Book Chat
"The Devil Knows How to Ride:
The True Story of William Clarke Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders"

This chat took place in the Civil War Home Chatroom on 10/03/05 and covered Chapters 10 & 11

10/3/2005 9:06 pm (et) ks: Last week we covered Chapter 9 over the Lawrence Massacre, but some hadn’t been able to finish the read. So I’d like to go back tonight and see what additional comments people care to offer on that chapter. Leslie’s take on
”The Most Diabolical Deed of the Whole Civil War”: The Lawrence Massacre
is again the topic for discussion. Anything on the Confederate reaction?

10/3/2005 9:06 pm (et) Harry: Like the beginning of "The Wild Bunch": "If they move, kill 'em"

10/3/2005 9:06 pm (et) ks: Hank, you forgot the knives. WAR to the KNIFE, remember? :)

10/3/2005 9:06 pm (et) Babs: I understand that reloading could be time consuming.

10/3/2005 9:07 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Leslie doesn't cover the reaction, which I find interesting. The Official reaction was to continue to look the other way.

10/3/2005 9:07 pm (et) Harry: Yeah, you can kill fewer kids if you stop to reload.

10/3/2005 9:07 pm (et) HankC: was there a CSA reaction?

10/3/2005 9:08 pm (et) ks: Really sorry Base is missing this as he had comments on Lawrence since he was caught up.

10/3/2005 9:08 pm (et) Harry: I'm reminded of another famous line from "Full Metal Jacket" - bear with me, it's applicable:

10/3/2005 9:08 pm (et) ks: Does that mean you didn't find anything, AHG?

10/3/2005 9:08 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Richmond was not particularly interested in anything west of the Mississippi, all policy decisions were left to the Trans-Mississippi command.

10/3/2005 9:08 pm (et) amhistoryguy: No, found a couple of interesting items

10/3/2005 9:09 pm (et) Harry: When Private Joker asks the Huey gunner how he can do that, kill women and children, he replies "It's simple - you just don't lead them as much"

10/3/2005 9:09 pm (et) ks: Do tell.

10/3/2005 9:09 pm (et) Babs: KS, Did Base convey his comments to you? Can you paraphrase?

10/3/2005 9:10 pm (et) ks: No, Babs. I wish.

10/3/2005 9:10 pm (et) Harry: AMH, I think it's a little harsh to say they weren't interested. It was a matter of priorities, and I think they felt outmanned.

10/3/2005 9:10 pm (et) ks: outmanned?

10/3/2005 9:11 pm (et) Harry: Out numbered...

10/3/2005 9:11 pm (et) Harry: In Kansas

10/3/2005 9:11 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The Richmond Daily Dispatch, Sept. 1, 1863, "The savage and inhuman measures adopted by the yankees to put down guerrilla warfare, proves that this mode of defending a country otherwise unprotected (Lawrence Massacre) is more annoying and more dreaded by them than any other."

10/3/2005 9:12 pm (et) Harry: There you go...unprotected.

10/3/2005 9:13 pm (et) HankC: what was the date of the sack of Lawrence?

10/3/2005 9:13 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Michael Fellman, in "Inside War," suggests, "the leaders in Richmond had little knowledge or interest in what was going on west of the Mississippi.

10/3/2005 9:13 pm (et) ks: That reads like a response to Order No. 11. Might as well post for the next chapter....

10/3/2005 9:14 pm (et) HankC: 8/19?

10/3/2005 9:14 pm (et) ks:
Chapter 10
”We Prayed That Night or Succor Might Come”: The Pursuit of Quantrill and the Issuing of Order No. 11

The R & R (Revenge and Retribution) that followed Lawrence and Order No. 11. Perhaps that’s being redundant, huh? :-(

10/3/2005 9:14 pm (et) Harry: Well, not to argue with Fellman, but I think little knowledge might apply, but little interest goes to far.

10/3/2005 9:15 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Complaints made to Davis and Richmond were met with silence.

10/3/2005 9:15 pm (et) Harry: I think it was more "There's not much we can do, so let's put our effort where we can do some good.

10/3/2005 9:15 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The Partisan Ranger Act was primarily directed towards Virginia and N.C.

10/3/2005 9:16 pm (et) Harry: Priorities and's the story of life.

