|
Post by herosrest on Nov 29, 2023 21:44:47 GMT -6
How do you know that it was not Capt. Weit whom DeRudio saw?
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Nov 30, 2023 5:59:29 GMT -6
Not really. In fact many corroborate the other. That’s awesome when the narratives agree. Not all, but many. What is shown is what a contrast & questionable telling Curtis was...same scouts tell several stories. Specifically we know his point 2 is wrong, and GC's route along the bluffs likley, and how much Custer watched of Reno is/has always been questionable. AGAIN _ I dont need to resolve DeRudio seeing Custer ~ exactly where we know Custer was ~ YOU do.You can not just wish away that well-decribed and located and confrmed sighting cause YOU do not like it. YOU have to figure out how to change your opinions to match the facts. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!! Martin said he could see Reno still fighting on his return.Because Weir was with Benteen - who was also seen - down near ford A, AFTER the retreat. YOU KNOW THIS!! A . The time Major Reno’s command went out of that timber, the Indians were following him, but when they got near the river some of the Indians yelled and all stopped running and some of the Indians pointed up the stream. When I saw and heard that, I expected Captain Benteen was coming, and I looked up and saw Captain Benteen’s column coming towards the same ford where we crossed, but when the troops got to a certain place I saw the rear of the column turn around and disappear over a bluff on the right bank
NOW - we can compare that Benteen sighting, where Weir was, near ford A AFTER the retreat, to DeRudio Custer sighting at point 7 Weir's Hill BEFORE the reno retreat. Hmm...was Weir in buckskin? Yep across Martin's Ridge and down Cedar, behind the long ridge running south for some distance below Edgerly peaks. As we know.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Dec 25, 2023 7:14:20 GMT -6
You guys ever check Charlie Varnum's book? What did he see from the extended side of the skirmish line, in the valley. It's been a while since I read it and I donated my copy of the book to a Little Bighorn Associates auction. So I can't give an exact quote. He did have a better view from his perspective than DeRudio.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Dec 28, 2023 19:11:53 GMT -6
I have not.
Thanks for the heads up - I’ll have to check it out!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 31, 2023 4:12:00 GMT -6
There are a handful of published accounts, letters, etc but I can't dig out any available online. Wallace accompanied the movement and wrote a letter to a friend a few days later. ' Nine days after the battle Wallace took the time to write his friend, Dr. Charles Knoblauch, an Army contract surgeon back at Camp Shreveport, and gives a first-hand account of what happened immediately after their separation from Custer.
“We moved forward at a gallop. After moving about one and one half miles, we crossed the Little Big Horn, then went up a broad valley for about three miles, our right resting on the river. The fight had now commenced between the Sioux and our scouts. The former suddenly became thicker than mosquitoes. Gen. Custer was behind, at least we left him there, but not sending us any assistance we were now in rather a hot place. The Indians were all around and bullets whizzing uncomfortably close. We got behind some trees, dismounted, and threw out skirmishers. We now discovered that just beyond the woods was a village of over a thousand lodges, and that with less than 100 men we were fighting the whole Sioux nation. Orders were given to mount and charge, and now was the terrible slaughter. If a man’s horse fell he was gone up. The Sioux crowded down behind and following poured a terrible fire in our rear. We finally reached the river. The Indians stopped at the bank and shot men and horses as they rode up the other bank. Gaining the top of the bluff we rallied. I could find but five men of G Troop. Mclntosh was missing, so was Hodgson. He had been Reno’s Adjt. Upon inquiry, I learned Mclntosh had been seen to fall on the plain and that Hodgson had been shot in the river. Capt. Benteen with H. D. &. K. Troops soon came up, and soon after, Capt. McDougall with B Troop guarding the pack train. We waited for some time to hear from Custer, Instead of coming to our support, he had taken C. E. F. I &. L Troops and gone ahead. source I have this somewhere or other but much prefer electronic. However, I tired radically of scanning stuff. Peter Russell has a nice anecotal article up on the UK Men's site. It is remarkable how the tun of worthwhile content there avoids the search engine indexers. Anyone might think that his dedications are beyond exclusive, since if there is way to search the actual site for content - I haven't figured it out yet. Of course that might actually be a revenge on his part - All my wonderful content but I'm darned if I let you find it. I did and you can't............ Varnum wrote stuff after the battle, also............ which tends to visit Wazola and never return. JSTOR has become one of my goto places again, and simple squiddly diddly there presented basic enquiry with - 156 HITS and they look promising. Of course my voluminous free time means i'm dedicated to feet up and snoring posture, these days since i've probably read the lot. Poor me........... Happy New Year you devil puppies. A witty description of Lt. Varnum by a newspaper correspondent at the Reno Court of Inquiry (Feb. 1879): A balding Lt. Varnum was described as having "a four inch part." There is some little known stuff by T.M. Coughlan - see post by TWC HERE There is a privately published manuscript: Varnum -- The Last of Custer's Lieutenants, by Colonel T. M. Coughlan, edited by John Carroll, from the Military History Institute at Carlisle, and of course, Varnum taught A.C M cAuliffe and G.S. Patton everything they knew.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 31, 2023 5:22:47 GMT -6
J41, There remain numerous anomolies amongst WMC's research and particularly with regard to our exchanges, how ESC's '2' became Benteen's 'G' and WMC's Weir Hill which then 'can of worms' Weir Point in juxtaposed thinking. We Know that WMC's map shows the locations of his Edgerley and Weir terrain, regarless of the measured data, and so as with so very much of this battle's material, there is dichotomy and you really should accept this. One solution is that WMC did not mark up his own maps, which is an interesting posit made by BYU researchers without a shred of evidence although there was free access by many scholars until the various collections of his stuff were purchased and protected. Custer rode onto the bluffs with his trumpeter in attendance and the Crow scouts and Bouyer waving him on. He (Custer) emerged onto the bluffs for a view of the valley at ESC's '2'. Why would the scouts tell ESC that, and then indicate a location downriver to WMC? It isn't difficult to comprehend. Repeating the point, the three Crow scouts rode the length of Reno Ck. beside Curtis; from Crow's Nest to ESC's '2' and beyond, with a bilingual translater telling him what they told him, happened - at the places it happened. ESC was taking photographs all the way along although the image series and others are scattered to the winds of fate, in never being published and frittered off and away by family who didn't understand what they were. I reached this conclusion in studying ESC images which are all over the place in collections (digital). One of them shows Indians under cover along the riverbank from where they engaged the troops. Yuo, a Sioux hiding in the brush along the bank. As far as I am concerned, at least one of the images of the scouts, taken on the bluffs and today almost set in stone to be at the mythical 'Boyer's Bluff', is not and actually views downriver over Greasy Grass ridge and confirms Curtis's account of those scout's whereabouts below Deep Coulee before returning towards Weir Point, and where Weir may have pointed from his hill. It is impossible to rely upon WMC as many modern researchers have found. His conclusions are evolutionary, are not timelined and often contradict one another. We do have his outlined thoughts, there are articles he published in magazines which provide further insight, as well but his research was a voyage through many years of altering views and difficulties grappling with the realities of Godfrey's history and that of other significants. He was not, and is not, the or a crash bang wallop that's it solution. It's fine to disagree but I won't be buying your idea of WMC's ideas. We could if you wish, pull the ESC stuff apart and this is easier since there is lees, unless we start trawling for long lost images. Of course, this will snowball into Godfrey, Varnum, WAG and the ugly sisters, eventually. One may have been Mrs White Cow Bull although I understand her to have been a beautiful princess who on accaision battered Gall for treating her neice badly. Wodda World. She left a map, you know.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jan 2, 2024 6:11:27 GMT -6
Which anomolies you NEVER produce for us, so...good luck with that.
As you know, my biggest issue with Curtis' point 2 is it in no way matches the narrative that HE provided to accompany it. It is supposedly HIS mark on a map that does not jive with what HE says it should be. Also of course the Crow scout discrepanices amongst themselves.
Hey - here's a thought - maybe CURTIS was wrong and NOT eveyone else? Sure seems it based on...Curtis himself. And his own sources. Crows recuing Reno men and returning them to Custer? Okaaay....
