MO Bushwhacker Victims

[archieclement]

I have never heard of French Missourians being singled out especially by either side, other then a few specific areas like Ste Genevieve think the French were more assimilated into Missouri culture and the French pre dated everyone else.

The Germans were immigrating and instead of assimilating were generally forming their own separatist communities or neighborhood's rather then choosing to blend in.

 

[Badgercwcollector]

From What I have heard that the French were into mining and the Germans were into farming. I think they all migrated to areas that were like home to them or follows relatives to the new world.

 

[byron ed]

Not sure if they victims, it appears they choose sides, and on the day or night they met their demises, they were apparently on the wrong side for that time and place.

Not sure they were victims? Let me help you out -- they were victims.

They didn't "choose" to be on the muzzle side. If that side is "wrong" it's only because it's the side they were killed on.

Your attempt to imply that because the victims were Unionist they were on the "wrong" side doesn't get a pass.

We also are aware of what's going on with responses to the effect "Unionists and the Union Army in Missouri also committed depredations on the populace that were the same or worse,"as if these particular killings of German-American civilians was just another incident in the tapestry of horrors that took place in Missouri overall, and perhaps even justified to some extent given the grave injustices borne by their killers. That won't get a pass either.

 

[byron ed]

..civilian informers who reported on their neighbors to either union or guerrilla forces, are as much responsible for their neighbors fate as the respective forces that then visited them

Civilian informers didn't do the actual shooting and killing that may have resulted from their information, so not quite as much responsible. In fact some truly believed they were avoiding shooting and killing by providing such information.

We're not gonna assign guilt from the comfort of our Lazy Boy chairs a century and a half later.

 

[archieclement]

Not sure they were victims? Let me help you out -- they were victims.

They didn't "choose" to be on the muzzle side. If that side is "wrong" it's only because it's the side they were killed on.

Your attempt to imply that because the victims were Unionist they were on the "wrong" side doesn't get a pass.

I suspect the next thing coming is to the effect "Unionists and the Union Army in Missouri also committed depredations on the populace that were the same or worse,"as if these particular killings of German-American civilians was just another incident in the tapestry of horrors that took place in Missouri overall, and perhaps even justified to some extent given the grave injustices borne by their killers. That won't get a pass either.

Next you'll be saying guerrillas caught and executed were victims.. If you join the militia you took a side as much as if you joined the guerrillas. I treat both the same, unlike some who will say its ok for one but not another,,,,,,,

 

[archieclement]

Civilian informers didn't do the actual shooting and killing that may have resulted from their information, so not quite as much responsible. In fact some truly believed they could avoid shooting and killing by providing such information.

We're not gonna assign guilt from the comfort of our Lazy Boy chairs a century and a half later.

I'll note you evidently spend a lot of time sitting in a lazy boy, I don't have one. And I have every much as right to have an opinion of guilt or innocence as you do, despite your apparent desire to dictate everyone elses…...And not quite as responsible as the ones who did the killing, isn't without any responsibility......and responsibility very well may carry consequences at times. And I treated both the same here as well.

I'll note we disagree, I wont presume to form your opinion as you do with what we will or wont do, but enjoy the night in your lazy boy

 

[archieclement]

From What I have heard that the French were into mining and the Germans were into farming. I think they all migrated to areas that were like home to them or follows relatives to the new world.

The French seem fairly diversified here, originally mainly fur/Indian trade, then agriculture/commerce, then lead mining when lead was discovered west of Ste Genevieve. Not sure how many French were mining themselves, they imported 500 slaves from Santa Domingue to work the mines.

 

[Badgercwcollector]

Very interesting history for Missouri.

 

[byron ed]

I'll note you evidently spend a lot of time sitting in a lazy boy...I have every much as right to have an opinion of guilt or innocence as you do...I wont presume to form your opinion as you do with what we will or wont do, but enjoy the night in your lazy boy

You realize that Lazy Boy is a euphemism for assigning guilt from a position of comfort and hindsight. It could be a Sears or Ashley Furniture sofa, (or perhaps just a padded carpet in your case?). The point is Confederates in Missouri are long dead and don't need a defending angel, an equalizer to defend them. It's tiresome. In this case innocent civilians were victims of a raid in Missouri. It's an account, not an agenda.

 

[archieclement]

You realize that Lazy Boy is a euphemism for assigning guilt from a position of comfort and hindsight. It could be a Sears or Ashley Furniture sofa, (or perhaps just a padded carpet in your case?). The point is Confederates in Missouri are long dead and don't need a defending angel, an equalizer to defend them. It's tiresome. In this case innocent civilians were victims of a raid in Missouri. It's an account, not an agenda.

Once again you need a reading comprehension class, I haven't treated or judged confederates or unionists any differently at all so not sure where you saying I'm defending anyone....Noting both sides did the same things so holding both to the same standard isn't favoring anyone...…. the only bias is what your apparently carrying yourself, as I have treated both the same consistently.


And frankly everyone on this forum is assigning guilt or judging actions and performance from a position of comfort and hindsight...including yourself, if you feel so strongly against doing so...I'd suggest turning your computer off

 

[byron ed]

Next you'll be saying guerrillas caught and executed were victims.. If you join the militia you took a side as much as if you joined the guerrillas. I treat both the same, unlike some who will say its ok for one but not another,,,,,,,

Do you want disagreement so badly that you'd invent it? No, I wouldn't say that about guerillas caught and executed, and neither myself or anyone else here has taken a side to say it was ok to be a militia but not a guerilla.

