Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

44118Re: William C. Anderson listed as Bloody Bill

Expand Messages
  • franbolton
    Aug 8, 2007
      BUT, were they not part of the history of the Civil War? The beauty of
      these forums is that you can join in a discussion when the subject line
      is one that interests you, and skip those that don't. Sincerely, Fran
      Bolton
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mix" <tmix@...> wrote:
      >
      > I find myself in agreement, Ken. Bloody Bill and his fools were little
      more
      > than murderers and butchers of the first degree. They were not
      > representative of the fighting men in uniform of the North and South.
      >
      > Tom
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of keeno2@...
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 5:56 PM
      > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: William C. Anderson listed as Bloody
      Bill
      >
      >
      >
      > Still haven't figured out why there is a controversy. Bloody Bill did
      not
      > earn the attention he is getting. And I frankly don't care where he
      died--so
      > long as he's dead. I'd prefer to believe that dogs ate him, but I
      guess
      > there is no historical basis for that.
      >
      >
      >
      > ken
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com
      >
      <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982>
      .
      >
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic