Union vs CSA Guerrilla

[leftyhunter]

Late also. So what in blazes happened in Missouri and Kansas? 18th Virginia's been going through first hand accounts from civilians. It sounds like a whole, different war was occurring out there, both sides and really evenly- while military battles raged east, civilians were victims sure, but sounds like some were not shy about joining groups? Sorry if it's too broad a question. When I try to look up answers all you get are the well known guerillas, and those would be Confederate. What you read is a really bloody, out of control war over territory- one as savage as the other. Having no background other than all the legend, it was shocking reading.

Their was as this thread notes guerrilla warfare in all eleven states of the Confederacy plus major guerrilla activity in Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Their were some guerrilla raids in Kansas and apparently limited guerrilla warfare in Southern Illinois.
The amount of guerrilla warfare varies from state to state and country to country.
The guerrilla warfare of the Civil War is in a sense the most modern aspect of the Civil War in that other nations as previously mentioned use Civil War guerrilla techniques to this day
Also has in the present day rules of warfare are meant to be broken.
Leftyhunter

 

[TerryB]

In Middle Tennessee, up on the Cumberland Plateau, both sides had active guerrilla bands. Champ Ferguson's company often fought alongside regular CS cavalry units that were operating behind the lines. Champ had a regular commission, but info is sketchy as to what uniforms if any his band wore. His photo taken in Nashville, presumably at the time of his trial, shows him wearing what was described as a gray Confederate military style (frock?) coat. His nemesis, Capt. Tinker Dave Beaty headed a company of irregular partisan scouts who were independent and pro-Union. After the war they were granted official status. Generally, there were enough regular CS and US forces in the area to fight pitched battles, but when Dibrell rejoined Wheeler in late 1864, Champ's band went with him. By that time all organized regular CS units in the area had been recalled, leaving the country at the mercy of bushwhackers and Union guerrillas. Until that time, you could say there was a standoff in the Upper Cumberland.

 

[leftyhunter]

In Middle Tennessee, up on the Cumberland Plateau, both sides had active guerrilla bands. Champ Ferguson's company often fought alongside regular CS cavalry units that were operating behind the lines. Champ had a regular commission, but info is sketchy as to what uniforms if any his band wore. His photo taken in Nashville, presumably at the time of his trial, shows him wearing what was described as a gray Confederate military style (frock?) coat. His nemesis, Capt. Tinker Dave Beaty headed a company of irregular partisan scouts who were independent and pro-Union. After the war they were granted official status. Generally, there were enough regular CS and US forces in the area to fight pitched battles, but when Dibrell rejoined Wheeler in late 1864, Champ's band went with him. By that time all organized regular CS units in the area had been recalled, leaving the country at the mercy of bushwhackers and Union guerrillas. Until that time, you could say there was a standoff in the Upper Cumberland.

I have a thread on Tinker Dave. East Tn was pretty wild no doubt. Col.Kirk's 2nd and 3rd North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union was active in Tn as well as western North Carolina and had many men from both states as well as a few from Ga. I also have a thread on Col. Kirk. I take it Tinker Dave's men where eligible for Union pensions post war?
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

Has long as they wote b

Has long as they wear the standard Confederate uniform yes they are conventional troops and are entitled to not be shot if captured. If found wearing a Union uniform or civilian atire General Order 100 comes into play.
Leftyhunter

Then I guess the same would hold true for vaunted Jessie Scouts would it not? Also the Mosby Men that were strung up by Audie Custer in Virginia? Niether side "played" fair" however Forrest's men wore captured uniforms, albiet many times dyed black, Shelby's men wore captured uniforms,as did Marmaduke's. The wearing of captured uniforms in most cases was due to the CSA's ability to suppley their forces especially in the West and Trans-Miss.To an extent that wad part of the reason it was done by Partisans, but only part.
What ever GO 100 said it really didn't matter given the execution order given Halleck early or fairly early, Partisans were pretty durn sure they'd be shot or hung upon capture whether they were wearing a CS uniform or a clown costume.

