It was changed. We had several POW camps around here
in Southern Illinois.
John
--- Marshall Thayer <zephyr9903@e...> wrote:
> >>> The reason was that the POW's and US personel
> would be
> hauled in and out by train, i.e. revenue.
> John D. Mitchell, Jr. <<<
>
> . . . as would the original building supplies, as
> well as food, clothing, etc. - it would, in effect,
> add a new small city to the route.
>
> It also meant that previously undeveloped land would
> be available to a new user in a more
> shipper-intensive form after the war.
>
> There was a point in the original post which puzzled
> me:
>
>
> >> The government declined the railroad's offer,
> based on guidelines in place at the time for
> locating internment camps that said facilities to
> house POWs should not be located in areas with a
> mean annual temperature of less than 56 degress
> Fahrenheit, citing savings in construction and
> heating costs gained by placing camps in more
> moderate climates. (DRURY) <<
>
> This regulation must have been changed, because I
> grew up in SE Iowa with the knowledge that there had
> been a substantial POW camp somewhere in Iowa, and
> recall having met a couple of ex-POWs who opted to
> stay after the war . . .
>
> I can't recall off-hand where the camp was located,
> however.
>
> Marshall Thayer
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
|