: one of disease, the other of ecological disturbance. The former crested with fearsome rapidity; the latter sometimes took more than a century to quiet down. Far from destroying pristine wilderness, European settlers bloodily created it. By 1800 the hemisphere was chockablock with new wilderness. If "forest primeval" means a woodland unsullied by the human presence, William Denevan has written, there was much more of it in the late eighteenth century than in the early sixteenth."
I can't post the whole article, but here's some more:
"In his history of Plymouth Colony, Bradford provided the answer: by robbing Indian houses and graves. The Mayflower first hove to at Cape Cod. An armed company staggered out. Eventually it found a recently deserted Indian settlement. The newcomers—hungry, cold, sick—dug up graves and ransacked houses, looking for underground stashes of corn. "And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn," Bradford wrote, "for else we know not how we should have done." (He felt uneasy about the thievery, though.) When the colonists came to Plymouth, a month later, they set up shop in another deserted Indian village. All through the coastal forest the Indians had "died on heapes, as they lay in their houses," the English trader Thomas Morton noted. "And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle" that to Morton the Massachusetts woods seemed to be "a new found Golgotha"—the hill of executions in Roman Jerusalem.
To the Pilgrims' astonishment, one of the corpses they exhumed on Cape Cod had blond hair. A French ship had been wrecked there several years earlier. The Patuxet Indians imprisoned a few survivors. One of them supposedly learned enough of the local language to inform his captors that God would destroy them for their misdeeds. The Patuxet scoffed at the threat. But the Europeans carried a disease, and they bequeathed it to their jailers. The epidemic (probably of viral hepatitis, according to a study by Arthur E. Spiess, an archaeologist at the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, and Bruce D. Spiess, the director of clinical research at the Medical College of Virginia) took years to exhaust itself and may have killed 90 percent of the people in coastal New England. It made a huge difference to American history. "The good hand of God favored our beginnings," Bradford mused, by "sweeping away great multitudes of the natives ... that he might make room for us."
By the time my ancestor set sail on the Mayflower, Europeans had been visiting New England for more than a hundred years. English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese mariners regularly plied the coastline, trading what they could, occasionally kidnapping the inhabitants for slaves. New England, the Europeans saw, was thickly settled and well defended. In 1605 and 1606 Samuel de Champlain visited Cape Cod, hoping to establish a French base. He abandoned the idea. Too many people already lived there. A year later Sir Ferdinando Gorges—British despite his name—tried to establish an English community in southern Maine. It had more founders than Plymouth and seems to have been better organized. Confronted by numerous well-armed local Indians, the settlers abandoned the project within months. The Indians at Plymouth would surely have been an equal obstacle to my ancestor and his ramshackle expedition had disease not intervened."
This is entirely relevant to our discussions here, and while the article is three years old, there's much other stuff on the web about Indian populations and disease and Chohokia, the name I never can remember, in Illinois. It was a huge city. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 1:53:03 PM
|
| 500 Nations by Alvin M Josephy JR .Great book |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 2:31:42 PM
|
I think "1491" is a very good read myself. If you don't agree with the concepts of the author, argue the merits of the case. If you haven't read it, well, there is really no need to troll for responses is there?
Billy |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 2:55:22 PM
|
Oh, last night I discovered that there must be a Santa Claus! I went over to Ft. Leavenworth for research and when getting one of the few regimental returns they had copies of, discoved that they had just gotten the entire series of regimental returns for both the Infantry and Cavalry, about 450 boxes of film more than they originally had!
So, after getting 3 years of data on the 18th Infantry (which they had not had until last night) I picked up the 9th cavalry. After spending the first 10 minutes cursing a) the idiot who put desertions and deaths in the same bloody list and b) the idiot who wrote with a light pencil, I so that even with the magnification on high, reading the darned thing was eye-wrenching to put it mildly. But, the 9th & 10th both had a reputation for discipline if I recall correctly. Yet, shortly after the 9th got to San Antonio, TX from Louisiana, a "mutiny" broke out. A sergeant, one Bradford Harris, was shot and killed by 1Lt. Smith. The actual entry read about Harris, "...shot while in act of mutiny by Lt. Smith Apr. 9, 1867...". For the same month's return, another 1Lt., one Seth E. Griffin is listed as having died "...from wounds received Apr. 9 quelling mutiny in camp of the regiment at San Antonio..." Griffin died on Apr. 12.
Strangely enough, over at the Army Center for Military History, they have a book on-line about the various regiments published at the turn of the century I believe, which has a chapter on the 9th, including original officers. Lt. Griffin is not mentioned as one although Heitman shows him assigned to the 9th on Jul. 28, 1866 and has him dying on Apr. 12, 1867. There is also no mention of a "mutiny". Perhaps it was just one man going nuts but "mutiny" is a totally different kettle of fish from insubordination and I would not think that officers would use it lightly.
For instance, in the 18th regimental returns, I ran across the death of Pvt. James Brown, 18th Inf., who was killed, "enroute from camp near Wyoming City to Ft. Sanders by unknown soldiers." Only after looking at that month's return closely did I discover that Brown had killed 1Lt. William Bell. Obviously the other soldiers in camp put paid to Mr. Brown's account which is why it is listed as "unknown soldiers". But, the important point is that there was no mention of mutiny, which, going back to the 9th makes me think multiple people were involved.
Thought you all would be interested.
Best of wishes,
Billy
P. S. For those with access to the regimental returns and wanting to look at it yourself, the 9th Cav. reference may be found on roll 87 regimental return dated 04/67. The 18 Inf. reference may be found on roll 193 regimental return dated 06/68. |
Edited by - BJMarkland on February 03 2005 3:04:29 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Research Locations