 

[Borderruffian]

Samuel Hildebrand would ride around in a Union uniform and ask slaves where were the bushwackers and if they told him he would hang them as an example to others.
Leftyhunter

Well you have to wonder if it did send a warning or not. Southern Partisans, did similar to unionists in West &central Mo. especially Anderson and later Clements Bamds while dressed in blue , you also already mentioned the MSM's use of the same ploy, possing as Guerillas. So apparently it was very well used in Misssouri, again you have to wonder of the results.

 

[Borderruffian]

Late also. So what in blazes happened in Missouri and Kansas? 18th Virginia's been going through first hand accounts from civilians. It sounds like a whole, different war was occurring out there, both sides and really evenly- while military battles raged east, civilians were victims sure, but sounds like some were not shy about joining groups? Sorry if it's too broad a question. When I try to look up answers all you get are the well known guerillas, and those would be Confederate. What you read is a really bloody, out of control war over territory- one as savage as the other. Having no background other than all the legend, it was shocking reading.

It was an entirely different war in Missouri and to an extent Kansas.The Border had been at war since roughly 1854 on and off, that eventually morphed and heated up in 61 causing Kansas to renew it's raids and attacks on Missouri and also people from slave states living within Kansas, not slave holders as slavery was not legal in the beknighted flatland to west, just people of southern background, Missourians during the border war did raid into Kansas, however the first small partisan bands were in response to Lane and Jennisons raids into Missouri as pretty much retribution for Missouri raids during the Border war and to punish "evil" slave holders and "secesh". Who everyone in the North knew where "secesh and slave holders thanks to that Twit Horace Greely's published screed's against Missouri during the Border Troubles.

The Partisan's units grew from small to larfer and Large when the Union Occupied the "Black Belt" of the MRV blocking routes to the MSG and CS forces for man wishing to enlist. TRhey further enlarged when Gamble required mandetory enrollment in the Unionist EMM,

Missouri's war became every thing a real Civil War is. Nieghbor against Nieghbor father against son brother against brother.It was not the honrable war of the "great" war in the east , excuse me the stalemate in the easet. it was bloody horrible and it in many ways continued well after Saint Bobby E. Lee, gave up the Ghost in Virginny.That's the short of it,

 

[leftyhunter]

Well you have to wonder if it did send a warning or not. Southern Partisans, did similar to unionists in West &central Mo. especially Anderson and later Clements Bamds while dressed in blue , you also already mentioned the MSM's use of the same ploy, possing as Guerillas. So apparently it was very well used in Misssouri, again you have to wonder of the results.

Apparently it worked out since as mentioned other countries and Islamic terrorist organizations use the disguise
technique.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

did

Then I guess the same would hold true for vaunted Jessie Scouts would it not? Also the Mosby Men that were strung up by Audie Custer in Virginia? Niether side "played" fair" however Forrest's men wore captured uniforms, albiet many times dyed black, Shelby's men wore captured uniforms,as did Marmaduke's. The wearing of captured uniforms in most cases was due to the CSA's ability to suppley their forces especially in the West and Trans-Miss.To an extent that wad part of the reason it was done by Partisans, but only part.
What ever GO 100 said it really didn't matter given the execution order given Halleck early or fairly early, Partisans were pretty durn sure they'd be shot or hung upon capture whether they were wearing a CS uniform or a clown costume.

If Forrest's men dyed their captured uniforms from blue to black that does raise an interesting issue since in low light conditions dark blue and black arguably look the same.
I don't know who the Jessie Scouts were.

