Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I'm looking forward to the sequel, "War Crimes by Southern Civilians", which might include indiscriminate firing at ships on the Mississippi, partisan reprisals against Southern Unionists, and frequent civilian guerrilla (bushwhacking) activities. It was these that largely contributed to the change in Union tactics from a "soft" to a "hard" war.
With one side, it's called a massacre. With another, an affair. In reality, tragic.
Both sides did stupid things that escalated the violence that followed. Trying to fob off mistakes and errors in judgement that happened on both sides is not fair to either side nor is it good history.
Just an observation.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
This is going nowhere. For each indescretion, error, or atrocity commited by either side against whomever, there is an equal or more outrageous one committed on the other. ...
Which is what I have already said, more than once. All the charges and counter-charges simply prove it. Anyone claiming the other side was the blackguards and his side was pure is simply wrong.
Battalion is now bringing up the "St. Louis Massacre", which was surely a mess to be regretted. But his portrayal of it is extremely slanted and inaccurate. The casualties he quotes are over several days, and include those caused by Union units returning fire from civilians in the city when their columns were ambushed. By most accounts, all the shooting started on the first day when a Union officer was shot by a drunk in the crowd, and the troops then fired a volley. Like most riots, there are lots of different descriptions of what happened, and more than one version may be true, simply because any individual could only have seen a small part of it. But shouldn't we note that the initial cause here was a collection of Southern militia being clandestinely armed by Jefferson Davis for an assault on the Federal arsenal, including advice on how to use the 24-lber howitzers he had sent? Should the Union have waited until they were being blown apart to do something here?
Someone will no doubt bring up the Baltimore riots as well. Yet there again the first casualties are on the Union side, as troops moving peacefully through the city from one station to another being assaulted by a crowd. Were the troops supposed to simply let the crowd beat, stone, or shoot them? Shouldn't we at least note that Baltimore was known far and wide in those days as "Mobtown" because of the powerful gangs and the frequent riots in the city?
The defining quality of such events is that they are not clear-cut and easy to characterize. Yet the partisans of one side do not want to hear anything against their own side, and want to hear only how terrible the other side is, so they can feel justified in their own terrible acts.
Another thing to note is that this type of nasty war is usually growing up from the bottom, based on lots of little events -- not imposed from the top by the high command. The harsh actions ordered from the top in the Civil War, universally as far as I can see, come in reaction to other events, usually spontaneously arising or caused by individuals and small groups. Someone gets murdered, no matter which side, and the authorities retaliate, trying to eliminate the opposition and establish control/order.
Easy to criticize such draconian actions as occurred, but if we want to criticize fairly, we also need to show what they "should" have done instead, and how that was going to work out. That is very hard to do, in the Civil War as well as in other situations, so people shy away from it.
Which is what I have already said, more than once. All the charges and counter-charges simply prove it. Anyone claiming the other side was the blackguards and his side was pure is simply wrong.
Battalion is now bringing up the "St. Louis Massacre", which was surely a mess to be regretted. But his portrayal of it is extremely slanted and inaccurate. The casualties he quotes are over several days
No, the casualties stated were on 10 May 1861.
There were at least 10 more civilians killed in the following days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
By most accounts, all the shooting started on the first day when a Union officer was shot by a drunk in the crowd, and the troops then fired a volley. Like most riots, there are lots of different descriptions of what happened, and more than one version may be true, simply because any individual could only have seen a small part of it. But shouldn't we note that the initial cause here was a collection of Southern militia being clandestinely armed [?] by Jefferson Davis for an assault on the Federal arsenal
700 militia (poorly armed) are going to take an arsenal against 8,000 (fully armed) German home guards?
~
German Home Guard (formerly "Wide Awakes"/"Union Clubs")
Lincoln's political cronies were involved in arming and drilling this group when they were a private militia. Their purpose was to oppose the government of the State of Missouri (Treason).
Yes, Lane's sacking of Osceola is a disgrace. I'm not sure about the property damage done, but I'd pay more attention to the nine murdered people there.
I agree, murdering civilians is more outrageous than stealing their property.
Permit me to attempt to explain something I believe to be true about the MO-KAN Border War.
