Capt or Col Quantrill?

[Borderruffian]

I agree they weren't under the PRA, as they only had been enlisted as Confederate cavalry, by regular Confederate officers in the Trans-Mississippi

There never was any presidential approval for PRA to apply.

Got it the Partisan Ranger Act is a fantasy and didn't exist.

 

[archieclement]

Huh? Never said anything like that at all...

PRA certainly existed, it's existence does not mean all Confederate forces were enlisted under the PRA however.

It required presidential approval to be enlisted under the PRA, which it remains there is zero evidence of, so they were not under PRA.

Hindmann and Wilson certainly had the authority to enlist them as a regular Confederate cav company, which they did.

The act certainly existed, it also required presidential approval......simply being enlisted into Confederate army didn't.

 

[gc45]

Quantrill’s Men Reunion, Independence, Mo. | Community and Conflict Photo Archive

I just came across this link. I don't know if the picture is copyright free so I didn't post the picture. I was looking for photos of CW reunions and this one popped up. In a way I was kind of surprised because I didn't expect so many of them to be left. For one thing, guerrillas don't usually have long lives and two, I didn't expect, as they aged to want to necessarily have reunions over the things they did as very young men. Were they considered honorable veterans compared to other CSA veterans? I didn't think so but maybe I'm wrong. Please educate me on this.

What a great photo! One would think these guys would not want to be exposed. They must have had a sense of pride for what they were fighting for, or against. Thanks for sharing this..

 

[Booner]

What a great photo! One would think these guys would not want to be exposed. They must have had a sense of pride for what they were fighting for, or against. Thanks for sharing this..

It's true that at the end of the war, these men were hounded and persecuted for what they did during the war, but by the time that this photo was taken, a lot of changes had taken place and the bushwhacker survivors of Quantrill were not afraid to claim they had served with him, and that they were proud that they had done so. For many of the people in this part of the state, the bushwhackers were the only line of defense they had against what they viewed as an overbearing and unjust government and the rampages against them of the Kansas Jayhawkers and local militias. The picture was taken in Independence, Mo., right in the heart of Quantrill's territory. These men were locals. They grew up in this part of Missouri, and roughly 35-40% of the men who had ridden with Quantrill were related to each other. As they gathered to have their reunion picture taken, they were surrounded by their families and friends.

The black man in the upper right corner of the picture is John Noland, a mulato slave owned by Fransis Asbury Noland. There were other Noland's who rode with Quantrill, but it's not known if these Noland's were the half-brothers or half-first cousins to John. When John died, he was buried in Woodlawn Cemetery in Independence. His pallbearers were some of the bushwhackers he had ridden with during the war. On John's tombstone they had written about John that "He was a man among men," which shows the respect they had for him. The main highway in front of the cemetery is Noland Road, named for John's owner.

The radical Republicans who had governed the state during and after the war were no longer in power and their unjust state constitution had been overthrown. The Democrats were now in power, and the rights of men who had served the South had had their rights restored. At the time the reunion picture was taken, if you were a Democratic candidate, you best show up at one of these reunions if you wanted to get elected. Harry Truman did, (his great uncle had ridden with Quantrill).

And the harsh feelings many had had with the actions of the guerrillas had taken during the war had modified somewhat. John Newton Edwards had recently published his "Noted Guerrillas" which had put the actions of these guerrillas in a very positive light; Edward's book was sort of a prelude to the Southern "Lost Cause" mythos. Edwards was an editor to one of the major Kansas City newspapers and was responsible for making the James Gang known nation-wide, and if Jesse the bandit enjoyed a "Robin Hood" reputation, it was due to Edwards pen. Edwards had been an aid to Gen. Joe Shelby during the war, and Shelby enjoyed an immense amount of respect in western Missouri.

I honestly believe that if the south had won the war and had somehow managed to take Missouri with her, there would be schools in western Missouri named after some of these bushwhackers.

 

[gc45]

I agree. Not being North or South (but West) I certainly see pride where ever it is; right wrong or indifferent we all have it! My sister-in-law and her husband live in Missouri just east of where the James farm is and well know about this war plus having family ties back to 1800, several serving in the CSA. In her neck of the woods the war is talked about often.

 

[George1863]

Albert Castel's bio of WCQ has an interesting interpretation: after the massacre at Baxter Springs (October, 1863), Quantrill submitted the only known military report in his hand, having been called on by General D. Cooper to do so (Cooper commanding forces in camp somewhere on the Canadian River). WCQ signed the report, which glossed entirely over Lawrence, 'W. C. Quantrill, colonel, commanding &c.' This report reached Sterling Price, who replied in the same form - and so the notion of 'Colonel Quantrill' entered official archives.

