Three Love letters from Joshua Chamberlain to Fanny Chamberlain - from the collection of Don Troiani
The City of Harrisburg Civil War Collection has 100 unpublished prewar JLC -Fannie luv letters which they aquired from me along with some 40 odd war letters etc. All are unpublished. I read as many of the love letters as I could tolerate. Things were definitely somewhat strange before the war started, even by Victorian standards . I think the City's plan is to publish them sometime but I am not sure if they will allow acess to interested parties..JLC was about as smitten as a human being can get but Fannie had a much cooler head.There were 3 Gettysburg letters which went in other directions ( I didn't get those but did read transcripts) which didn't have any new information. I have three unpublished JLC wartimes (one relates remotely to Gettysburg) If the Lawrence Bros. grant a special non GBG dispensation I'll print them all on this service.Don Troiani
Re. Don Troiani/Chamberlain & Letters
Having seen the same letters, through Don's generosity, I would agree that
JLC was
Best,
Re. Don Troiani/Chamberlain & Letters
Brian Pohanka says in part ..... JLC had "found" himself in
War -- and, odd as it may sound, I think Fannie was jealous of that.
Here was a man with children, with a home, with a respectable career
-- and he was jeopardizing all that.
In one letter JLC almost exults, "I was born for this" -- i.e. a
soldier's life.
And I don't think his wife understood, or could accept that.....
From a woman's perspective I don't think it sounds odd at all. This
seems to be a fairly common "phenomenon". Here was Fannie, basically
being left out of her husband's life, as it then was. She wasn't able
to share his experiences with him, he was "drifting away" from her.
In some ways I would surmise she could have been just as jealous of
his life with the army and his "army buddies" as she would have been
if another woman was involved.
It is not all that uncommon that women, depending on their sense of
security & independence, can feel VERY JEALOUS of anything that they
feel is taking "their place" with their husbands, whether it is their
jobs, outside interests, etc.
Just my opinion, so I hope I'm not offending any wives out there.
Apologies in advance. By the way, *I* don't have a jealous bone in my
body!
Pat Caldwell
My understanding of JLC's problem with Fannie (after reading 'Hands of
Providence', 'Soul of the Lion', and Tom D's 'Stand Fast') (Tom where have
you been hiding lately?) is that Fannie was a cold fish from the very
beginning of their courtship. If I recall correctly, Alice Trulock says
that prior to their marriage Fannie suggested to JLC the possibility of a
celibate relationship.
Tom seems to feel in his book that JLC in many ways tried to prove
himself worthy to Fanny through his heroic exploits. I tend to agree with
this analysis rather than that Fanny was initially a firebrand whose ardor
cooled with the absence of a husband who she felt should be home and by her
side.
Terry
Terry Moyer Says in Part
My understanding of JLC's problem with Fannie....is that Fannie was a cold
fish
from the very beginning of their courtship...>
I also thought this until I read some of the letters Don Troiani recently
turned up.
If and when they are ever published they will to an extent "re-write" the
traditional view of their prewar relationship.There is a great deal of
passion evident in them.
A few samples (pardon Don):
New York, May 1, 1852: "O those beautiful, beautiful holy flowers, my dear
Lawrence! how pretty they came to me!...I know and feel how full of love they
came...Dear one!
how sad you have been for me! and I not near to soothe and comfort you when
you were ill! I shall never dare to leave you again Dear, shall I?"
Bruswick, Sept. 22, 1852: "Your Fannie has been thinking of you ever since
you bade her good bye that sad dark night in Portland; and she dreamed about
you all last night...with all that endearing tenderness that you love to show
towards her. I never can tell you dear how desolate my poor little chamber
seemed when I came back to it from Portland...I cannot tell how I missed
you."
Brian Pohanka
Terry -
I've been hiding in Maine for 10 days and when I returned the
brothers Lawrence :) (or some electronic gremlin) had ousted me
from the list. I did not get any messages in my absence. All is
well now, however.
Regarding Fannie and Josh. This is a VERY VERY complicated
relationship. I do know that Josh simply overwhelmed Fannie with
his feelings and she was taken aback quite often by his
"neediness". They never really did find a way to understand each
other, before, during, or after the war. To a large extent, they
lived separately after the war with each one travelling when the
other was at home.