10/3/2005 9:16 pm (et) ks: And meanwhile Federal forces, Redlegs and angry Kansans are trying to hunt down Q and gang and killing people right and left.

10/3/2005 9:16 pm (et) HankC: Quantrill lost quite a few men in the retreat from Lawrence...not many wounded or captured though...

10/3/2005 9:16 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The Confederacy quickly found out that they had no control, and hoped that the war in Missouri would attract the attention of Union troops, pulling them from other areas.

10/3/2005 9:17 pm (et) ks: Did he? I don't recall the numbers on that. Anyone?

10/3/2005 9:17 pm (et) Harry: AMH, and that makes sense. Partisan activities there could have significant military benefits. Not that they did (I think historically they have been overrated), but the potential was there.

10/3/2005 9:17 pm (et) HankC: one could say he retreated well...but IIRC he had a couple of able lieutenants...Todd and ?

10/3/2005 9:17 pm (et) HankC: 1/3 of the force is what I have in mind...

10/3/2005 9:17 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Gregg

10/3/2005 9:18 pm (et) Harry: Well it appears that about 100 or so "partisans" were killed in the days following the raid.

10/3/2005 9:18 pm (et) HankC: plus they left their wounded behind...

10/3/2005 9:18 pm (et) Harry: At least, according to Leslie.

10/3/2005 9:19 pm (et) ks: I thought Leslie stated that Quantrill didn't lose many men. Perhaps I'm recalling the statement about during the "blood sport" hunt after the massacre.

10/3/2005 9:20 pm (et) ks: And those "partisans" weren't believed to have all be Q's gang either. Leslie speculated that some innocents were out in new clothing, probably legally purchased, or out to ride with a relative and just got filled with lead or hung.

10/3/2005 9:20 pm (et) HankC: how long before they recrossed the border?

10/3/2005 9:20 pm (et) Harry: Look at the bottom of page 254...

10/3/2005 9:21 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Leslie says, "Had Q lost 100 men, his band would have been devastated. This was not the case...."

10/3/2005 9:21 pm (et) Harry: Yep, Leslie and his "probabilities".

10/3/2005 9:22 pm (et) ks: Right...the report to Ewing. But on pg. 256 Leslie states "Had Quantrill lost one hundred men, his band would have been devastated. This was not the case..."

10/3/2005 9:22 pm (et) ks: You beat me to it, Dave. ;)

10/3/2005 9:22 pm (et) Harry: I would be more inclined to agree with Leslie if his "probabilities" and "undoubtedlies" were accompanied by some names.

10/3/2005 9:22 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Leslie points out that Q didn't need to worry abut losses, he "had no need to worry about finding replacements for whatever men he lost."

10/3/2005 9:23 pm (et) Harry: How many men took part in the raid on Lawrence?

10/3/2005 9:23 pm (et) ks: Because Ewing's Order No. 11 became his best recruiting agent...

10/3/2005 9:23 pm (et) Harry: AHG, and that's pretty interesting. If such was the case, how could the loss of 100 men "devastate" Q's command?

10/3/2005 9:23 pm (et) HankC: yes, the counties on the western border were pretty heavily populated...

10/3/2005 9:24 pm (et) HankC: hard to say Harry...some followed along hoping for plunder...500 maybe?

10/3/2005 9:24 pm (et) amhistoryguy: IIRC, the raiders numbered 400 to 450.

10/3/2005 9:24 pm (et) ks: 450 was the number Leslie used on 254.

10/3/2005 9:24 pm (et) amhistoryguy: A question I would ask Leslie, Harry : )

10/3/2005 9:24 pm (et) Harry: And how many of them would we call Quantrill's men?

10/3/2005 9:25 pm (et) Harry: A hole in his rationale, AHG?

10/3/2005 9:25 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Seems to happen with some regularity Harry

10/3/2005 9:26 pm (et) Harry: Like clockwork, ahg.

10/3/2005 9:26 pm (et) ks: What I've known about Order No. 11 has been pretty much limited to what I've read in text accompanying the famous mural. I'd really no idea that Jim Lane had that rendezvous with Ewing blaming Lawrence on Ewing.

10/3/2005 9:27 pm (et) Harry: there a good bio of Lane?

10/3/2005 9:27 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Fingers were pointing in several directions, ks.

10/3/2005 9:28 pm (et) ks: I'm not aware of any, Harry. That's not to say there isn't. I just have not seen any and I've looked at places like Fort Scott.