If Confederate Calvery men wear Union uniforms then one would think GO 100 is good to go. During the Battle of the Bulge the U.S. Army executed members of the Brandenburg Brigade who wore U.S. Army uniforms. I would argue General Halleck's GO 100 was a solid and legally justified policy.
Leftyhunter

 

[TerryB]

I have a thread on Tinker Dave. East Tn was pretty wild no doubt. Col.Kirk's 2nd and 3rd North Carolina Mounted Infantry Union was active in Tn as well as western North Carolina and had many men from both states as well as a few from Ga. I also have a thread on Col. Kirk. I take it Tinker Dave's men where eligible for Union pensions post war?
Leftyhunter

I think so. I saw records to the effect that they had applied for official status and received it after the war.

 

[TerryB]

If Forrest's men dyed their captured uniforms from blue to black that does raise an interesting issue since in low light conditions dark blue and black arguably look the same.
I don't know who the Jessie Scouts were.

If Confederate Calvery men wear Union uniforms then one would think GO 100 is good to go. During the Battle of the Bulge the U.S. Army executed members of the Brandenburg Brigade who wore U.S. Army uniforms. I would argue General Halleck's GO 100 was a solid and legally justified policy.
Leftyhunter

Jessie Scouts were Union men originally under Fremont in the West, and were named after his wife. They wore CS uniforms on their missions and were soon transferred to the Valley of Virginia. See my thread on Capt. William Lawton, Union Spy.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/who-was-capt-william-j-lawton-union-spy.84635/

 

[leftyhunter]

Best I can do is link passages that I have read. Through searching for more info I found this link but nothing about the guy I was looking for (Bailey Low) and the hows and whys he was killed or why he left the Union side for the Confederate side. In researching the unit, there were many in the regiment not happy about emancipation. My suspicion given the date of desertion and changing sides may relate to that, but only my speculation.

Per the book " A Southern Boy in Blue " by Marcus Woodcock a young man from central Tn who enlisted in the 6th Ky USV very little desertion occurred due to the EP. Guerrilla war in Ky occurred fairly soon after both Polk and Grant entered Ky per Daniel Sutherland's book"the Decisive role of guerrillas in the Civil war" Univ of North Carolina Press p.38.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Same site but this is everything his blog has tagged under "guerrilla".
http://eakycivilwar.blogspot.com/search/label/guerrillas

P.80 of Sutherland notes that it was very difficult for Union soldiers to know who their allies and enemies where in Ky which is very common in COIN conflicts around the world.
John Morgan w( who's men did wear Union uniforms on some occasions) Champ Ferguson and a group known as the"Red Rangers led by Capt. Bails"are some of the better known Confederate guerrillas in Ky.
"To their credit , the will to resist among both Kentucky and Tennessee Unionists generaly rose in proportion to the advance of Union forces. Once certain that they could rely on the armies protection, tories lost no time in flogging rebel sympathizers"in payment for past treatment".
P.81 Sutherland
A basic premise of COIN warfare is that COIN forces need to establish a major presence in a given area and then recruit local militia that knows that the larger regular forces will back them up in a major firefight with guerrillas. That concept was very well known in the Civil War. Union forces when they established themselves often could and did recruit local Unionist militias especially in Northtern Al and Tn once Union forces entered Ky they also where able to recruit local militias.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

So what in blazes happened in Missouri and Kansas?

It's a very good question without a simple answer. Trouble started well before the actual war, as eastern abolitionists attempted to flood Kansas with abolition-minded immigrants. Some Missourians (some of them slave holders) had already begun to move westward into that territory. Kansas would vote whether to become a free or a slave state when it came into the union as a state, so the free-state immigrants were moved into the territory for the express purpose of voting "free". Border Ruffians (as they were called) from Missouri crossed the border, intimidated voters in local elections, voted illegally, etc. Some of them killed Kansans in the process. This was all an attempt to sway the inevitable vote when the territory applied for statehood. Militant abolitionist groups began to raid into Missouri, stealing slaves and taking them back to Kansas where they were freed. By the time the war really started, fighting had been going on along the Missouri Kansas border for about five years.

