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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: William C. Anderson listed as Bloody Bill

Expand Messages
  • lags500
    I m with you Ken. My great great great grandfather was one of the few survivors of the Baxter Springs massacre. He was in Co. I 3rd Wi Cav. Larry ... From:
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm with you Ken. My great great great grandfather was one of the few survivors of the Baxter Springs massacre. He was in Co. I 3rd Wi Cav.   Larry
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 5:56 PM
      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.

    • Tom Mix
      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
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        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.

      • franbolton
        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
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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>
          .
          >
        • Tom Mix
          Sure, I have no problem with that. They are part of the history of the war, particularly in the Western sector. But they were still blood thirsty thugs, out of
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            Sure, I have no problem with that. They are part of the history of the war, particularly in the Western sector. But they were still blood thirsty thugs, out of uniform for the most part and out of control for the whole part.

            Tom

             

            -----Original Message-----
            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of franbolton
            Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:05 PM
            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: William C. Anderson listed as Bloody Bill

             

            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=AOLAOF0002 0000000982>
            .
            >

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.