Documentary of Quantrill.

[leftyhunter]

As I've said repeatedly I have no issue with you presenting your views or wanting discourse....as in this last post of yours.... I may not agree, and you don't have to agree with my opinion

Its when you misrepresent sources... either authors or fellow members here by implying they said things they didn't, that I take issue

That sounds fine. My issue is the Confederate guerrillas often get a lot of love but not so much the pro Union civilians that suffered at the hands of the guerrillas. I have never argued that the Union Army conducted an ideal counterinsurgency Campaign in Missouri or elsewhere. On the other hand they were no less brutal the the Confederacy. Counterinsurgency.
Ironically future counterinsurgency wars waged by the US Army would be more brutal and less effective.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

As I've said repeatedly I have no issue with you presenting your views or wanting discourse....as in this last post of yours.... I may not agree, and you don't have to agree with my opinion

Its when you misrepresent sources... either authors or fellow members here by implying they said things they didn't, that I take issue, As in turning Leslies words somehow into "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person"

I never stated that was Leslie's position. It does appear to be the opinion of a few on this forum.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

I never stated that was Leslie's position. It does appear to be the opinion of a few on this forum.
Leftyhunter

Not sure whose, I assumed it was from the documentary in OP, and as I pointed out previously the only person using that view in this thread has been you, no one else has said it

 

[Patrick H]

I'll repeat what I said many times, including above: Quantrill was never understood very well in life. We can't possibly understand him very well in death.

I'll also repeat that, with regard to the phrase "is misunderstood but deep down a wonderful person" is not only a serious misquote, but NOTHING useful can come from this sort of silly sarcasm.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Not a bad idea!

I got a better idea. Why don't we Missourians pick our guy and they pick theirn. I nominate Booner.

 

[Booner]

I got a better idea. Why don't we Missourians pick our guy and they pick theirn. I nominate Booner.

I don't know about that. It could get ugly. I might pull a muscle.

 

[Booner]

I just watched the video, and I found one error made by the historian named Laurenella (sp?).
If I heard right, he stated that the father of Cole Younger, Henry Washington Younger, was killed by Kansas Jayhawkers before the war.

This isn't correct, and I'm surprised a "historian" would make such a mistake, much less it gets passed over in the fact checking of the documentary.

FYI, Henry W. Younger was killed by Federal Captain Irvin Walley of the 5th Missouri State Militia Calvary in Westport, Missouri on the 20th of July 1862.

 

[leftyhunter]

I'll repeat what I said many times, including above: Quantrill was never understood very well in life. We can't possibly understand him very well in death.

I'll also repeat that, with regard to the phrase "is misunderstood but deep down a wonderful person" is not only a serious misquote, but NOTHING useful can come from this sort of silly sarcasm.

If Quantrill is misunderstood in life as well as death so is John Brown, Nathaniel Lyon, Jim Lane and Montgomery as well as all the Jayhawkers.
If Quantrill is to complex to classify as a good or bad person so are all his opponents.
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

If Quantrill is misunderstood in life as well as death so is John Brown, Nathaniel Lyon, Jim Lane and Montgomery as well as all the Jayhawkers.
If Quantrill is to complex to classify as a good or bad person so are all his opponents.
Leftyhunter

Explain why, please.

 

[Patrick H]

If Quantrill is misunderstood in life as well as death so is John Brown, Nathaniel Lyon, Jim Lane and Montgomery as well as all the Jayhawkers.
If Quantrill is to complex to classify as a good or bad person so are all his opponents.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, I'm not going to argue with you, because there is no argument to your proposition. Did you think I proposed otherwise? If so, you haven't understood me at all.

 

[Patrick H]

Coming back again to modify my previous statement: Actually, I think Lane, Montgomery, and Jennison are in a hellish league of their own. I think I might rank them with Anderson in terms of their pure hatred. I think I would rank them beyond Anderson in terms of their quest for personal booty. Anderson wasn't out for booty. He was out for blood, and he got plenty of it! So did George Todd!