A friend of mine in Maine is working on a mound of material she
has assembled on the relationship and will likely publish it in
some form in the future. Love and marriage is a hard thing to
understand in the present, let alone more than a century
after the fact.
Tom Desjardin
Brian,
Wow. Pretty surprising stuff coming from Fanny! It seems that everytime
you learn something in this avocation, and it is all settled in your mind,
along comes yet another piece of evidence that upsets the apple cart! Oh
well, back to square one!
Don, I think everyone is looking forward to reading these letters. Thanks
for making them available. What is Chamberlain doing in 1852 that has taken
him away from Portland?
Terry
Terry
You ask
Best wishes,
To quote Tom Desjardin: " Love and marriage is a hard thing to understand in the
present, let alone more than a century after the fact." I couldn't agree more!
I think perhaps we are putting too much emphasis on their differences and not on
what together they overcame.
I don't admire JLC for his one day on LRT, the war is full of those stories of
heroics. I admire him for his tenacity and optimism! Traits that continued
long after the war had ended!
Paula Gidjunis
Terry -
JLC graduated from Bowdoin in 1852 (and then gave a commencement
address to a crowd which included Hawthorne, Longfellow, and
President-elect Franklin Pierce). By his estimate, he bombed. He
then got engaged to Fannie, and left for three years to attend the
Bangor Theological Seminary. Some have speculated that Fannie's
"flight" to Georgia for a similar period was in protest of his
decision to be away for such a long time. Ahh, love.
Tom Desjardin
JLC writes via Don Troiani
>>Would that you might
lie here under my one little piece of shelter tent - in a cosy cleft of
rocks- the glorious stars+ stripes our loved color- the 20ths- more battle
rent than ever, but the fringe still on, clinging like true love, because
fastened by the true and +loving hands- marking my head Quarters+ gaily
streaming out in the mountain breeze. How happy I should be with my darling
here for a little while just to enjoy this with me.<<
This should put to rest once and for all that men can be courageous and strong
and brave and all those other "macho" words; and yet still be sensitive! And
be able to write one helluva love letter!!!!
(Now where can I put this so my husband finds it???? I know, I'll tape it to
the TV remote!
Paula
The image of Chamberlain that still predominates is the one presented
by Shaara, Ken Burns, and the "Gettysburg" movie, i.e., JLC as an "aw
shucks" sort of guy who is really a civilian at heart but keeps coming
back to do his duty because a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do--
especially when the Flag is at stake.
As Brian Pohanka rightly points out, JLC was a much more complicaated
and ambiguous character. He was that rarest of creatures, a naturral
warrior and "found himself" through the war as few other men did
(Sheridan, Grant, and Sherman are perhaps other examples on the
Federal side, but all of them were quite different from JLC). It's
pretty clear that he couldn't be happy away from the War--it
intoxicated him and gave a dimension to his life that neither family
nor career could ever match. His wife was, I think, aware of this and
truly resented it. After the War, he was a restive and frustrated
man, always looking for at least the moral equivalent of his wartime experience.
This isn't to say that he wasn't an idealist or that he was a
mercenary who would have accepted any pretext for a fight. But he was
certainly not a typical bourgois either; there's a definite
Renaissance quality to the guy's character. Or perhaps the right
analogy is to the 4th century Athenians who combined a veneration for
military virtues with the highest kind of intellectuality and a fierce
sense of obligation to the polis. Chamberlain was a brilliant man,
but not one who could accommodate his talents to either civilian
politics or to conventional academic life after the war. There's
something Caesar-ish about him--but in a situation where Caesarism
isn't a very promising career path. I think the one moment that made
him truly happy, post-war, was the time he was the virtual military
dictator of Maine for a couple of weeks!!
Anyhow, it is, I think, much more important to read "The Passing of
the Armies" than The Killer Angels" if one is to get a sense of the
man. It's clear that this was a very unconventional man.
Norm Levitt
Re: Don and Brian's posts of JLC/Fanny letters
Maybe the sensuous love letters JLC gets from Fanny in _Killer Angels_ is
closer to the truth than I thought
"He had dreamed of her in the night, dreamed of his wife in a
scarlet robe, turning witchlike to love him. Now when he closed his eyes,
she was suddenly there, hot candy presence. Away from her, you love her
more. The only need was her; she the only vacancy in the steaming morning.