10/3/2005 9:28 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Interesting about Order No. 11, as terrible as everyone said it was - didn't it actually protect some of those citizens?

10/3/2005 9:29 pm (et) HankC: everyone had to leave, amhistoryguy...

10/3/2005 9:29 pm (et) HankC: either to Kansas or farther south...

10/3/2005 9:30 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Leslie points out the outrage of Order 11, but then goes on to observe that, with the civilian gone, the bushwackers suffered from lack of support, and it exposed them for what they were.

10/3/2005 9:31 pm (et) HankC: Order number 11 is a popular subject for Missouri artists...

10/3/2005 9:31 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Yes they had to leave, but in a round about way, it did protect them, since they could not be protected any other way. As terrible as it would have been to remove the residents of Lawrence, had they been forced to leave, they would have been safe.

10/3/2005 9:32 pm (et) ks: I'm just not familiar enough with the order. I read what was printed in the book and was more confused than enlightened. "except those living within one mile of the limits of Independence, Hickman's Mills, Pleasant Hill, Harrisonville...etc. " So the people in those cities and the surrounding 1 mile could stay?

10/3/2005 9:33 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Seems that way - they were close enough to be under the protection of units in those areas, as I understand it.

10/3/2005 9:33 pm (et) HankC: the 'urban' areas were exempted...

10/3/2005 9:34 pm (et) HankC: US had a strong presence there and the guerillas tended to stay away anyway...

10/3/2005 9:34 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I'm not defending the order, but it does seem to have some positive results.

10/3/2005 9:35 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Even Leslie acknowledged that.

10/3/2005 9:35 pm (et) ks: OK, and those who could get the "certificates" stating the fact of their loyalty were permitted to go to any military station in the district or any part of KS except Eastern border...

10/3/2005 9:36 pm (et) HankC: it deprived the guerillas of their civilian support...

10/3/2005 9:37 pm (et) ks: Anyway, as stated earlier, I was surprised to learn of Lane's involvement. And it's SO Jim Lane that quote that was offered, "You are a dead dog, if you fail to issue that order."

10/3/2005 9:38 pm (et) HankC: basically created a semi-dmz...

10/3/2005 9:40 pm (et) ks: Also had no idea that Ewing's political ambitions factored into the order being issued as well. He aspired to have a political career and knew Lane wasn't one he wanted angry.

10/3/2005 9:40 pm (et) amhistoryguy: When you get the opportunity, check out the OR, Series I, Vol. 13, page 833 - 34, Thomas A. Harris's letter to Sec. of War Randolph - it is an interesting comment on Confederate Policy

10/3/2005 9:41 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I sort of look at Order No. 11 as a sort of "Agent Orange" to expose bushwackers.

10/3/2005 9:43 pm (et) HankC: is Ewing related to Sherman?

10/3/2005 9:43 pm (et) ks: Appreciated inclusion of quotes from newspaper editors regarding the order and that statement from the Union men of KCMO and Loyal Refugees praising Ewing.

10/3/2005 9:43 pm (et) amhistoryguy: It is interesting with all the questionable leadership out there, the Union was not very concerned about making changes, or sending additional force.

10/3/2005 9:44 pm (et) ks: Brother in law of Sherman

10/3/2005 9:45 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Compare the military reaction to Lawrence, with the military reaction to Indian uprising in Minnesota

10/3/2005 9:45 pm (et) ks: Read in Sifakis that Ewing gave up his position as the first chief justice of Kansas's supreme court in order to join the Union army. He'd been active in the Free Soil movement.

10/3/2005 9:46 pm (et) HankC: Quantrill was not much of a threat to the overall war effort...

10/3/2005 9:46 pm (et) ks: If one compares them, what do you find, AHG?

10/3/2005 9:46 pm (et) HankC: it was more of a war on crime...

10/3/2005 9:47 pm (et) Basecat: Hank, Just to add, Cump was taken in by Ewing's Dad in Lancaster, OH after Cump's Mom died IIRC. They lived right next door to each other.

10/3/2005 9:47 pm (et) HankC: Sifakis ?

10/3/2005 9:47 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Reaction to the Indians was quick, troops were sent, hunted the raiding Indians down - as opposed to Lawrence where the reaction was basically local.

