| Author |
 Topic  |
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 06 2004 : 05:27:46 AM
|
| Personally I have added no member at my removing list as I still hope for the selfcontrol of people...dreamer? |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 07:42:28 AM
|
Everybody has probably put me on their Ignore list,
Who posted that? |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 11:32:33 AM
|
| Larsen: I believe you said the cartridges were unfired. Apparently the cardboard spacers survived. You were not impressed by the pictures. Not clear or didn't show much? The lead bullets found were badly oxidized. Fox said that little beyond the caliber could be determined.As far as I know the bullets were the same in rifle and carbine cartridges. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 06 2004 : 11:34:34 AM
|
Again, Wild, I refer you to your contract, section 345e/iIII.
"Dark Cloud has exclusive rights to any and all witty retorts." And continuing....
"Wild is restricted to looking on with barely concealed awe and feeding Dark Cloud lines."
Let's not let this happen again......
More important, all cartridge stuff to the new thread.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 06 2004 11:49:57 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 11 2004 : 9:24:15 PM
|
"Everybody has probably put me on their ignore list."
DC, why would anyone put you on an "Ignore" list. A man of your intellect,sensitivity, and abilty to empathize with others. Particularily you sensitivity in dealing with folk who do not articulate as well as you. Ask Lorenzo G., I'm sure he can espound upon your generosity and good nature. Gee, you'er such a wondeful guy. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 09:42:01 AM
|
It has always been a 'no brainer' to me that the government was the ultimate blame in this insignificant battle based on the total scheme of 'battle losses' in war. In the Civil War, generals would send thousands of men to their certain deaths when devising their plans for victory. General Custer did not want one of his men to die let alone be willing to sacrifice a small number for victory. The 7th Cavalry was the 'yankees' and the 'Dukes' of the cavalry units and soldiers wanted to 'play' for him. He was an astute soldier caught up in a situation that unfolded spontaneously. His rules and guidelines were strict issues to be obeyed for he knew the discipline was essential to ensure every soldier's life. Focus is today's buzzword.
Arguably, the Indians held most of the high cards in this battle. Sorry, they held all the cards. Their weapons were plentiful and superior. Their 'numbers' were far greater. They had home court advantage----their turf. Their 'management team' was more organized and their overall plan was never a 'defensive' stand. Once they were 'on the court,' the 7th Cavalry started 'turning over' the ball, forever were on the 'defense' and lacked the depth in their line-up, so to speak. The 'money trail' usually ends back in the government's lap; a government that sends its armies to war ill-equipped and without the latest technology---whether that means the latest repeating rifles or hummers without proper protective armor. It is always about money and the frontline soldiers take the blame for failures in execution. My real disappointment in the 'Custer' issue is over the amount of degradation that historians have laid upon his name since the Vietnam war. He was an American Civil War hero in my eyes and a soldier who led his men by saying "follow me" not by saying 'while I drink my coffee, go take that hill.' Whether that was smart or not, that is how he was---don't do what I say, do what I do. He was 'offensive' minded and not so accustomed to being on the 'defense' like he found himself at the Little Bighorn. I am tired of his name being belittled. His passion in life was to be a soldier...and he was a good one. I'm not sure I would have liked him but I would have respected him and followed him. I suppose my greatest fear in life is getting caught in a 'trapped' situation and you know what you have to do no matter what the odds....like a person who sees someone drowing and even though you can't swim to good, you have to dive in and try to save that person. Not to do what you have to do would be a worse 'death.' I vote blame the government! |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 10:22:22 AM
|
You can blame the government for the war, you can't for the battle and how it was fought. You're also somewhat behind the times; Custer has risen in the thirty years since Vietnam ended and now holds a historical estimation that is neither overly heroic nor incompetent, posing blunderer.
He may have preferred offense, but it's his job to be prepared for defense as well, to give accurate and meaningful orders. The problem is, at certain levels and in most instances heroically leading charges isn't necessary and conflicts with his actual job of being available to inform and control. Not as much fun or dramatic but, you know, his job. He did lead from the front, and mostly troopers in whose training and armament he had small interest and devoted little time. That wasn't entirely the government's fault. A lot of it was Custer's.
It doesn't matter if you give the troops the best of everything if you don't train them in its usage. The Seventh cavalry was an awful shooting outfit in aggregate, and giving them rapid fire weapons would just mean they'd fire and miss more and probably not hit a greater percentage. Indians were notoriously bad shots as well and for the same reason: no steady supply of ammo to practice with. In the unlikely event that Indians had started performing fire control and fighting as units, they still had to get pretty close to their enemy to hit them. For all the difference weapons and ammo are again claimed to have made - and excuse the sorry fight the 7th made overall - you have to consider the people firing the weapons.