Missouri was a bit of an oddity. It was a border state with a large part of its elected government in exile, with a largely appointed but unelected government ostensibly running civil affairs, with martial law in place throughout the state, and with a star in the flags of both the USA and the CSA. It was a legal slave state where most people did NOT own slaves.

The Missouri State Guard was a pro-southern force that enjoyed some huge successes in Missouri early in the war. However, they were soon driven from the state. After officially becoming part of the Confederate army, this force was deployed in areas south and south east of Missouri. Meanwhile various out of state union troops, local militias and home guard units were deployed to keep a lid on Missouri. Local boys who wanted to defend their homes and families from what they saw as an occupying force had two choices: Try to keep their heads down and remain neutral or go to the bush. Many did NOT want to fight in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc. Those who went to the bush became
guerrillas or bushwhackers (depending on your point of view). Many of those who tried to remain neutral or who had come home under parole were eventually driven south or to the bush by the Missouri Enrolled Militia act, which required their service.

While all of this was transpiring, paramilitary forces and militia cavalries from Kansas (Redlegs and Jayhawkers) stepped up their raids. It evolved more or less along these lines: If you're going to steal slaves from a farm, you might as well steal wagons and horses to transport them...and feed for the livestock...and food for the slaves...etc. Let's take it upon ourselves to punish some of these farmers, too. Let's burn out those who resist. Let's destroy crops in fields and drive off other livestock. It would be a shame to burn up all these household goods, let's load as much as we can in these wagons and we'll "liberate" that property in Kansas, too.

The Missouri guerrillas, rangers, bushwhackers, et al. fought back, raiding, ambushing and doing plenty of their own killing. Eventually, they did plenty of their own terrorizing, too.

There were fighters with high personal principles on both sides and there were scum bag opportunists on both sides.

Soon atrocities were committed by raiders on either side. Retribution occurred. People informed on their neighbors. Grudges were formed. Civilians were tortured by troops of either side for information about "the enemy". Women saw their husbands and sons murdered, saw them kidnapped and later found them shot or hanged. In at least one instance, a new widow was turned out of her house in deep snow and forced to torch her own house--then left to her own devices.

Civilian businesses were closed or destroyed because the owner expressed displeasure at the conduct of the occupying troops. Stores were plundered of their goods because the owners were accused of being secessionist. Wives and mothers were banished for attempting to send letters to their husbands and sons. Food and feed were confiscated by soldiers from all units passing through any given area.

Ken Burns said that no population anywhere suffered worse than the civilian population of Missouri. I tend to agree, although I'm sure the survivors of Lawrence might have argued with him.

It is difficult to find a completely objective book about the guerrilla war in Missouri. One not-so-objective (but very fascinating) book is "Quantrill and the Border Wars" by a Kansas historian named William Elsey Connelley. It was written early in the twentieth century and Connelley actually met and befriended many of the characters. He is jaded about Quantrill to the point of fabricating things he couldn't possibly know about, but he is remarkably fair minded in his dealings with many of the other Missourians. He is also remarkably fair minded in his condemnation of some of the Jayhawkers. It's fascinating to read of his conversations with J.O. Shelby and other characters of the day.

Another good source is simply called "The Gregg Manuscript". It was written by former guerrilla William Gregg at the request of Connelley, and is available free online. As Leftyhunter has inferred, T. J. Stiles's book on Jesse James is another interesting resource. In many cases, he is quoting or paraphrasing Connelley, who, in turn, is referencing Gregg, but he provides an interesting post war look into the minds of James and some of the other social outlaws.

Some of the other guerrillas wrote post war memoirs which give a glimpse into happenings during the war years.
Some of these sources are challenged for the accuracy of dates and so on, and you must remember that they were written from the guerrilla perspective. Nevertheless, they can be fascinating reading. Cole Younger's book is available free online. So is John McCorckle's. "Babe of the Company", by Hamp Watts, is very good.
"With Porter in North Missouri" is fascinating.