Initially, Missouri was populated by families from Virginia via Kentucky & Tennessee. Veterans of the War of 1812 and their progeny. Frontiersmen. Indian Fighters. They settled the land. They made it a state. The residents of western Missouri did not recognize a border between Kansas and Missouri. They looked to the west and saw it as their "Promised Land". A place for their progeney.
But in the 1840's and 50's The New England Immigrant Aid Society shipped BOATLOADS of newcomers up the Missouri River to Lawrence, Kansas. Do you ever wonder where all those regiments from Kansas came from in the first place? They were newcomers. Interlopers. They had not tamed the wilderness. They had not earned thier right to settle that land. They were being put their by speculators in the east looking to ursurp the established order of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Is the Platte Bridge Railroad Tragedy just more "wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane"?
Yes. The Hannibal-St. Joe was an even more efficient means for the usurpers to ship even more BOATLOADS of Illegal Aliens into their back yards. Those wild eyed Southern boys saw it as a tool of the tyrant and thus a legitimate target for those resisting oppression. They were just responding in the only way they knew how and their actions do not warrant any FEDERAL reprisals. Not Then. Not Now. Not Ever!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
No, John, I cannot agree with that. Governments exist for many reasons, and one of them is to protect the people against a "few wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane" -- or "Northern" or "Eastern" or "Western" ones.
No. I reckon not. I think we ought to limit the national government to just a very very few enterprises. Coining Money, Regulating Interstate Commerce and National Defense - Protecting our National Borders and Negotiating Treaties with Foreign Powers. I don't think they should police our citizenry. We can do that ourownselves, Thank you very much. I don't need no SuperCop in Washington to tell me what's right or wrong. Then or NOW!
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Aren't the Apaches just another example of wild-eyed boys raising Cain?
As a matter of fact, I'd say yes. What we have done to the Native Americans is ..... reprehensible. I don't think it is as bad as what the Spanish and the Portuguese did to 'em in Central & South America, but I truly regret my ancestors part in that matter. I ain't for giving Texas back to the Comanche or Arizona back to the Apache, but I might be willing to give New York back to the Iriquois.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You seem to be handing out "get-out-of-jail-free" cards to secessionists as you castigate Unionists.
I don't think the boys in Missouri were fighting "FOR" Jeff Davis and the Confederacy as much as they were fighting "AGAINST" Abe Lincoln and the tools of his oppresive federal government in Washington. I would give them a "get-out-of-jail-free" card and likewise I would "castigate" the Unionists.
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 05-18-2007 at 09:33 AM.
My interest is why was it so vicious in these areas? Why did people who were neighbors turn so quickly on each other?
Missouri was a very hotly contested battleground state. "More battles than in any other state save Virginia." It was truly a Civil War. Most folks don't understand it. I'm not saying I do, but it is my passion.
It truly was neighbor fighting neighbor. Brother fighting Brother. Folks around here are still stingin' from the arse whoopin' and they don't like to have their noses rubbed in it.
I have related two storys on this fourm about my family. They are both very very true. My GGG Paternal Grandfather was an officer in the Missouri State Guard. His whole farm was destroyed by Union Invaders from Iowa. My GGG Maternal Grandfather was murdered by Union Invaders from Illinois. I believe that I am here today only by the Grace of God and the skin of my grandfahers' teeth and I am truly afraid that THEY are going to stomp my kind out for good next time.
The invaders came crashing in from all sides, except the South. Them boys from Arkansas wouldn't come in or at least they didn't come in soon enough to make a difference. If Gen. McCulloch had reinforced Gen. Price after the Battle of the Hemp Bales in Lexington, Missouri, ..... We'd all be speakin' a might differently now.
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 05-18-2007 at 09:38 AM.
700 militia (poorly armed) are going to take an arsenal against 8,000 (fully armed) German home guards?
There were not "8,000 (fully armed) German home guards" protecting the arsenal, as I am sure you know. There were a small group of US Regulars doing it when the secessionists began their plot. On May 11, Lyon reported he had "... accepted, swore in, and armed 3,436 men and 70 officers of the loyal citizens of Saint Louis, as a "reserve corps," for the protection of Government property and enforcement of its laws, on the 7th and 8th instant ...", and these men had not been activated before that, so where are you getting the other 4,000+? Why maintain something else?