Q is hard for me to define. At times, he was a ruthless as anyone. At other times, he showed a bizarre degree of chivalry. I can only try to understand this by accepting that he had a remarkable degree of duality to his personality. There is really no good way to explain him.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

Q is hard for me to define. At times, he was a ruthless as anyone. At other times, he showed a bizarre degree of chivalry. I can only try to understand this by accepting that he had a remarkable degree of duality to his personality. There is really no good way to explain him.

This thought also struck me.

The documentary is very interesting in providing certain details, one I specifically noted was that Quantrill did not fire a single shot during the Lawrence Massacre. This is a mystery to me in terms of his supposed desire for revenge. Or was leading the raid with the subsequent death toll sufficient to satisfy such a desire? He specifically protected one family who had previously offered him support, and commanded that the women not be touched. Obviously one of his eventually drunken gang defied him, and if the townsfolk hadn't put an end to him, I'm sure Quantrill would have.

 

[archieclement]

This thought also struck me.

The documentary is very interesting in providing certain details, one I specifically noted was that Quantrill did not fire a single shot during the Lawrence Massacre. This is a mystery to me in terms of his supposed desire for revenge. Or was leading the raid with the subsequent death toll sufficient to satisfy such a desire? He specifically protected one family who had previously offered him support, and commanded that the women not be touched. Obviously one of his eventually drunken gang defied him, and if the townsfolk hadn't put an end to him, I'm sure Quantrill would have.

The biggest mystery of Q is his motivation, personally I've thought it was desire for fame and acceptence. Most of his men it was revenge, they had lost family members/homes to jayhawkers......as far is known, Q never did.....

 

[leftyhunter]

Explain why, please.

Because if we can excuse his violent behavior why not everyone else's? Why is,Quantrill a misunderstood figure but all his opponents are intrinsically evil?
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Because if we can excuse his violent behavior why not everyone else's? Why is,Quantrill a misunderstood figure but all his opponents are intrinsically evil?
Leftyhunter

You realize your not in kindergarten anymore and in the real world individuals are judged individually?

 

[leftyhunter]

You realize your not in kindergarten anymore and in the real world individuals are judged individually?

Then show why violence by Quantrill is fully justified but those of his opponents is not.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Then show why violence by Quantrill is fully justified but those of his opponents is not.
Leftyhunter

Why? I haven't seen anyone in the documentary or in this thread say everything he did was fully justified...….no need to respond to what's obviously a straw man argument of yours..... as your the only one here who has said he's misunderstood or has been fully excused by anyone.....I guess your asking yourself why you feel that way...… I honestly have no clue why you keep referring to things no one has said, tho I'm as curious as you are to your behavior...…

 

[Booner]

This thought also struck me.

The documentary is very interesting in providing certain details, one I specifically noted was that Quantrill did not fire a single shot during the Lawrence Massacre. This is a mystery to me in terms of his supposed desire for revenge. Or was leading the raid with the subsequent death toll sufficient to satisfy such a desire? He specifically protected one family who had previously offered him support, and commanded that the women not be touched. Obviously one of his eventually drunken gang defied him, and if the townsfolk hadn't put an end to him, I'm sure Quantrill would have.

The man you're referring to is Larkin Scaggs, who, in my opinion, was not really a member of Quantrill's band. A few weeks previous to the raid, Scaggs was a preacher and farmer. His farm had just been destroyed by a band of jayhawkers, so when he heard of the raid, (Quantrll's men were gathering for the raid close to where he lived), he decided to ride along for a little revenge, perhaps to retrieve some of his slaves or get some of his property back, too.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

The man you're referring to is Larkin Scaggs, who, in my opinion, was not really a member of Quantrill's band.

Thanks, I couldn't remember his name, but it appears there is a story to each of these men which sometimes needs to be told in order to better understand their actions.

 

[Booner]

A good book that explains the guerrillias motivation is " Bushwhackers; Guerrillia Warfare, Manhood, and the Household Civil War Missouri" by Joseph M Beilein, Jr.

One thing I took away from the book was that nearly 40% of the men who rode with Quantrill were related. It was a large number of households that supported the guerrillias, and they responded by defending those households. It's one reason why historian's of late view the guerrillia was in Western Missouri as a "Household War."