.MTAwMg.NjU1Mzg: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In ad [strike 2 words] I do not think so at all. In addition to the fact that Gen'l. Sherman plainly writes "at Fort Cobb, or in that vicinity", it is probably [strike y and add e] that he has not seen your Report, has never been here, knows the place only by reputation, and maybe by "Fort Cobb" means, as most people do, the Washita Valley. | In ad [strike 2 words] I do not think so at all. In addition to the fact that Gen'l. Sherman plainly writes "at Fort Cobb, or in that vicinity", it is probably [strike y and add e] that he has not seen your Report, has never been here, knows the place only by reputation, and maybe by "Fort Cobb" means, as most people do, the Washita Valley. | ||
He wrote too while under the impression that the Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches | He wrote too while under the impression that the Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches were in the war, while on the contrary those Indians (see my reports) are all in communication with General Hazen, and fast closing in around him with their camps, all well disposed. | ||
Revision as of 18:51, 24 May 2019
In ad [strike 2 words] I do not think so at all. In addition to the fact that Gen'l. Sherman plainly writes "at Fort Cobb, or in that vicinity", it is probably [strike y and add e] that he has not seen your Report, has never been here, knows the place only by reputation, and maybe by "Fort Cobb" means, as most people do, the Washita Valley.
He wrote too while under the impression that the Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches were in the war, while on the contrary those Indians (see my reports) are all in communication with General Hazen, and fast closing in around him with their camps, all well disposed.