Here are a few useful links which should provide many evenings of reading:

http://digital.library.umsystem.edu...gn=full text;idno=civc000048;view=image;seq=1

https://archive.org/details/threeyearswithqu01mcco

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23421097M/A_thrilling_record

http://penningtons.tripod.com/charleythehorse2665-2.html

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24585?msg=welcome_stranger

http://digital.shsmo.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/amcw/id/15641


...and, from a civilian perspective:

http://mogenweb.org/cooper/Military/The_Secret_of_The_Key_and_Crowbar.pdf

http://digital.shsmo.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/amcw/id/10829/rec/1


Hope this helps!

 

[leftyhunter]

It's a very good question without a simple answer. Trouble started well before the actual war, as eastern abolitionists attempted to flood Kansas with abolition-minded immigrants. Some Missourians (some of them slave holders) had already begun to move westward into that territory. Kansas would vote whether to become a free or a slave state when it came into the union as a state, so the free-state immigrants were moved into the territory for the express purpose of voting "free". Border Ruffians (as they were called) from Missouri crossed the border, intimidated voters in local elections, voted illegally, etc. Some of them killed Kansans in the process. This was all an attempt to sway the inevitable vote when the territory applied for statehood. Militant abolitionist groups began to raid into Missouri, stealing slaves and taking them back to Kansas where they were freed. By the time the war really started, fighting had been going on along the Missouri Kansas border for about five years.

Missouri was a bit of an oddity. It was a border state with a large part of its elected government in exile, with a largely appointed but unelected government ostensibly running civil affairs, with martial law in place throughout the state, and with a star in the flags of both the USA and the CSA. It was a legal slave state where most people did NOT own slaves.

The Missouri State Guard was a pro-southern force that enjoyed some huge successes in Missouri early in the war. However, they were soon driven from the state. After officially becoming part of the Confederate army, this force was deployed in areas south and south east of Missouri. Meanwhile various out of state union troops, local militias and home guard units were deployed to keep a lid on Missouri. Local boys who wanted to defend their homes and families from what they saw as an occupying force had two choices: Try to keep their heads down and remain neutral or go to the bush. Many did NOT want to fight in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc. Those who went to the bush became
guerrillas or bushwhackers (depending on your point of view). Many of those who tried to remain neutral or who had come home under parole were eventually driven south or to the bush by the Missouri Enrolled Militia act, which required their service.

While all of this was transpiring, paramilitary forces and militia cavalries from Kansas (Redlegs and Jayhawkers) stepped up their raids. It evolved more or less along these lines: If you're going to steal slaves from a farm, you might as well steal wagons and horses to transport them...and feed for the livestock...and food for the slaves...etc. Let's take it upon ourselves to punish some of these farmers, too. Let's burn out those who resist. Let's destroy crops in fields and drive off other livestock. It would be a shame to burn up all these household goods, let's load as much as we can in these wagons and we'll "liberate" that property in Kansas, too.

The Missouri guerrillas, rangers, bushwhackers, et al. fought back, raiding, ambushing and doing plenty of their own killing. Eventually, they did plenty of their own terrorizing, too.

There were fighters with high personal principles on both sides and there were scum bag opportunists on both sides.

Soon atrocities were committed by raiders on either side. Retribution occurred. People informed on their neighbors. Grudges were formed. Civilians were tortured by troops of either side for information about "the enemy". Women saw their husbands and sons murdered, saw them kidnapped and later found them shot or hanged. In at least one instance, a new widow was turned out of her house in deep snow and forced to torch her own house--then left to her own devices.

Civilian businesses were closed or destroyed because the owner expressed displeasure at the conduct of the occupying troops. Stores were plundered of their goods because the owners were accused of being secessionist. Wives and mothers were banished for attempting to send letters to their husbands and sons. Food and feed were confiscated by soldiers from all units passing through any given area.