Although General Lee had the worst casualty percentage for the Civil War, Custer was notoriously wasteful of men and equipment forgiven only by the fact he won a lot. I think it fair to say Custer gave small consideration to potential casualties at the LBH as he had throughout his career.
All the talk about Hummers being poorly armored misses the point. It's true, yes, but it's sort of like saying bicycles are poorly armored. Of course. They aren't designed to be front line machines and when you load them down with good or bad armor they lose their one advantage: speed and flexibility. The problem is there aren't enough troops to control the roads, insufficient Bradley troop carriers (which themselves might be wrong for desert fighting), and weren't helicopters supposed to control the air above convoys and destroy ambushes etc.? The billions on up armoring the wrong machines make small sense, really. We have drones that could patrol the roads and alert us to bombs being planted, ambushes being prepared. I agree that the military in the field has been shafted here because it was misled.
But really? That was not the problem at LBH. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 20 2004 10:55:08 AM |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 10:33:25 AM
|
Whistlingboy,
If you had followed Custer,You Sir would be Dead ! |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 11:16:15 AM
|
| It is true. I certainly would have been dead but a focused soldier, I hope, while he does not want to die, has a duty and accepts his responsibility. Not unlike Crazy Horse's famous uttering of "It's a good day to die," I think a man, whether a soldier or not, Mr. Hunkpapa7, psyches himself up, so to speak, to that frenzied point where he might think...'I may go down but I'm going to take a few of you with me.' It's been a while since I was in the service but I still hope the 'conditioning' for a soldier thrust into harms way instills this high sense of loyalty and duty. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 11:55:04 AM
|
| I do not disagree with many of your summations, Dark Cloud, for they are points well taken but I think it is also fair to say that in many a battle no matter the leader, lives are sacrificed. You do need to point me to writings, that I have obviously missed, elaborating on Mr. Custer's battle strategies that selfishly wasted soldiers lives. It is the planned intent of such maneuvers that have always concerned me....a part of war and battle. Certainly, a general leading his cavalry unit into battle is going to waste lives and maybe even his own but with an intent to accomplish a strategic goal like breaking an enemy's defensive line. As to the reference to the Hummers....my minor point was that it is really no different today than years ago...and you are right, hummers weren't designed to be front line machines but they are still being used where our soldiers are in harms way, leaving the soldiers to be resourceful to better protect themselves. I say, no excuses. Put armor on them or get them out of there...maybe it is best to let the soldiers over there riding in them make the call. What they say would be the right call but, of course, it wouldn't be popular behind the closed doors of many of the politicians. Maybe they should be forced to accompany the soldiers into harms way sitting right next to them and see if their fright would alter their view. Well, so much for that...it is probably a moot point and not really related to Custer. Not sure who gets the final say on Custer's rising popularity but I haven't heard anyone cut him any slack on the tv documentaries or any of the lectures I heard out at the battleground the last few years. I would like to hear some kind words about him from someone. You do write good and I enjoy your commentaries. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 5:03:56 PM
|
Whistlingboy, your ability to cut through the quagmire of dispute, and get to the chase, is admirable. Some may not realize, as you apparently do, that no battle (for Custer to have lost) would have occurred were it not for the U.S. Government.
Bickering over Custer's martial tactics will continue for sometime to come. This is a good thing as long as we agree to disagree.
In his time, Custer was admired for his efforts during the Civil War and was perceived by many as a true celebrity. After the Vietnam era, however, society's perspectives on war and, the men who led them, took a spiral nosedive. It is now fashionable to denigrate the General when ever possible. Thanks for your post. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 20 2004 5:06:38 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 5:38:15 PM
|
We're in total agreement about the supply of the soldiers in Iraq. It isn't even money, it's incompetence in Washington. Correct me, but I haven't heard a single issue raised in this war that wasn't in Vietnam, and we - by which I mean our soldiers - are paying for it. The one issue that relates directly to LBH and cavalry? Just as in the Indian Wars and in Vietnam, the US assumes that a blistering military victory is the ticket to success. But then what?