You also know, because I have posted the information in the past in discussions with you, that the secessionist militia was planning to attack the arsenal. They had sent representatives to Montgomery to talk with Jefferson Davis, new President of the Confederacy, about it. He had responded by sending them a shipment of arms.
These arms included two 12-lber and two 32-lber howitzers (that's what Davis said, but a different shipment was made, see below), sent upriver from Louisiana (where the secessionists had seized them from the US arsenal). They arrived on a steamer in crates marked to indicate they contained a shipment of marble. The secessionist militia had quietly brought them from the steamer into their camp as part of their plan to assault the US arsenal in St. Louis.
Jefferson Davis also sent his personal advice on how to go about attacking the place:
MONTGOMERY, ALA., April 23, 1861.
His Excellency C. F. JACKSON, Governor of Missouri:
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge yours of the 17th instant, borne by Captains Green and Duke, and have most cordially welcomed the fraternal assurances it brings.(*)
A misplaced but generous confidence has, for years past, prevented the Southern States from making the preparation required by the present emergency, and our power to supply you with ordnance is far short of the will to serve you. After learning as well as I could from the gentlemen accredited to me what was most needful for the attack on the arsenal, I have directed that Captains Green and Duke should be furnished with two 12-pounder howitzers and two 32-pounder guns, with the proper ammunition for each. These, from the commanding hills, will be effective, both against the garrison and to breach the inclosing walls of the place. I concur with you as to the great importance of capturing the arsenal and securing its supplies, rendered doubly important by the means taken to obstruct your commerce and render you unarmed victims of a hostile invasion.
We look anxiously and hopefully for the day when the star of Missouri shall be added to the constellation of the Confederate States of America.
With best wishes, I am, very respectfully, yours,
JEFFERSON DAVIS.
So we can say, absolutely for sure, that the secessionists had been plotting to attack the arsenal since at least April 17, when the Governor sent Green and Duke to get support and arms from people who were already at war with the United States, with the intention of attacking the United States himself. This is an exact fit to the definition of Treason in the US Constitution, isn't it?
Lyons, knowing these weapons had arrived, called up the home guard and moved to surround and disarm the secessionists. He did so, accomplishing it with no violence at all. It was only on the return trip that trouble with the crowd erupted.
The weapons were shippedaboard the steamboat Swan, which was later seized. Lyon was asked to explain that action, so here is record of what was actually sent, and how, to arm those "700 militia (poorly armed)" you are talking about. They actually look to be powerfully armed:
BOONEVILLE, Mo., June 29, 1861.
Hon. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War, Washington:
SIR: In reply to your communication of the 20th instant, asking for information in regard to the steamer Swan, I have the honor to state as follows the circumstances which led to her seizure:
The Swan contracted with one Colton Green, an agent from Governor Jackson to Jefferson Davis, for the shipment of arms from New Orleans to Saint Louis, and took them on board at Baton Rouge in boxes marked "Marble." The boat's register contains a record of these boxes as shipped from Baton Rouge, the words Baton Rouge being stricken out, and New Orleans written instead. The captain and clerk of the boat were part owners, and another of the shareholders (Pegram) was on board, and knew the contents of the boxes before the boat reached Cairo, if not at the time of their shipment. Pegram took command of the boat while passing Cairo, the captain secreting himself on the boat, for the purpose of avoiding a vigorous search by the United States officers at that post--the captain being a well-known secessionist, while Pegram passed as a Union man. The arms were delivered at Saint Louis, and the day after captured in Camp Jackson. They consisted of two 24-pounder howitzers, an 8-inch siege-mortar, six Cohorn mortars, and 500 muskets, with a considerable supply of ammunition. A part only of the muskets were taken, the rest having been sent to the interior. These were all evidently United States arms, brought from the Baton Rouge Arsenal. The owners of the boat and its agents I considered as deliberately supplying the means of warfare to the troops of Camp Jackson, who as a body were evidently hostile to the United States. The boat is, in my opinion, properly a forfeit to the General Government, and should be held subject to some suitable adjustment before the courts of the country or at the close of the existing difficulties. The well-known proclivities in favor of secession of the district judge of Saint Louis make him an improper person to adjudicate the matter. The boat is now employed in transporting troops and supplies on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
N. LYON,
Brigadier-General, U.S. Volunteers, Commanding.