It can seem a minor point IF Custer did view the valley from where Curtis said he did, even if he did then ascend Weirs Hill/G/pt7; it is however at odds with Knipe, Martin, Curley, etc. - who were also there and also shared their recollections on where the troops 1st hit the bluffs, and how/how far they traveled along them, what Custer did, and BTW were all in agreement. I readily accept that WMC interview maps can have issues...however they came about. Someone - even if it was WMC - marking a hill amongst hills or sketching the notion of a route so and so took? Oh well, it they are not spot on. He DID improve them.
I also also see and accept when WMC notes and other maps etc. match evidence of the many of people who were there - very well in numerous cases. You know I feel how that many primaries agreeing, with WMC's help in making sense of it all (instead of the opposite). That is YOUR choice only, based on your opinion only. Seems your wrong notions lead to mistrusting the actual facts provided for us. It is impossible NOT to rely on him - as WMC "conclusions" came more from the witnesses and what THEY said - which often serves to clear up what happened, and where. WMC investigations provided information and were verification. Depend on when him when he is a funnel and a conduit to those who were there. He did make improvements.
So what is silly is ignoring him, or saying HE must be wrong, without KNOWING/SHOWING why. Modern researches should be able to find & provide some true 1st hand back-up to support their notions, not just give or re-iterate some/the same opinions based on other's opinions, which were based on...just what exactly??
I.E. If 1/2 dozen witnesses tell you Custer was on a named highest point which is +/-1/2 mile below Reno, and WMC gives/retells witness' narratives AND exact location info for that same named high point which confirm it all - why choose to decide its unreliable? Hare Edgerly Martin DeRudio Kanipe Benteen, reno, Herendeen, etc etc are the sources - WMC is more of a supplier of their info. Thankfully.
I.E. If the Rees tell what happened as they stole ponies and how the moved up the valley, and WMC is just one of a few who provide that information, which is in agreement with others - why is that unreliable? It is NOT cause YOU dont agree.
Many modern researchers, like Wagner for instance, seemed to have no major issues with WMC, and was pretty good at supplying why - he backed up his takes often.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 2, 2024 8:09:01 GMT -6
You cannot definitively place Custer on 3411 G Weir's Hill. There is no substantive evidence for it and continuing to trot out WMC, alone. by himself - does not prove it. You need to read ESC and absorb it and then the the other researchers who interviewed the scouts. Yes WMC did good work and left us a goldmine of stuff. So............. what?
Any way, Curtis was told one thing and Camp another. Usually, with this battle when the dust settles, both are true. So, there ya go. In terms of Godfrey and the eastern route over the bluffs, I don't buy it and WMC i'm sure pondered over it until the weight of evidence buried it, Of course Godfrey, like them all, had hus own agenda. If you bare in mind that Benteen unsaddled his command on Reno Hill after meeting up with Reno, then..... Godfrey mentioned this every day of the rest of his life - didn't he.
Whether Custer moved onto the bluffs in tandem with the five companies, or went up there ahead of the order to advance onto the bluffs, Martin described perfectly, where he went with Custer and that is ESC's '2'. ESC's '2' was given by Crow scouts who were present at the time and on the ground with ESG, showing him where Custer went.
Your acceptance of WMC is exclusive, and it's that simple. If you wish to place Custer on Weir's Hill then you have some way to go yet to build it into events. If Martin was there indicating to WMC that was where Custer went with him in tow then fine. But that is not the case.
We disagree and you are point blank wrong without any first hand evidence. Benteen's map re-emerges and hey presto, abracadabra fred names 3411 and the waffle of rubbish is renewed. There is no evidence for Custer on 3411. Only conjecture based on Benteen these days and WMC from his study which was and remains all over the place.
ESC rode up onto the bluffs with the three scouts and interpretter and they told him where and what went on. This was the three togeter and a few years before WMC got involved although it is possible his interest originated as far back as 1903.
Custer's movements can be traced until Kanipe turned back and the companies went on. If you want Custer on 3411, it was when Kanipe departed.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 2, 2024 8:35:01 GMT -6
Here's some older new stuff on the battle from Scott, about the rounded view of maybes and whatevers. New Insights into the Battle of The Little Big Horn. Quote: ' Overall, artefact patterning and distribution gives the impression of soldiers fighting on Nye-Cartright Ridge, and in Medicine Tail Coulee, and then moving up Deep Coulee toward Calhoun Hill. The distribution of fired Army cartridge cases indicates some firing as the withdrawal continued, but it appears light. The distribution of Indian bullets also gives the distinct impression that the Army was under fire as it moved toward Calhoun Hill. And some of those bullets took their toll as demonstrated by the skeletons of soldier dead that have been found in the last 75 years.