He remembered her letter, the misspelled words: "I lie here deamyly." Even
the misspelling was lovely." (166)
First I would like to add my thank the Lawrence brothers for a great muster!
T.J., Amelia and I had a fantastic time and have never enjoyed the 'burg more.
Second, would like to add clarification to the JLC letter where he refers to
Mrs. Eaton and Mrs. Fogg as ladies of the Sanitary Commission. They were
later to become agents for the Maine Camp Hospital Association, a relief
orgainization from Portland dedicated to supporting the Maine regiments.
They were traveling to each Maine regiment in that area and I suspect what
he was alluding to is that they brought letters and packages for him from
his friends in Maine. Also Mrs. Fogg was at Gettysburg July 4 to assist the
Maine men and served at the Fifth Corp Hospital (the Fiscel Farm).
They had been at Antietam and surrounding areas in Oct. & Nov. doing much
the same thing.
These two women are a real story unto themselves
but I cannot do it justice. Actually it's a little known fact but our own
Tom DesJardin is a great fan of Mrs. Fogg. He was instrumental in getting
Mrs. Fogg's grave preserved and cleaned up in Portland.And orgainized a
dedication ceremony for her as well.
Esteemed member JLCameron@aol.com contributes:
Re: Chamberlain
>>This has already started to happen with Lincoln (and if you have not read
David Donald's Lincoln, do so without delay), is a healthy thing, and should
be welcomed. <<
Bill:
I agree that this is healthy. I will repeat what I wrote in an earlier post, I
always find real life more interesting than fiction. Chamberlain was neither
saint nor sinner. He was an ordinary man who arose to life's problems with some
extraordinary actions. That's why I admire him.
I especially think that too much is made of his "failing" marriage. They had
problems, what marriages don't? But they overcame those problems and both were
very devoted to each other. Research is being done right now, that will change
the views of that marriage. The views we now have of that marriage are mostly
from Rosamond Allen, the Chamberlain's grand-daughter and their only living
direct descendent. She apparently did not like her grandmother very much, and
thus our views are tainted.
Paula
Esteemed member Patty Lindsay and Lee Fuell
Paula,
Re:
> Esteemed member Paula Gidjunis <75613.1751@compuserve.com> contributes:
> I especially think that too much is made of his "failing" marriage. They had
> problems, what marriages don't? But they overcame those problems and both were
> very devoted to each other. Research is being done right now, that will change
> the views of that marriage. The views we now have of that marriage are mostly
> from Rosamond Allen, the Chamberlain's grand-daughter and their only living
> direct descendent. She apparently did not like her grandmother very much, and
> thus our views are tainted.
As I've said before, a better understanding of JLC's post-war life,
it's successes and failures, suffering and happiness, and his
long-term medical problems will greatly enhance our understanding
and interpretation of his speeches and writings, helping us find the
deeper meaning behind the simple "who did what to whom" in his work.
I think what Norm Levitt was getting at in his post last week was
that it is important that we realize that nothing in JLC's post-war
life ever measured up (in his own mind) to his achievements in the
war, and we must keep this in mind when we read what he wrote in the
almost 49 years between Appomattox and his death.
Regards,
Lee Fuell
When I read "In the Hands of Providence", (its been a little while now) I
interpreted the marital problems as appearing quite typical of the era. From
a late 20th century point of view, they were in pretty bad shape; but, from
that era, and in the events of that time, they were probably not as unusual
as we might think.
Esteemed member Patty Lindsay and Lee Fuell
>> In all honesty, I must say that the available PUBLISHED
material right now does support an assessment of a somewhat rocky
marriage, and a Fanny who is a bit selfish and irresponsible. As I
understand it, this assessment may not be entirely accurate, due to
the inherent biases in the source material upon which it is based.
This is why I am eager to see the results of the ongoing research you
reference (hi, Diane...), hoping it will set the record straight
about this remarkable man's personal life.<<
Lee:
>>I think what Norm Levitt was getting at in his post last week was
that it is important that we realize that nothing in JLC's post-war
life ever measured up (in his own mind) to his achievements in the
war, <<
I agree!