10/3/2005 9:49 pm (et) ks: Who was Who in the Civil War by Stewart Sifakis, one of the first books shotgun talked me in to purchasing about 9 years ago when I surfed into CW Chat Land. ;)

10/3/2005 9:49 pm (et) HankC: interesting comparison...

10/3/2005 9:49 pm (et) amhistoryguy: "Who Was Who in the Union," by Sifakis, I assume.

10/3/2005 9:49 pm (et) HankC: of course the Indians were easier to target...racial profiling you know ;)

10/3/2005 9:50 pm (et) ks: No, it covers more than 2,500 of the principal Union AND Confederate participants in the war. Back when I was CWi Trivia obsessed I tried to wear the thing out. Still full of flags, sticky notes, highlighting,etc.

10/3/2005 9:50 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I get your point there Hank, but actually, the Indian that most folks visualize as participating in the uprising, was not "that" Indian - but that's another discussion.

10/3/2005 9:51 pm (et) amhistoryguy: My point with that comparison is that there was an interest in Minnesota, and not so much in Missouri.

10/3/2005 9:52 pm (et) ks: Other comments on Chapter 10 and/or Order No. 11?

10/3/2005 9:53 pm (et) HankC: could be the indigenous population in Minnesota was all US not half and half?

10/3/2005 9:53 pm (et) amhistoryguy: One of the underlying reasons for the Indian uprising was that they knew the army was occupied elsewhere - and they were stunned to have a Union response. The same response to the Lawrence Massacre did not take place.

10/3/2005 9:54 pm (et) amhistoryguy: That is probably exactly why - and also why the Confederacy didn't expend its resources there.

10/3/2005 9:54 pm (et) amhistoryguy: In Missouri that is.

10/3/2005 9:55 pm (et) Basecat: ks..all I can say is those orders solved nothing, and just made the situation worse...Hard to believe that all of those living in the area the order encompassed were guilty of helping Bushwhackers etc. Then again, I think Ewing was a nut case but that's beside the point.

10/3/2005 9:55 pm (et) ks: We still have that Baxter Springs Massacre to cover, you know. And I hope you all scrolled and saw that REALLY BIG flag I didn't mean to post. ;)

10/3/2005 9:56 pm (et) Basecat: BTW..Looked long and hard, and could not find anything definitive as to how the CSA Government reacted to the Massacre in Lawrence.

10/3/2005 9:57 pm (et) ks:
Chapter 11
”Brave Men and True Were Scattered and Strewn over the Ground”: The Baxter Springs Massacre

More activities of the “fiends incarnate”

10/3/2005 9:57 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Look at Fellman, "Inside War," Basecat, there is a chapter on Union and Confederate Policy towards guerrilla warfare, including some things on Lawrence.

10/3/2005 9:58 pm (et) ks: That's another book I own, but have yet to read, AHG. Keep meaning to get to Fellman.

10/3/2005 9:59 pm (et) ks: Found an account from the New York Times, October 18, 1863 regarding Quantrill in KS and the “Massacre of General Blunt’s Escort”.

10/3/2005 9:59 pm (et) Basecat: amhg..That's one book I don't have..:)

10/3/2005 9:59 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Chapter 11 is interesting in how much it shows Q depending on his Lt.s

10/3/2005 9:59 pm (et) ks: And another from the Janesville Gazette concerning Baxter Springs...

10/3/2005 10:00 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Basically Confederate reaction was to turn a blind eye officially, and unofficially, proclaim it un soldierly etc.

10/3/2005 10:01 pm (et) Basecat: ks...What was the exact day of the massacre??

10/3/2005 10:01 pm (et) Basecat: Mention that as I look at the date at the top of the page.

10/3/2005 10:01 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The letter from the OR that I mentioned indicates that complaints to Richmond were made about guerrillas, and the confusion of just what Confederate Policy was.

10/3/2005 10:02 pm (et) ks: Yes, it does, AHG.

10/3/2005 10:02 pm (et) Basecat: amhg..In other words...They blew it off...Thanks.

10/3/2005 10:02 pm (et) ks: Was it Oct. 6th?

10/3/2005 10:04 pm (et) Basecat: ks...I could not tell from the reading..He makes mention of Blount leaving Fort Scott on the 4th, and then does not tell what day it exactly happened. I know I sorta speed read thru it today, but just re-glancing at it now, I can't find the exact date.