In any case, archaeological and relic evidence is consistent with observations made by the Crow scout Curly, and the majority of Lakota and Cheyenne warriors who remarked on a movement of soldiers to the ford and then a retreat under fire.Entirely consistent with the information gathered by ESC who of course, did not involve himself in the details of the tactical fight after the retreat. It remains perfectly possible that a battalion was sent hot diggedy dawg careering along the NC CH axis at high speed to reach lower fords as its sister undertook Patterson Hughes' ford 5 link I am done with Maguire's stuff which whilst iconic has been turned into an unfortunate tool. Bye the way, I believe that we agree Keogh led the two companies I and C, whilst Yates fought E.F, and L. That is good since the variations are entirely inane discussion.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jan 2, 2024 8:52:56 GMT -6
Sure we can. Cause AT LEAST a 1/2 dozen people WHO WERE THERE says he was. That is called "evidence"...and its substantial.
Why do you continue to argue with them? Because of YOUR opinion about WMC info? and whether Martin was there on the ground with him when WMC detailed what martin et. al. had already said?? THAT is silly. I do not often trot WMC out alone - but very often along with with the witnesses he interviewed/re-told. His distances & Bearings? OK - but there are no worries using them stand-alone. Cause - hey! - they agree well with the witnesses! And reality.
READ THE RCOI. Read Hare. Read Edgerly....nothing to do with WMC! In other words, read the very primary sources WMC had access to. And very often confirmed, and helped to clarify and elaborate WITH. Its good stuff!
Clearly - there IS a TON of evidence - and very little / nothing substantial to the contrary - at all - has been presented. (if you have any - post it please)
Which makes it damn near conclusive.
Curious how you discount WMC and ALL his witnesses he dealt with, yet you love Curtis and his 3 crows....weird.
And Martin was...what?? Plus all the others connected/in agreement in confirmation of Custer, and Weir's Hill. Besides - Kanipe placed Custer on 'the highest point on the ridge' - just like Martin, DeRudio, Benteen, scouts etc.
FWIW - I dont want Custer on "3411" - that is a bench mark that didn't exist at the time. It is a bit short in distance, and like 90'+ in elevation. Where Custer was has several confirmed names/identifications - given by numerous sources, including people who were there with/around him.
Hmm...sure is lots of actual evidence you are chosing to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 2, 2024 10:30:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jan 2, 2024 11:57:56 GMT -6
Not in c1876.
Dont yet again continue to make the mistake of relying on landscape info from 2011. Too much had changed by then, and plenty earlier...which we have seen has been well-documented. See period maps and statements - they will set you straight. See the reports on battlesight affects.
See Herendeen, Edgerly, Martin, DeRudio, Benteen, Hare, Reno, Knipe, the scouts, the maps, pictures, reports, etc. etc.
Do not ignore primary people/period info about the actual terrain.
The highest point in 1876-1879...
A) I claim that what is called Weir’s Hill is the highest point on the ridge in that vicinity. Q) That circular mark is to indicate the position Major Reno took. How far from there can you see the country towards “B”? A) To that highest point, Weir’s Hill, probably half a mile down. **Herndeen was very close.
And that highest point WH is about 1700' from where Reno retreated up..just below where DeWolf was killed/where the river is tight..
A. It was on the highest point on the right bank of the creek just below where Dr. DeWolf was killed. Q. About how far do you think it was from the point on the bluff occupied by Maj. Reno? A. I think it could not have been more than 5 or 600 yards... Q. Did you see the place generally known as the point where Capt. Weir went to? A Yes Sir I saw it . Q. Was General Custer on that point? A. No, on one nearer the river and the highest point on that side. Where I saw General Custer the river comes right under the bluff. **DeRudio knew the high point, and described/marked it. And saw Custer on it.
Edgerly, **Martin, Benteen (among others) confirm that. A. Yes sir, the highest hill the very highest point around there.
The scouts knew... Custer saw the camp from the highest point on the ridge to the right of the first intrenchment.
Where Godfrey saved the day…between Weir Hill and the Corral. “A. Captain Weir and Captain French were the only ones who engaged the Indians till within 3 or 400 yards of the final stand. Then Captain Godfrey engaged them.” "Godfrey after passing the long ridge some distance, dismounted his men, forming a skirmish line at right angle to the river...CO K was guarding ridge in rear of Weir Hill about 1/4-1/2 mile south of Weir Hill"
Hare, Godfrey, and yep even Knipe knew what was what and where.
Knipe says that Custer was trotting and galloping along with companies in column of twos, all 5 companies abreast, the men cheering and eager for a fight and that after the highest point on the bluffs was reached, the men...
All this supporting evidence is clear.
Realize that this is NOT "evolutionary" stuff at all - THIS is original, 1st hand knowledge, with little real data given to show otherwise…Which means we CAN rely on it. Pictures from 1926 already knew and confirm these facts.
this topic has been beaten and beaten, is still just repeatin’. Its time to move along.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 3, 2024 8:06:28 GMT -6
I note that we continue to be visited by Xi's Wang in growing numbers of posts which in translation (off board to avoid any buried scripts) goes to little bustards in marshy places and smacks very much of AI generated roundness. Of course an AI cannot register itself on the board, can it? Or, are we witnessing history and what should be immediately outlawed. Self registering AI. Now there's a thing. J41 Gerard saw Custer's command in motion - that is the column marching and uses that in the general Custer sense, as so many did, and have since. Thus, what Gerard 'actually' meant is a place where he saw the five companies marching along the bluffs. It is germaine to realise where Gerard was at that time, since he had deserted Reno and according to himself, been sent back by Cooke after talking telling him the Indians were not running. Of course, Custer had already known this from his scouts at the south fork, and had it confirmed to him on Reno Ck. at the separation point; by Varnum. I have a few difficulties with this phase of Gerard at the river crossing but that is another topic. Suffice is to say that there were not hordes of hostiles swarming about the valley between ford A and GO, when Reno undertook his march. Only a fool of greatest order would have marched down the valley charging into 800, 900, 2,500 hostiles. What there were, were pony herds and their herders and maybe (just) a small village running to escape the advance down Reno Ck. It's all very blurred and blurrey because that suited later events which reflected a lot of smoke in mirrors of eagle bone whistle. I say again, and will continue ad nauseum, that there is no way ever, with record as it exists, that you can put Custer on G 3411 Weir's Hill - which is the point of your exercise. This directly contradicts the first hand evidence. You have repeatedly taken data out of context or injected your own. No one, saw Custer on G 3411 Weir's Hill. Not even Martin said he was there. Give it up. I'm still hunting the obscure WMC stuff I read way back, but this was a nice reminder that he was broadly (eventually) on the right path but too benevolent and uninformed Battle Camp and The Story. HNY you old devil puppy.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 3, 2024 8:30:41 GMT -6
I offer a case in point, where you interpret what was given to your own ends.
Herendeen -
Q. Did you see the place generally known as the point where Capt. Weir went to? A Yes Sir I saw it . Q. Was General Custer on that point? A. No, on one nearer the river and the highest point on that side. Where I saw General Custer the river comes right under the bluff.
You have completely misunderstood what was being said, by ignoring the context. Gerard, DeRudio and God knows who else, viewed the command on the bluffs from the valley.
Where Herendeen says he saw Custer, the river came right under the bluffs. Custer was not on the point where Capt. Weir went to but upon one nearer to the river. Thus,
Herendeen had no idea or knowledge of Wier being on your Weir Hill G 3411. He (Gerard, Herendeen also) was in the valley. No idea at all, at all, of Weir going to a hill and his knowledge of events could not generate your surmise. Also, nearer the river - Custer nearer the river than, is the terrain nearer the river beyond and adjacent to Weir Point. I've told you, shown you and described to you, even using terrain contours which are a 100 feet lower, that being the highest point is a subjective matter which relies entirely on line of site from point of view.
Produce a first hand account of Custer on 3411 G Weir Point and not your glued together syntheses of garbled memorabilia. Who was with Custer on 3411 G Weir Hill? Careful, 'cos I might just have to tell you.