Paula
If and when Harrisburg permits the publication of these letters, I think what
they will show is that in the first years of their relationship -- from the
rather long courting stage into the first years of their marriage -- there
was real passion and even more so, a "meeting of the minds" between JLC and
Fannie. Her letters in particular reveal a woman of great depth and
complexity -- extremely well read, serious, not at all "girlish" in that
stereotyped (and I think largely false) view so many have of "Victorian"
women -- These two were well matched -- and there is a lot of back and forth
that while "flowery" and "romantic" shows two very active, agile and somewhat
hyperactive minds....Two strong wills. I think when the war came the real
troubles began -- and, not to indulge in psychobabble, it seems that Fannie
became "jealous" of this new passion JLC felt for the role of Soldier. She
could not fathom it -- he writes with exultation of the deeds of the 20th, of
the Army, and by extension his own....I think this is the beginning (even
before his terrible wound) of what we see revealed even more intensely in his
postwar writings and speeches.
While I don't think these letters will be earth-shattering revelations to
anyone who has seriously studied and contemplated the Chamberlains, I do
think that -- if they are ever permitted to be published -- they will show
Fannie in a more interesting, and perhaps more sympathetic light.
Brian Pohanka
In response to the question about Chamberlain being wounded 7 times :The
Pejepscot Historical Society's (JLC Museum ) Bio on JLC on their net site
states he was shot 6 times. Looking through my books about Chamberlain I
found the following: In the Hands Of Providence by Alice Rains Trulock
states he was grazed by a bullet on his neck and right ear at
Fredricksburg.At Gettysburg his right instep had been cut through his boot
by a shell or rock splinter and his left thigh was bruised by a spent minie
ball that hit his scabard , doubling it against his leg. He was shot throgh
the hips at Petersburg, and finally at Quaker road a bullet passed through
his horse's neck, wounded Chamberalin's bridle arm, riddled his coat sleeve
and hit ablow just below the heart where it was deflected by field orders
and a brass - backed pocket mirror. It went out the coats back seam and
then knocked his aide from his saddle.
This is my first attempt at a post. I have beeen reading all of yours for
the past two months. What a knowledgeable group. I am still a novice . I
became interested in Gettysburg and the Civil war when we visiterd
Gettysburg a year and a half ago. We have since been back twice and have
visited the Virginia Battlefields as well. I have been reading as much as I
can find about Gettysbug. I work at an elementary school . Many children I
encounter appear to know little about the war or Gettysburg. Any
suggestions on how to interest 5th and 6th graders. A field trip would be
great, but since we live in NH it's a little too far. What do you wish your
teacher had taught you?
Thanks,
Brian,
Re:
The following is a bit indelicate, but important.
> Esteemed member DZouave5@aol.com contributes:
> I think this is the beginning (even before his terrible wound) of
> what we see revealed even more intensely in his postwar writings
> and speeches.
There's that wound again - as I said, the centerpiece of his post-war
life. Based on second-hand info describing the permanent damage done
by extended periods of catheterization, I strongly suspect that JLC
suffered intermittent impotence throughout his life. Like
Hemingway's hero in The Sun Also Rises (I think...), JLC was
possibly left able to experience sexual desire, but with difficulty
being physically able to satisfy it (note: I am aware of no
competent medical analysis that verifies this, it is merely my
opinion as a partially-informed ex-paramedic). JLC was a passionate
romantic; the damage to his genitalia would be extremely frustrating
to him and contribute highly to straining his marriage - and possibly
result in some of the "vaingloriousness" (as a form of compensation)
decried by Ellis Spear.
> While I don't think these letters will be
> earth-shattering revelations to anyone who has seriously studied
> and contemplated the Chamberlains, I do think that -- if they are
> ever permitted to be published -- they will show Fannie in a more
> interesting, and perhaps more sympathetic light.
I believe esteemed member Diane Smith will agree - she said as much
in a seminar last summer. Her work, and the other work ongoing on
JLC's marital relationship, will shed important light on
understanding this man, and our understanding of his legacy to us.