The swings of the Custer pendulum are nowhere near as wide and stupid as they used to be. Some years a godlike creature, the next a baby eating monster. He was nowhere near as good as his acolytes claimed but he was never ever as evil as some portrayed him with no basis. Right now he's seen as a good but somewhat overrated officer compared to his peers, which sounds about right. I did not say he "selfishly" but notoriously wasted soldiers lives; he did charge to see what would happen often enough. As for proof, use Google and check out his Civil War record and read what other officers said of him, compare it to his casualty figures.
With no effort, I find http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2004/is_1_50/ai_114007299 where the historian Stephen Ambrose is referenced. "Ambrose reminds us that Custer's Michigan Brigade sustained the highest casualties of any cavalry unit during the Civil War, especially during the costly spring campaigns of 1864. In Ambrose's view, Custer expended his men's lives in profligate fashion." Somewhat ironic in that I don't like Ambrose as a rule, but there's more in this vein from other sources.
Perhaps, Wiggs, you could name a book of the last quarter century of any repute that was negative in the main towards Custer? One? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 20 2004 5:58:25 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 7:55:16 PM
|
I learned quite sometime ago not to proffer resources, books, or quotes to you. The ones that I did submit were treated in an off-handed manner by you. You seemed regarded them as inconsequential. I'm not saying that you were wrong, you may have been right. I don't enjoy the expertise and writting skills that are such a predominant part of your repertoire.
At one point I quoted Robert Utley, on a particular subject, and you responded by stating that another author/historian/person (I forget which)regarded him as a "Liar." I found that statement to be somewhat bizarre as many people consider Utley to be a prominent historian in the Custer genre.
Anyway, pardon me if I do not bite. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 20 2004 7:59:29 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 8:11:31 PM
|
Ah shucks Dc, I just can't resist. Have you tried reading "Little Bighorn Remembered" by Herman J. Viola-1999?
Page 152 begins with a premise that three Crow Scouts advised Edward S. Curtis that Custer knew that Reno was in trouble but did not take any action to assist him, is that negative enough for you? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 8:34:49 PM
|
You lie again, Wiggs. I never said anyone claimed Utley was a liar. I pointed out by page number in Graham that Fred Dustin said Utley's book had many errors.
In regards to your quote, no, that doesn't make the book a negative one on Custer. Give me a break. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 8:44:56 PM
|
You are exactly right, Mr. Wiggs, that any discussion, and especially this one on Mr. Custer's martial tactics is healthy as long as we agree to disagree. I think it is a great forum and I certainly enjoy the 'banterings' and the different points of view. I have always had an instant admiration for General Custer which I evidently adhered to through the socialization process growing up. I grew up in my younger formative years in Pierre, SD, where I remember studying about Mr. Custer and the battle at the LBH. Time was spent in the primary grades at that time talking about the battle. I do not believe any mention is made in the schools now...at least none of my three kids were acquainted with the battle in their school, which, I know, isn't all schools. Anyway, I continue to search and read and wonder why I have long held this affinity for this man and his role in history. The love story of him and his 'Sunbeam' is a great story in itself and shows a devotion to someone that depicts a kinder, gentler side of the man. Your input is well received and I look forward to reading your thoughts in the future.
And the fact that Mr. Custer in the Civil War had an ability to disrupt quagmire situations, Dark Cloud, and change the status quo and obtain victories did probably mask heavy losses at times and rather than assume that he 'selfishly' wasted lives categorically speaking, I just want to read more accounts of those accusing him of such tactics. I didn't mean to imply that you said he 'selfishly' wasted his men. I will read more of Ambrose objectively and appreciate your offerings along these lines. |
Edited by - whistlingboy on December 20 2004 8:48:16 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 10:11:44 PM
|
Whistlingboy,
'tis a sad commentary when individuals would have us to believe that a specific General, in the U.S. Army, was nothing more than a lunatic wasting the lives of his men on a lark. The reality is this, wars fought during this era were uniformily panoramas of slaughter houses and gore. Soldiers were trained to equate marching into massive gunfire with courage.
General Custer did loose an exorbitant amount of men during his "charges." So too, did other Generals. The difference between Custer, and other leaders, was that he constantly led his men. This critical factor, Dc omits. In every charge he was in the forefront. After four years of having numerous mounts shot dead beneath him, and his subsequent ability to leave the service unscathed, a legacy was created. Men admired him and women adored him. "Custer's Luck" became a reality.