I have no idea if this is correct, but Castel seems to be a diligent, highly-readable biographer and historian. The book may be a little 'one-eyed', but it is hard to put both sides of the career of a vicious, murderous psychopath, after all. If WCQ ever recieved a colonel's commission through official channels, I would be surprised, of course, but also disgusted.

 

[Booner]

Albert Castel's bio of WCQ has an interesting interpretation: after the massacre at Baxter Springs (October, 1863), Quantrill submitted the only known military report in his hand, having been called on by General D. Cooper to do so (Cooper commanding forces in camp somewhere on the Canadian River). WCQ signed the report, which glossed entirely over Lawrence, 'W. C. Quantrill, colonel, commanding &c.' This report reached Sterling Price, who replied in the same form - and so the notion of 'Colonel Quantrill' entered official archives.

I have no idea if this is correct, but Castel seems to be a diligent, highly-readable biographer and historian. The book may be a little 'one-eyed', but it is hard to put both sides of the career of a vicious, murderous psychopath, after all. If WCQ ever recieved a colonel's commission through official channels, I would be surprised, of course, but also disgusted.

"it is hard to put both sides of the career of a vicious, murderous psychopath, after all."
Oh! I wish you had not said that.

I've been a student of the Civil War for more than 50 years. In the last 10 years I've all but given up on reading anything regarding the war that happened outside of the state of Missouri. I'm a 5th generation Missourian, so my ''roots'' in the state run pretty deep. When I was learning about the war, if the books I read mentioned anything about Missouri, it was normally a few paragraphs regarding the guerrilla actions occurring here, and of course the raid by Quantrill on Lawrence, Ks. I always had the feeling that the bushwhackers were a bunch of murderous psychopaths. But as I began to narrow my focus down to Missouri only, my thoughts slowly changed. What happened here is a rather convoluted story, and maybe only be of interest to someone with a close tie to the state, as there are so many pieces of the puzzle that have to come together before you can come away with an understanding of why the war in Missouri was so different than what occurred to the rest of the country.

I've read about everything written about Quantrill and his group of guerillas that's available. Many of the books were written with a certain amount of bias, in one way or another in how the author deals with his subject. I find those books to be of a lessor value.
It's almost like the author has delivered the story to you, but they don't think your smart enough to come to a conclusion about the subject, so they have to tell you what your conclusion should be. I think Edward Leslie's book, The Devil Knows How to Ride, is an excellent example of a well-written history book. Not only does Leslie know his history, but he also shows an understanding of his subject; there is a difference. For example, some members on this forum give high marks to T. J. Stiles' book Jesse James; Last Rebel of the Civil War." Stile's may know his history, but he lacks a certain understanding of his subject, Jesse. A really good book to help in understanding the thinking of the guerrilla mind is Joseph Beilein's book, "Bushwhackers; Guerrilla Warfare, Manhood, and the household in Civil War Missouri." Most history books tell what happened; Beilein's book tells the why it happened; why the guerrillas acted the way they did.

As I said, I used to think of Quantrill as some kind of murderous psychopath, but now my thinking has changed completely. Quantrill is a victim of a bad press agent; it's understandable, his side lost the war. So much has been written about him and his men and the outrages they committed, but one rarely sees much written of the outrages committed by the men who served the Union. Since so many of our recent war have been fought in a guerrilla environment, the war college at Leavenworth, KS studies the guerrilla war fought in Missouri, not only for what works, but also to learn what doesn't. If the Union had exercised more control over its own forces in their treatment of Missouri civilians, we very well may never have heard of Quantrill.
What Quantrill and his men did was in revenge for what had been done to them and their families.

 

[gc45]

"it is hard to put both sides of the career of a vicious, murderous psychopath, after all."
Oh! I wish you had not said that.

I've been a student of the Civil War for more than 50 years. In the last 10 years I've all but given up on reading anything regarding the war that happened outside of the state of Missouri. I'm a 5th generation Missourian, so my ''roots'' in the state run pretty deep. When I was learning about the war, if the books I read mentioned anything about Missouri, it was normally a few paragraphs regarding the guerrilla actions occurring here, and of course the raid by Quantrill on Lawrence, Ks. I always had the feeling that the bushwhackers were a bunch of murderous psychopaths. But as I began to narrow my focus down to Missouri only, my thoughts slowly changed. What happened here is a rather convoluted story, and maybe only be of interest to someone with a close tie to the state, as there are so many pieces of the puzzle that have to come together before you can come away with an understanding of why the war in Missouri was so different than what occurred to the rest of the country.