Lee Fuell
In a message dated 97-01-05 21:17:28 EST, Lee Fuell wrote:
Lee, I think you are most certainly correct in your medical assumption here
-- though lacking any documentation we can only conjecture. I do think this
wound of Chamberlain's propelled him further in that direction of
spiritualizing the War --
elevating the experience to something mystical, Religious, and to the minds
of sober realists, perhaps mythologizing or glorifying it, which certainly
baffled or even angered them (Spear). I do think that Chamberlain's wartime
letters show him heading in this direction even before the wound at
Petersburg. He uses words like "love," "devotion,"
describes the "thrill" of the fight -- and these were things that Fannie
could not understand. On the one hand he writes constantly of his love for
her, in highly romantic terms -- on the other he complains of her not
writing, and her constant inquiries about money matters. He was, even before
the wound, heading off down that unique -- and to many baffling -- path of
his philosophy. He even intertwined the images of battle with his love for
his wife (again something I am sure she had trouble understanding) -- "When
the air was all ablaze above me with bursting shell, it shaped itself
sometimes into bright pictures of you" -- And, elaborating on his own,
personal view of War and the trials of War -- "God spared me that day &
though I did not pray for it -- but I thank Him since & shall always, for
such trials are blessings & a man is better & stronger for them." And this
before the wound, which as I say, served to magnify these ideas of his.
Regarding the infamous Harrisburg letters, I have been told that an
individual who is "working on a sceenplay" has gained access to them. Will
they be published? I do not know. Will this film be made? Is it just "talk",
will it be accurate? Again, who knows when it comes to "Hollywood."
Regarding Chamberlain -- Yes he has been turned into something verging on a
Christ Figure with a dose of Errol Flynn tossed in. The real man, complex,
warts and all -- is the challenge for historians to get at, somehow -- But I
honestly think he believed these things he wrote -- we can agree or disagree
with his philosophy -- but he did believe in it -- embodied it -- and became
detached from most of humankind along the way. But there is something
inspiring about it nonetheless.
Brian Pohanka
Greetings:
There is an incredible amount of documentary material available
in several different repositories concerning the relationship and
marriage of Joshua and Fannie. Most of it has been ignored or improperly
mined (Alice Trulock's account of Fannie is downright vicious and not to
be believed or trusted; I consider Trulock's biography of JLC as much a
piece of fiction as Shaara's portrait in the Killer Angels). More
information may become available when the letters between Joshua and
Fannie, currently owned and being suppressed by the City of Harrisburg,
are released for public and scholary consumption (don't hold your
breath, JLC fans), although from the tidbits that Don Troiani and Brian
Pohanka have let us see, they simply reaffirm what's already available
and known (sorry, Harrisburg, but I doubt if you've got "scoop"
material). I'd be very surprised if these letters, despite their number,
tell us anything more than we already know.
The fact is that Joshua and Fannie had a very difficult relationship from
the very start, and the marriage did not improve with age. Like in most
marriages, their relationship was complex and had its various ups and
downs over time. But it was never easy for either of them, and some of
their difficulties involved very serious issues. Much of the blame for
their troubles must rest on Joshua's shoulders, although understanding
Fannie requires understanding changing gender roles in the nineteenth
century, which Joshua had a very hard time doing and which most
historians, when it comes to the Chamberlains, have conveniently and
unwittingly ignored.
Glenn
Brian,
As always, thanks for your enlightening insight. As a "customer" of
the professional historians, I greatly appreciate not only your
opinion, but moreso your excellent use of supporting quotes from the
man to support your assessments.
> Esteemed member DZouave5@aol.com contributes:
>
> I do think this
> wound of Chamberlain's propelled him further in that direction of
> spiritualizing the War --
> elevating the experience to something mystical, Religious, and to the minds
> of sober realists, perhaps mythologizing or glorifying it, which certainly
> baffled or even angered them (Spear).
Not being particularly religious, I can't speak from experience, but
I've read a paper by Julia Oehmig of the Pejepscot Historical Society
which suggests that the roots of Chamberlain's "mystical, Religious"
view of the war, and the nature of his writings after it, lie in his
upbringing and training as a Congregationalist minister. A brief
extract from Julia's work:
"Chamberlain believed that the Country had a divine destiny, and that
God had a direct hand in guiding the nation and its affairs, to
fulfill His will...For many, including Chamberlain, the concepts of
God and Country were so intertwined, that loyalty to Country was akin
to loyalty to God. Chamberlain believed that the political existence
of the United States as a Union was necessary for America to fulfill
its divinely appointed mission. The war, then, became a holy war, a
crusade, and Chamberlain was impelled to become one of the knights
who would rescue the country and save it and its divine destiny from
desolation and treachery" (Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death:
Joshua L. Chamberlain and his Attack on Fort Hell,"Julia Colvin
Oehmig, Curator, Joshua L. Chamberlain Museum, copyright 1996
Given that kind of going-in belief, it's easy to see how his war
experiences led him where they did! (Kinda sounds like a certain
element of our current political spectrum, too, but don't get me
started on that!)