The tactics used by General Custer were established military protocol of his time. Admiring a man of this stature does not mean that you must agree with everything he did. It means, to me, that if placed in the circumstances he met, I would hope to perform my duties honorably. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 09:58:13 AM
|
Drones with cameras can easily reveal the activity required to plant the bombs, set the gun positions, prepare the ambush. They can broadcast in real time, so the perpetrators can be dealt with. That's what they're designed for and what we paid for, and they should be above the main roads 24/7, at least from the Green Zone to the nearby places where so many are killed.
I don't understand, and neither do others, why our military is chronically surprised in this fashion when we have this ability.
Whether you believe it or not, the 7th put up a bad fight under Custer. The surviving officers of the 7th felt so, and nothing has emerged to contest it. You want to believe otherwise, so you will, but it's about you and not the facts at that point. What comparable fight against Indians provided such a different result of casualties?
There are numerous examples of 7th soldiers being terrible shots. Why is it so hard to think thay killed few Indians? Given the surround, many of the Indian wounded may have been friendly fire as well, as it was at Wounded Knee for the 7th. After all, they killed Lame White Man face to face without knowing who he was. Supposedly. Reread Edgerly's description of his visit to the field right after the battle. He agrees with Benteen, and I don't think any evidence that's emerged since is of the level of these two officers giving first hand testimony.
What two quotes do you refer to? I don't get hysterical, and as the forum clearly shows, my accusations of liar extend solely to Joseph Wiggs, and the proof has been up on the board and re-referenced numerous times, in his own words. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 10:21:55 AM
|
| I know that my opinions and interpolations about past events might seem 'peppered' by my enthusiasm over the legacy of George A. Custer and that those opinions might be 'out in left field' in many people's eyes but to begin to gain 'balance' in one's thinking I think it is good and healthy to listen to the thoughts and enthusiams of other enthusiasts and their possible motives to the way they interpolate the same events. Listening to and agreeing or disagreeing with someone else's opinion is fascinating, to me, because it is like being a detective figuring out why that person is coming from the position he or she is holding and thinking why didn't I see that or is that position highly credible. Again, just going by the things I read, listen to and watch, it seems like this particular general is still having to cut through the 'red tape' of adverse publicity and still is able to 'hold his own' as a popular icon of this country's beloved history. I don't think his 'plan' was well formulated nor if he had the time or the resources to formulate a rock-solid plan when he finds out (not by walkie-talkie or cell phone) by hearsay about the numbers of the enemy that he will encounter. I doubt if the scouts all agreed on the 'numbers' they reported but being able to protect the element of surprise was no doubt one of his foremost concerns. My point is that once the 'plan on the run' starts unfolding it probably becomes as whimsical as its formulation and is never static in its implementation and eventually becomes 'changing by the moment' dictated by the onslaught of the enemy moves until it is 'every man for himself.' The telltale, quickly unfolding events had to dictate utter confusion with each group becoming their own isolated force to be reckoned with...the dirt and dust in the air, the extreme heat, the whooping and hollering of the enemy were all factors that inhibited any type of order and, thus, any chance of survival. These men were 'trapped' by time and circumstances and I want to believe that most of them were soldiers to the end. You do say things in a way, Mr. Wiggs, that I am thinking but fail to put in print and that makes me wanting to hear what you say next. And you are right too, Warlord, when you say that the general probably wasn't a great soldier but a 'product of the military thinking of the time.' My thinking is a product of all the things I read and was influenced by growing up on the subject, no doubt, and it was Mr. Custer's seemingly charismatic charm and ability to lead and lead 'up front' that made him a 'hero' in my mind. That seemed 'unselfish' to me and a trait (without knowing many of the facts about a battle) I liked and adhered to. Can't wait to learn more from your 'posts' Warlord, Mr. Wiggs and Dark Cloud. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 12:31:05 PM
|
You sir are a gentleman and a diplomat. More importantly, your thread is permeated with common sense, conceptional thinking, and an earnest attempt to recognize each "faction" as a positive contributor to the forum. Not burden with an insatiable ego, as some of the rest of us, your thinking is beyond partisanship.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and, welcome you to the forum. I can not wait to learn more from you. I think others will to. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 1:24:53 PM
|
I knew it was a mistake to log-in before going to the Archives!
"Arguably, the Indians held most of the high cards in this battle. Sorry, they held all the cards. Their weapons were plentiful and superior. Their 'numbers' were far greater. They had home court advantage----their turf. Their 'management team' was more organized and their overall plan was never a 'defensive' stand. Once they were 'on the court,' the 7th Cavalry started 'turning over' the ball, forever were on the 'defense' and lacked the depth in their line-up, so to speak. The 'money trail' usually ends back in the government's lap;..."