The statement of facts by General Lyon is known to me to be true. An additional fact, not stated by General Lyon, has some bearing upon the matter, to wit, the original memorandum of the shipment of the arms, showing that it was made at Baton-Rouge, and that the change of the boat's register was a fraud. The original invoice of the arms, signed by the ordnance officer of the Confederate States and shipped to Colton Green on the steamer J. C. Swan, is also in the hands of the Government officers.
FRANK P. BLAIR.
So how about explaining to us why you characterize this as "700 militia (poorly armed)" when they have just received "two 24-pounder howitzers, an 8-inch siege-mortar, six Cohorn mortars, and 500 muskets, with a considerable supply of ammunition", in addition to whatever arms they had before that?
Is the Platte Bridge Railroad Tragedy just more "wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John
Yes. The Hannibal-St. Joe was an even more efficient means for the usurpers to ship even more BOATLOADS of Illegal Aliens into their back yards. Those wild eyed Southern boys saw it as a tool of the tyrant and thus a legitimate target for those resisting oppression. They were just responding in the only way they knew how and their actions do not warrant any FEDERAL reprisals. Not Then. Not Now. Not Ever!
So you have absolutely no problem with the 120 dead, maimed, and injured people on the train, attacked simply because they happened to be travelling on a train the "wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane" felt like destroying? They are just "collateral damage", to use the phrase of later wars, and so there is no "war crime" against civilians? The Federals should just let them go on killing, because they're just "wild eyed Southern boys raising Cane"?
Would you feel the same if they were Southern civilians and this had been done by "wild eyed Northern boys raising Cane"? Sweep it under the carpet if it had happened down in TN or GA somewhere? Or would you then be outraged by the "war crime"?
I can't agree with you on this. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. BOTH sides have to abide by the same rules. But that's not how you see it.
Well, there is is. As you said, you "would give them a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card and likewise I would 'castigate' the Unionists". You aren't trying to make fair judgements here: you are just playing a partisan game, slandering the side you don't like and praising the side you do. You don't care about anything else; I do; and so we'll never agree.
This is where I have the trouble also. The idea that by somehow refighting the war, not the study of it, is somehow going to make a difference in its outcome.
I posted three websites on the St. Louis 'massacre' that showed in detail the events and incidents that led to the firing on the crowd that day. Did anyone read them? No, more than likely they were dismissed as 'Union' or 'Northern' propaganda, an evil plot to twist history to the victors side. What garbage!
Mistakes were made on both sides, but the affair did not happen in a vacum, events were placed into motion that led up to those deaths that took place that day. Both sides were at fault. Marching those men through the square was one of the most bone-headed things any commander could do, just an tradgey waiting to happen.
But to claim those who wanted to serve Southern interests were blameless is just poppycock. If anyone expected a bloodless takeover of the arsenal or a pain-free rebellion in the state, someone was an idiot. People just didn't fall from the sky into the square that day. People's actions and convictions and judgements put them there with thousands of civilians at risk.
This thread started with a review of a book that claims there were war crimes against southern civilians. What I have seen mostly on this thread is an attempt to keep score, that somehow Northern crimes will outnumber Southern ones, not a study of actual historical evidence with the main idea of learning from the past. Just another attempt at 'winning' a war that has already been decided, with a side dish of modern-day paranoria about todays problems with government thrown in, somehow blaming it all on the past with Lincoln and a Union victory.
I hope the book is more than that. I hope it will be worth the breath and heartbeats I will use in reading it and I desperately hope I do not feel cheated of wasting my remaining time on the planet by doing so.
I am willing to wait and read and make up my own mind, but I am not going to listen to one side of anything or any argument with out looking for the rest of the story.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