10/3/2005 10:04 pm (et) ks: Fort Blair had been built to protect and facilitate communications and supplies between Fort Scott in KS and Fort Gibson in the Indian Territory. Always interests me to read of events along the military road.

10/3/2005 10:04 pm (et) amhistoryguy: They hoped the guerrillas would have a positive effect on their war effort, but they could not control them anyway, so they ignored them, as long as they were outside what they considered the "real" Confederacy. When they go to Texas, it becomes a different story.

10/3/2005 10:05 pm (et) ks: Steele and Cottrell say it was the 6th. ;) Had that book out still from chatting with Southernbelle last night. BLUNT, Basecat. Our KS CW General BLUNT. ;)

10/3/2005 10:06 pm (et) amhistoryguy: "Civil War Day By Day," shows an "action at BS on Oct 6

10/3/2005 10:06 pm (et) Basecat: Thanks ks...The reason why I asked, the 4th is my folks wedding anniversary, and that could be an explanation for the turbulence here in NJ all of these years..:)

10/3/2005 10:07 pm (et) Basecat: amhg...To me..The "real confederacy" according to Davis was what was happening in Virginia...

10/3/2005 10:08 pm (et) ks: BTW the account that I offered a link for earlier was from James Burton Pond..., the soldier who manned the howitzer that no one had been instructed how to use at Ft. Blair. Later a recipient of a Congressional Medal of Honor.

10/3/2005 10:08 pm (et) Basecat: for you Blunt, had no idea he went insane and died in an asylum...

10/3/2005 10:08 pm (et) Basecat: Pardon the spelling here...

10/3/2005 10:09 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Just me but I would extend that to VA, SC, GA, Miss, and parts of TX, TN, NC, and AL

10/3/2005 10:10 pm (et) Basecat: Again, it amazes me how Q kept getting away...I would think after what happened in Lawrence, that would have been the most important thing to do out that way...

10/3/2005 10:10 pm (et) Basecat: Tracking him day by day non stop. I know they tried, but boy, the lack of supplies and horses and men ..anyway I don't get it.

10/3/2005 10:11 pm (et) ks: Yep...thought we read in some other book that insanity was brought on by some sexually transmitted disease. Will have to check the sources.

10/3/2005 10:11 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Slipped right by me...Gonna have to pick up the new bio. on Blunt one of these days.

10/3/2005 10:12 pm (et) ks: Well he stole the best horses and those left to pursue him usually had the used up nags. One can't pursue with that kind of horse flesh. Also Q seemed to usually have the greater numbers that that of the Federal forces around him. We read of incidents like that.

10/3/2005 10:12 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I don't think the effort was very well directed towards "getting" Q. Disorganization, and to some extent, there was a fear of him.

10/3/2005 10:13 pm (et) Basecat: ks and amhg..Fear is the key word, just from reading the accounts...sorta reminded me of those who were sent after NBF...

10/3/2005 10:14 pm (et) Basecat: Know I am backtracking, but was spellbound reading about what happened in Lawrence...Knew it was bad, but not that bad.

10/3/2005 10:15 pm (et) ks: The image of the flag that you'll find in the scroll is the one Gregg referred to as the finest he'd ever seen. Presented to blunt by the ladies of Leavenworth. Housed at the KS State Historical Society. Q took it as a trophy and about a year later fragments of the flag were recovered in Arkansas by the Fourth Iowa Cavalry and returned to the general. His daughter Sadie eventually placed the fragments in some order so they could be framed. Sadie and her brother later donated the presentation flag (above) to the Kansas State Historical Society, along with some of Blunt's accouterments.

10/3/2005 10:16 pm (et) ks: Go ahead and backtrack, Basecat. I knew you wanted to be able to speak of the massacre at Lawrence since you didn't get to do so in detail last week.

10/3/2005 10:16 pm (et) Basecat: Saw the flag in the scroll...:) That thing was a beaut.

10/3/2005 10:16 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Q's reputation seems to have attracted the worst of the worst, which contributed to the horror at Lawrence.

10/3/2005 10:17 pm (et) ks: And Baxter Springs. I was aghast reading about the little drummer boy being burnt alive.

10/3/2005 10:18 pm (et) Basecat: ks..well for one, a question popped up here, and knowing how many times you have been there, it seems a lot of the streets in town are named after the states in the NE where the early settlers came from...Are all the so called Abolitionist states have streets named for them out that way??