When did Herendeen see Custer on the bluffs? Have fun with that.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 3, 2024 10:40:55 GMT -6
I should perhaps, in fairness, declare the smoking gun to your highest point water pistol which is deferred to WMC himself and his understanding and interpretation of what happened, despite his erstwhile and profound difficulties with north, forks and Medicine Tails as tales.
We will now go back to Custer. Instead of keeping within supporting distance of Reno he had changed his mind and marched his battalion, comprising 33 percent of the regimental strength, on a diverging route. After proceeding 3 miles he suddenly came into view of the valley and saw the village, all standing and no Indians running away. Here, for the first time, he became aware of his mistaken impressions of the situation. At this point the two battalions were more than one mile apart within full view of each other but with nearly impassable ground and a river between them. Reno was in the valley and Custer on high bluffs to the eastward, and as yet, neither had engaged the Indians. Custer continued three miles farther, with a view to attack the village on the flank, and had passed out of sight of Reno's division before Reno's battle began. Custer may have heard, but he never saw, Reno's fight or any part of it. Custer proceeded within menacing distance of the large village on the opposite side of the stream and about 1 1/2 miles farther down the valley than Reno's advance but did not attack it, at least he did not attack with determination. The Indians swarmed out to meet him, and, between 15 and 30 minutes after Reno had retreated, the battalion of Custer became engaged, fell back from the river and still farther down the valley, to a high ridge. The Indians who had gone out to meet Reno had now returned and joined in the fight against Custer. On this ridge all of Custer's battalion were surrounded and killed with the exception of one Crow scout, who escaped from the ridge early in the battle. This fight from the time it started down near the river, lasted between one and two hours. Tis was the man's overview as provided for us by Hammer, in his edit of Walter Camp's Notes on the Custer Fight. What Edward S. Curtis learnt of the battle, Walter M. Camp corroboraated by his own investigations.
There remains really only the questions related to the three Crow scouts and their tales of events at odds entirley in some quarters with Curtis, for a dalliance by Custer on points here, there, anywhere and everywhere in selling out his battalion in the river valley and failing to support them. Of course, could you, or anyone, maybe guess or gain the insight that just possibly by the merest of chances, Crow scouts employed to find out what was happeneing and then sent to keep eyes upon events? Why they went to Weir's Hill and left a good record of what they saw and what they thought. DeRudio saw Custer there - but of course that was a tin foil hat jobbie by the good assassin abandoned in timber maybe a mile away. Perhaps he saw the hostile Indians who killed the good Doctor as he fled up the bluffs. Perfectly possible, although of course they may have looked like Cooke and Custer but who didn't that that day. Meanwhile Benteen was closing from his poorly defined mission to the rear of the camp and Reno was concluding his up the creek manouver. DeRudio spotting Benteen's march was a truly remarkable feat of vision by the way.
So here we are and entirely primed for the long and hard look at Curtis bruha with White Man Runs and what transpired after the son contacted Viola shortly before his death. Perhaps the best start is with the three crows meeting Benteen and directing him onto the bluffs to meet Reno. Remember though that Benteen caught trout and by his accounts they were immense. Do they have trout in Montana?
I note from Hammer's notes - "My Personal Story" (about DeRudio by Brisbin) was first published in the New York Herald July 30, 1876, and reprinted in the Chicago Times, August 2, 1876, and the Frontier and Midland Magazine, January 1934, 14:2 15559, Montana State University, Missoula. "Major DeRudio, A Man With a Charmed Life" was published in the Washington (D.C.) Star, October 16, 1910. Melville Stone's "Charles DeRudio (Carlo DiRudio) 1st Lt. 7th US Cavalry" in Colliers Weekly, May 15, 1920, has biographical material not found elsewhere.
The immense relevance being that did DeRudio see Custer, or did Brisbin make it up, for good press. Just a thought, since DeRudio further heard crashing volleys, Benteen on his way to Reno, Sioux galloping up the bluffs in hundreds to attack Custer's command down the right bank across medicine Tail Ck. and Tom Custer trotting about the river flat until he waved at him. I'm sure DeRudio read Brisbin's article and wonder often how much, if any, is pure Brisbin who was author of a number of works, eminently fond of grasshoppers, and a correspondent for eastern press. Imagine an army colonel from the front reporting direct to your newsdesk. What's that worth, I wonder? I can tell you - it is priceless.
|
|