Ken Burns said that no population anywhere suffered worse than the civilian population of Missouri. I tend to agree, although I'm sure the survivors of Lawrence might have argued with him.

It is difficult to find a completely objective book about the guerrilla war in Missouri. One not-so-objective (but very fascinating) book is "Quantrill and the Border Wars" by a Kansas historian named William Elsey Connelley. It was written early in the twentieth century and Connelley actually met and befriended many of the characters. He is jaded about Quantrill to the point of fabricating things he couldn't possibly know about, but he is remarkably fair minded in his dealings with many of the other Missourians. He is also remarkably fair minded in his condemnation of some of the Jayhawkers. It's fascinating to read of his conversations with J.O. Shelby and other characters of the day.

Another good source is simply called "The Gregg Manuscript". It was written by former guerrilla William Gregg at the request of Connelley, and is available free online. As Leftyhunter has inferred, T. J. Stiles's book on Jesse James is another interesting resource. In many cases, he is quoting or paraphrasing Connelley, who, in turn, is referencing Gregg, but he provides an interesting post war look into the minds of James and some of the other social outlaws.

Some of the other guerrillas wrote post war memoirs which give a glimpse into happenings during the war years.
Some of these sources are challenged for the accuracy of dates and so on, and you must remember that they were written from the guerrilla perspective. Nevertheless, they can be fascinating reading. Cole Younger's book is available free online. So is John McCorckle's. "Babe of the Company", by Hamp Watts, is very good.
"With Porter in North Missouri" is fascinating.

Here are a few useful links which should provide many evenings of reading:

http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=civilwar;cc=civilwar;xc=1;sid=b7b3308c759f05ba8bf8659d9326ddff;q1=With Porter in North Missouri;rgn=full text;idno=civc000048;view=image;seq=1

https://archive.org/details/threeyearswithqu01mcco

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23421097M/A_thrilling_record

http://penningtons.tripod.com/charleythehorse2665-2.html

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24585?msg=welcome_stranger

http://digital.shsmo.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/amcw/id/15641


...and, from a civilian perspective:

http://mogenweb.org/cooper/Military/The_Secret_of_The_Key_and_Crowbar.pdf

http://digital.shsmo.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/amcw/id/10829/rec/1


Hope this helps!

Good post. T.J. Stiles points out that after Prices invasion quite a few guerrillas made their way to what is now the state of Montana. Of interest is that many members of the MSG where allowed by Union authorities to form their own militias nicknamed the "paw pa militia. It turned out to be one of the stupidest decisions ever has the paw pa militias persecuted local Unionists. When Price invaded the paw pa turned their muskets on Union forces. Those paw pa captured by Union troops found out that the Union authorities were not amused and thus their militia service was terminated with extreme prejudice.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Late also. So what in blazes happened in Missouri and Kansas? 18th Virginia's been going through first hand accounts from civilians. It sounds like a whole, different war was occurring out there, both sides and really evenly- while military battles raged east, civilians were victims sure, but sounds like some were not shy about joining groups? Sorry if it's too broad a question. When I try to look up answers all you get are the well known guerillas, and those would be Confederate. What you read is a really bloody, out of control war over territory- one as savage as the other. Having no background other than all the legend, it was shocking reading.

In addition to Patrick H"s reading list I would add
1. T.J Stiles " Jesse James last rebel of the Civil War
2. The Inside War Guerrilla War in Missouri" Michael Fellman
3. " The Devil knows how to ride the true story of Quantrill s Raiders" Leslie.
Missouri arguably had the most guerrilla warfare of any state. Missouri's guerrilla conflict is the best documented of the various states in the Civil War.
However in recent years academics have researched the Civil War conflict in other states. Not that these conflicts were unknown or not writen about( Tap Roots the 1948 movie loosely based on Newt Knight in Jones County Mississippi) but not as much as Missouri.
Leftyhunter