Numbers: I agree
Home court: I agree
Management: Huh? Only when speaking of the 7th Cav. (or Fetterman's fight) can someone say that the Indians were better "managed". That should be a warning right there that something is rotten in Denmark.
As far as armament, I am not sure that the Indians were better armed per se. For the type of fight against Custer; close in, infiltrating-style, bows and arrows were more efficient than rifles. Sure, a number had Winchesters and Henrys but the Springfield carbine had more range and killing power as well as,from what I read on the web-sites dealing with guns and in Fox & Scott's book, not as big a problem with misfires as the Henry rimfire did.
DC, somewhere I read that Custer was a stickler for target practice for the troops. I need to find that source and do some research to confirm the accuracy of it. If true, perhaps this did not happen because of cooling his heels in Grant's waiting room. Also, you have to remember that many officers wanted to have their men shoot better but with a penny-pinching Congress, they could not expend the ammo unless they purchased it themselves. And most frontier officers were not men of independent means.
Anyhow, gotta go and see if I can get into the Ft. McPherson National Cemetery files today.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Billy |
Edited by - BJMarkland on December 21 2004 1:29:56 PM |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 2:06:48 PM
|
| It is difficult sometimes to 'want to listen' to a view which seems to be a 360 degree turnaround from yours but it is the reasons a person articulates for those views is what has always interested me. A person's background, state in life, upbringing and a host of other reasons might account for their adherence to a stated view on a given subject. But you are too kind to me in that I simply respect others who seem to have an insatiable interest in things I do, are intelligent in the way they contribute and are not discouraged to express their point of view. I may be too 'pollyannish' about Mr. Custer compared to the next person but as long as I can articulate why, I figure that is fair and the next person's disagreement with my view is fine. I truly look forward to communicating with this forum and people like you who are informed and seemingly well-read and articulate in presenting your material. Either way, I learn something and you have helped me 'grow' and that helps me still have excitement in life. I just hope I can contribute once in a while to the topics in a positive, substantive way and give someone else a 'lift' and who knows what might happen. Thanks for letting me be a part of these discussions. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 2:24:19 PM
|
Yes, sir, Mr. Markland, you caught me not writing like I was thinking. Actually, that is why I put quotes around management in referring to them...it would have been helter skelter at best; I don't think I could picture Crazy Horse asking Gall 'Which way are you going to attack...I'll go the other way.' But looking at what has been written and diagramed of the attacking routes and having been there numerous times, it practically appeared to be organized; maybe not by plan but maybe by habit. Their 'habit' of attack turned out to be better than the bluecoats. And I stated loosely perhaps that they had superior weapons. Sure they didn't possess the Springfields other than the ones they appropriated from the dead but most likely had an ample supply of arrows and ammo for their Winchesters, etc. closer at hand than the pack train was to Custer's soldiers. I'll get better at this, maybe, and I thank you for the post and Merry Christmas.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 3:07:02 PM
|
Mr. Markland,
Custer said and wrote many things, but the proof is in the pudding. I certainly believe he wanted his men to be good shots, and to have good weapons, and I doubt not his officers did as well, given that was roughly 90% of the point to their existence and that their lives were likely to depend on it. And I also agree that Congress was composed of (literally) frauds and thieves during those years when actual idiots and psychotics were not in power, and that the Army and Indians both got shafted big time.
But the fact is they didn't practice a lot, and the 7th were bad shots as a group. That's the sort of thing that cannot be imagined away. Wasn't it Luther North who told the story of a group of the 7th being nearly run over by antelope, six or seven guys opened up and hit nothing? Nothing? Are there records of weekly shooting competitions? Prizes for the best shots? Anything to indicate chronic activity of this nature?
They had horse races. They had amateur theater. How many practice shots did soldiers get a week? And bear in mind, it's better to fire ten times a week for a year than 520 times in one week in winter to kill the time. But I don't think they had anywhere near that many rounds to practice with. I think people sold ammo for cash.
And if I'm totally wrong and there was regular attention to marksmanship, it must have been quite inferior because, well...there are the results. Doesn't look like Indians instinctively hit the dirt when the cavalry aimed at them.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 11:01:28 AM
|
| Dark Cloud : How about giving credit where it is due? I'm not fond of Wigg's purple prose, but you asked for a negative book on Custer and he promptly gave you one. Please don't tell me Little Big Horn Remembered is not negative on Custer. I don't want to have to start quoting. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