> Regarding Chamberlain -- Yes he has been turned into something verging on a
> Christ Figure with a dose of Errol Flynn tossed in. The real man, complex,
> warts and all -- is the challenge for historians to get at, somehow -- But I
> honestly think he believed these things he wrote -- we can agree or disagree
> with his philosophy -- but he did believe in it -- embodied it -- and became
> detached from most of humankind along the way. But there is something
> inspiring about it nonetheless.
Yep - a thoroughly compelling historical figure, good and bad. As
Spock would say, "Fascinating!"
Regards,
Lee, I don't know if anyone has undertaken a study of Chamberlain's academic
exposure, his reading, his knowledge of philosophy, classical studies, etc.
in an attempt to trace the intellectual sources and impetus to his own
worldview -- but it would make for thought-provoking reading. An especially
to the extent that he saw himself as acting out, as living, as embodying
those ideals with which he was familiar. Certain parts of Passing of the
Armies are quite "Homeric" in that Homeric "Order of Battle" we see in the
Iliad, for instance. And to what extent was Chamberlain "living" the role of
the "Grail King" -- who was, like Hemingway's Jake Barnes (as you noted in an
earlier post) an emasculated Romantic. Was Chamberlain at all familiar with
German or Arthurian Grail legends? Anyhow, not to stray off from that "crown
of fire" of "the blazoned coronet of fame" (LRT) -- but these aspects of the
mind and soul of the now cult figure that the Colonel of the 20th Maine has
become -- are, I suspect, as yet unexplored territory.
Best wishes,
And I don't think his wife understood, or could accept that.....
Just my read on it, Don!
Brian Pohanka
PACaldwell@mail.biosis.org says:
CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER) says:
DZouave5@aol.com says:Jan. 1, 1852: "I am sitting now at the same window where we sat together all
that night. How could you think that I would shrink from you ever! You who
seem so holy, so pure and noble to me! -- how could I even if you did press
my finger to your dear lips? O! there was nothing even then, that you could
have done that would not have seemed beautiful and right to me. Ah! those
nights! so full of terrible beauty; will they never come again?...O! dear
Lawrence I would know you more, and I would have you know me as you never
have known me. My soul longs to speak to yours as it never has spoken...I
rest in you as I never have rested before; -- you know it, do you not? and I
would be everything to you; I would nestle closely in your arms forever, and
love you and cling to you and be your 'bird': dear, precious heart!"
These are but a sampling of what is clearly, at that stage in their
relationship, a powerful and romantic attraction on both sides.
Tom_Desjardin@nps.gov (Tom Desjardin) says:
GNMP
CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER) says:
DZouave5@aol.com says:
Brian Pohanka
Paula Gidjunis <75613.1751@compuserve.com> says:
First of all I would like to thank Don Troiani, very, very much for allowing us
access to the JLC letters. As a JLC fan (and despite what Ed Nordfors and
others would have you believe, I am not blinded to his faults), I am very
anxious to know more about his relationship with his wife. I think the fact
that they had difficulties like anyone else, yet overcame those difficulties to
grow closer at the end of their lives, makes them both heroes to me.
Tom_Desjardin@nps.gov (Tom Desjardin) says:
GNMP
Paula Gidjunis <75613.1751@compuserve.com> says:
Norman Levitt
lawrence@tyrell.net (Dennis Lawrence) says:
Susan Youhn
Esteemed member Paula Gidjunis <75613.1751@compuserve.com> contributes:
Esteemed member "Douglas E. Weirich"
Esteemed member Paula Gidjunis <75613.1751@compuserve.com> contributes:
<
Esteemed member "Rick and Holly Fogg"
Holly
Esteemed member Patty Lindsay and Lee Fuell
Esteemed member DZouave5@aol.com contributes:
Esteemed member Glenn LaFantasie
Esteemed member Patty Lindsay and Lee Fuell
- and I
really hope this falls within that "fair use" doctrine; I don't want
to get kicked out of the PHS!)
Lee Fuell
steemed member DZouave5@aol.com contributes:
Brian Pohanka