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Thank you both very much, it helps a great deal- I am genuinely interested and hugely so ( JUST what is needed, yet another Civil War topic.... hoping if I sleep with Pfantz Gettysburg #3 under my pillow it'll just soak in through osmosis, save the reading because am seriously 12 books behind.... ). THESE are atrocities. Long years worth, wherever one looks and that is just the surface. I'm not trying to start a brawl with anyone out there reading but to excise John Brown's particular piece of brutality ( with men who drank brutality for breakfast and ate ruthless for the other 2 meals ) and use it as if he were somehow singular is just ridiculous- yet we see it continually. No one who has an anti-Brown bent wishes to hear that- that his was one in uncounted what, hundreds? Does not make his better, makes it part of an inhuman chapter in our country sure as heck no one seems to talk about. I mean really- in this country, someone walks up to your front door, kills your husband, takes all your belongings and forces you to torch it. If that had occurred in Richmond or Washington, DC we'd still be screaming. Every, single time Chambersburg comes up there's a big argument, too- and there they did not shoot civilians and pitch bodies back inside the flaming home. See what I mean?

I don't know. Seems to me to be the unexplored war despite helpful links, perhaps because both sides come off looking perfectly beastly.

 

[BillO]

"Beastly" is an apt description of war.

 

[leftyhunter]

Thank you both very much, it helps a great deal- I am genuinely interested and hugely so ( JUST what is needed, yet another Civil War topic.... hoping if I sleep with Pfantz Gettysburg #3 under my pillow it'll just soak in through osmosis, save the reading because am seriously 12 books behind.... ). THESE are atrocities. Long years worth, wherever one looks and that is just the surface. I'm not trying to start a brawl with anyone out there reading but to excise John Brown's particular piece of brutality ( with men who drank brutality for breakfast and ate ruthless for the other 2 meals ) and use it as if he were somehow singular is just ridiculous- yet we see it continually. No one who has an anti-Brown bent wishes to hear that- that his was one in uncounted what, hundreds? Does not make his better, makes it part of an inhuman chapter in our country sure as heck no one seems to talk about. I mean really- in this country, someone walks up to your front door, kills your husband, takes all your belongings and forces you to torch it. If that had occurred in Richmond or Washington, DC we'd still be screaming. Every, single time Chambersburg comes up there's a big argument, too- and there they did not shoot civilians and pitch bodies back inside the flaming home. See what I mean?

I don't know. Seems to me to be the unexplored war despite helpful links, perhaps because both sides come off looking perfectly beastly.

I guess the old saying "Though shall reap what though sows" applies in all forms of war. One side was more then willing to use violence to preserve and expand slavery vs another side where many were willing to fight fire with fire.
Leftyhunter

 

[BillO]

I guess the old saying "Though shall reap what though sows" applies in all forms of war. One side was more then willing to use violence to preserve and expand slavery vs another side where many were willing to fight fire with fire.
Leftyhunter

Or, one side entered into a war of aggressive suppression and the other fought for the right to self govern.

 

[leftyhunter]

Or, one side entered into a war of aggressive suppression and the other fought for the right to self govern.

That horse has been flogged to death on other threads. In essence the cause of the conventional Civil War led to the guerrilla aspect of it. For the Unionists the cause of the guerrilla war was because of the Confederates need for manpower by mid 1862 due to loss' from mostly disease and combat related. For the Confederates it was a practical means of resistance against Union troops who occupied Confederate territory. Guerrilla war was used effectively by both sides to tie down the others troops and hinder logistical communication. Guerrilla war was not a substitute for conventional war in that ultimate victory can only be achieved in many wars by conventional troops seizing and occupying territory.
Has far has the Confederates being "self-governing" we have had previous threads dealing with just how free and fair was the vote in the Southern states for secession, If you want to debate that subject you can post a thread on the politics and secession forum. My point is that the guerrilla war was a war over slavery only on a much smaller scale.
The purpose of this thread is outlined in my first post.
Leftyhunter