We get it that your top priority is to defend Confederate Missouri guerillas in every case and at all mentions, including this OP about the murder of civilians. Hows about we just respect their memory and be sad about what happened to them. Blaming over a grave is inappropriate.

 

[byron ed]

...I haven't treated or judged confederates or unionists any differently at all...

Yet your history here has been to defend Confederate Missouri guerillas in every case and at all mentions, not once defending Unionists. What are we supposed to gather from that?

 

[archieclement]

Do you want disagreement so badly that you'd invent it? No, I wouldn't say that about guerillas caught and executed, and neither myself or anyone else here has taken a side to say it was ok to be a militia but not a guerilla.

We get it that your top priority is to defend Confederate Missouri guerillas in every case and at all mentions, including this OP about the murder of civilians. Hows about we just respect their memory and be sad about what happened to them. Blaming over a grave is inappropriate.

They were riding to set an ambush. I'll note your idea of definition of innocent and civilian and disagree. And to try to portray them as such when they were actively trying to set an ambush to do to others what happened to them seems the combative position to me.....

I do respect their memory more then you do, I recognize they took a stand by joining the militia and were willing to die combatting those they were opposed to, I don't dismiss their actions and try to dismiss them as civilians.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

My ancestors were French and settled in st Ferdinand in St. Louis county in the early 1850s. I'm wondering if you folks know if the French received as much difficulty as the Germans.

The 'Dutch' were hated universally. People were still holding it against them 100 years later.

 

[byron ed]

...they took a stand by joining the militia and were willing to die combatting those they were opposed to, I don't dismiss their actions and try to dismiss them as civilians

I don't buy it. It's to say that the folks in those graves were armed militiamen who died in combat after riding to set up an ambush. They knew what they signed up for and their death was the consequence. Their killing was justified, they were invaders and the devil to pay.

 

[archieclement]

Yet your history here has been to defend Confederate Missouri guerillas in every case and at all mentions, not once defending Unionists. What are we supposed to gather from that?

I disagree, I cant help your bias seems to filter out half what I say, I haven't defended one more then the other at all.

You have described yourself to a T, I haven't seen you once respond to Union excesses but seem to always do to confederate. While I have said many times here both were doing same, so there's little point to condemning one and not the other.

If I recognize pro southern guerrillas were taking a stand defending what they thought right, You say I'm defending guerrillas...…

If I recognize the Unionist Germans were taking a stand defending what they thought right, You say I'm defending guerrillas

Seems your the one with some inconsistent bias, not me, because you'd portray one as active hunters, and other as poor little innocent civilians...…..even though both were taking a stand defending what they thought right

 

[archieclement]

Implying that the folks in those graves were armed militiamen who died in combat resulting from an ambush they set up.

So mischaracterizing what I said, instead of addressing the actual account is all you have, I haven't implied anything just going by account provided in the thread.

"About 50 Germans responded to the cow horns and arrived at the Lutheran Church. They divided into two groups -- one rode east to aid Germans who had set an ambush at Davis Creek, and the other group went to guard a ford. The first group encountered the hundred guerrillas near the present town of Emma. Only one of the Germans survived."

The "innocent civilians" were attempting to aid in an ambush.....seems more a combatant then civilian position to me, but will note you think ambushing people is civilian behavior apparently if it makes you feel better. Never seen "ambush" generally synonymous with "innocent" either.

I would actually assume they got caught before meeting the other group, but their intentions seem to be clear. They weren't just out for a stroll and accidently caught up in something.

 

[byron ed]

...I'll note your idea of definition of innocent and civilian and disagree.

If they were militia then, what was their unit name and commander? You have that, right? A state militia then, certainly there's a muster record we can reference. And so well equipped and trained... mustering for battle with cow horns.

It was a desperate and hopeless attempt by civilians to counter a confederate guerilla attack. You will allow them their little (yet ineffective and hopeless) strategy for defense in the face of a ruthless attack by an experienced and well-armed force -- without calling them a militia.

 

[archieclement]

I'll call them militia, but if you want to insist they were illegal Unionist guerrillas that's fine, I have no problem it doesn't change they had choose to be combatants... no matter what you choose to call them

Many what you refer to as "confederate" guerrillas would be apparently equally civilians as they were on no rosters. They just had adopted a (yet ineffective and hopeless) strategy for defense in the face of a ruthless attack by an experienced and well-armed force. I''m sure your aware of the accounts of members who joined in response to their family members being murdered or horsewhipped themselves.

Yes both sides were doing the same things, and victims from both sides would join the respective sides for retribution. That's what I've said all along.

I just differ in I'll use Jesse James as an example, when the militia visited his farm and whipped him and dry hung his stepfather he was indeed a victim......However afterwards, when he joins Bill Anderson, he choose to become a participant, he is no longer a victim...….that goes for either side, once you become a participant, even if its because of you being victimized earlier, it doesn't change you are now a active participant.

 

[byron ed]

...so there's little point to condemning one and not the other.

Or is there? By making a point to condemn both sides the attempt is to draw some blame away from the side of your preference (your agenda). In this case although civilians were killed it was their own fault for forming an ad-hoc militia and coming up with a defensive strategy. That makes the confederate attackers somewhat justified in their killing since it was a war action (though apparently the objective was not to take prisoners). See how that works? We're on to it.