10/3/2005 10:18 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Somewhere in my reading, I saw an explaination of how Q and his men could possibly be seen as a heroic bunch - the basis being that they were avenging Union atrocities, and "protecting" the common folk.

10/3/2005 10:19 pm (et) ks: There are also CSA states for street names, Base. :) NTH lives on Louisiana just a few blocks from Mt. Oread proper.

10/3/2005 10:19 pm (et) ks: *gasp!* NTJ....

10/3/2005 10:20 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The violence does not, IMO, even have the intent of terror, it is violence for the sake of violence

10/3/2005 10:21 pm (et) Basecat: Other thing I noticed and will ask...I wonder if the Skaggs who was caught at the end of the raid is related to singer Ricky Skaggs, as he is from Kentucky as well...Will also add, how heroic the women were, and that's a part of the story, for the entire war that is rarely discussed, IMHO.

10/3/2005 10:21 pm (et) ks: Killing for the sake of killing

10/3/2005 10:21 pm (et) amhistoryguy: How they were killed makes it worse than killing to kill, IMO

10/3/2005 10:22 pm (et) ks: The last sentence in tonight's reading I thought was telling...I'll type.

10/3/2005 10:23 pm (et) Basecat: amhg...The whole thing disgusted me...and will say this, a lot has been written about and spoken about what Sherman supposedly did on the March to the Sea...That's nothing compared to what both sides out there did during the war.

10/3/2005 10:24 pm (et) Basecat: We are fiends from Hell..Only thing those idiots got right..IMHO.

10/3/2005 10:24 pm (et) ks: "Beginning in August 1863, and continuing even after the war's conclusion, one finds startlingly frequent references in letters, diaries, and newspaper articles written by loyal citizens and even in cold Federal military reports to the bushwhackers as "demon," "devils from hell," and "fiends incarnate." In the midst of the Lawrence raid one brute had brushed aside the pleas of a woman saying, "We are fiends from hell," and many accepted the assertion as almost literal, doctrinal truth.

10/3/2005 10:25 pm (et) amhistoryguy: It's almost as if the "war" in that area, had nothing to do with the Civil War as we know it.

10/3/2005 10:26 pm (et) Basecat: amhg..Exactly.

10/3/2005 10:26 pm (et) ks: Not to rush anyone, but I have a question about how you'd like to proceed with reading and finishing this book. If I've figured correctly, there are 157 pages left including the Epilogue. How much of a chunk are you guys up for for next week?

10/3/2005 10:27 pm (et) ks: I'm NOT proposing doing it all. Chapters break down as chunks of 19, 38, 29, 36 and then 35 pages for the Epilogue. Suggestions for next week's reading length?

10/3/2005 10:27 pm (et) amhistoryguy: They were proud of being "fiends from hell," which adds to the disturbing nature of the conflict - at war's end, how do you turn that attitude off?

10/3/2005 10:27 pm (et) Southernbelle: Im going to butt in here and agree with that statement amhg, its like both sides were left to do their own thing

10/3/2005 10:27 pm (et) ks: Proud of it and gathered for reunions. That's scary too.

10/3/2005 10:27 pm (et) Basecat: ks...12 and 13 would be aok with me...57 pages...

10/3/2005 10:28 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I have no preference ks, I have no life outside of this group : )

10/3/2005 10:28 pm (et) ks: :) AHG

10/3/2005 10:29 pm (et) ks: 57 is fine by me. I just wanted to hear from you all. Babs wasn't caught up yet tonight. Perhaps the light assignment will allow her (and others) to get caught up and rejoin us for the finish.

10/3/2005 10:29 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Proof ? I'm here almost as much as Teej !

10/3/2005 10:30 pm (et) ks: And that's our (the rest of us) good fortune, AHG. Glad to have you around. ;)

10/3/2005 10:30 pm (et) Vickie: that will also give me a couple weeks before we start the next book :-)

10/3/2005 10:31 pm (et) Basecat: with stuff going on around here..57 pages is the most manageable.

10/3/2005 10:31 pm (et) Basecat: Just am glad I caught up today, as I read most of it this morning.

10/3/2005 10:32 pm (et) ks: Please feel free to keep on chatting, but I'm going to log off.