I've read about everything written about Quantrill and his group of guerillas that's available. Many of the books were written with a certain amount of bias, in one way or another in how the author deals with his subject. I find those books to be of a lessor value.
It's almost like the author has delivered the story to you, but they don't think your smart enough to come to a conclusion about the subject, so they have to tell you what your conclusion should be. I think Edward Leslie's book, The Devil Knows How to Ride, is an excellent example of a well-written history book. Not only does Leslie know his history, but he also shows an understanding of his subject; there is a difference. For example, some members on this forum give high marks to T. J. Stiles' book Jesse James; Last Rebel of the Civil War." Stile's may know his history, but he lacks a certain understanding of his subject, Jesse. A really good book to help in understanding the thinking of the guerrilla mind is Joseph Beilein's book, "Bushwhackers; Guerrilla Warfare, Manhood, and the household in Civil War Missouri." Most history books tell what happened; Beilein's book tells the why it happened; why the guerrillas acted the way they did.

As I said, I used to think of Quantrill as some kind of murderous psychopath, but now my thinking has changed completely. Quantrill is a victim of a bad press agent; it's understandable, his side lost the war. So much has been written about him and his men and the outrages they committed, but one rarely sees much written of the outrages committed by the men who served the Union. Since so many of our recent war have been fought in a guerrilla environment, the war college at Leavenworth, KS studies the guerrilla war fought in Missouri, not only for what works, but also to learn what doesn't. If the Union had exercised more control over its own forces in their treatment of Missouri civilians, we very well may never have heard of Quantrill.
What Quantrill and his men did was in revenge for what had been done to them and their families.

Well spoken and thanks for sharing this history and it's misdirection by Book Writers. Likely much truth in your words and a great explanation to those westerners like myself knowing so little of it all. Like mentioned in another thread, I have family through marriage going back to early 1800's who live in the area called "little dixie" but without their permission I won't share what their family went through other than to say, it was not good.

 

[Patrick H]

"it is hard to put both sides of the career of a vicious, murderous psychopath, after all."
Oh! I wish you had not said that.

I've been a student of the Civil War for more than 50 years. In the last 10 years I've all but given up on reading anything regarding the war that happened outside of the state of Missouri. I'm a 5th generation Missourian, so my ''roots'' in the state run pretty deep. When I was learning about the war, if the books I read mentioned anything about Missouri, it was normally a few paragraphs regarding the guerrilla actions occurring here, and of course the raid by Quantrill on Lawrence, Ks. I always had the feeling that the bushwhackers were a bunch of murderous psychopaths. But as I began to narrow my focus down to Missouri only, my thoughts slowly changed. What happened here is a rather convoluted story, and maybe only be of interest to someone with a close tie to the state, as there are so many pieces of the puzzle that have to come together before you can come away with an understanding of why the war in Missouri was so different than what occurred to the rest of the country.

I've read about everything written about Quantrill and his group of guerillas that's available. Many of the books were written with a certain amount of bias, in one way or another in how the author deals with his subject. I find those books to be of a lessor value.
It's almost like the author has delivered the story to you, but they don't think your smart enough to come to a conclusion about the subject, so they have to tell you what your conclusion should be. I think Edward Leslie's book, The Devil Knows How to Ride, is an excellent example of a well-written history book. Not only does Leslie know his history, but he also shows an understanding of his subject; there is a difference. For example, some members on this forum give high marks to T. J. Stiles' book Jesse James; Last Rebel of the Civil War." Stile's may know his history, but he lacks a certain understanding of his subject, Jesse. A really good book to help in understanding the thinking of the guerrilla mind is Joseph Beilein's book, "Bushwhackers; Guerrilla Warfare, Manhood, and the household in Civil War Missouri." Most history books tell what happened; Beilein's book tells the why it happened; why the guerrillas acted the way they did.

As I said, I used to think of Quantrill as some kind of murderous psychopath, but now my thinking has changed completely. Quantrill is a victim of a bad press agent; it's understandable, his side lost the war. So much has been written about him and his men and the outrages they committed, but one rarely sees much written of the outrages committed by the men who served the Union. Since so many of our recent war have been fought in a guerrilla environment, the war college at Leavenworth, KS studies the guerrilla war fought in Missouri, not only for what works, but also to learn what doesn't. If the Union had exercised more control over its own forces in their treatment of Missouri civilians, we very well may never have heard of Quantrill.
What Quantrill and his men did was in revenge for what had been done to them and their families.

I, too used to subscribe to the normal, "authorized" version of the Quantrill story. Then I delved somewhat deeper into the back story. Jim Lane. Charles "Doc" Jennison. James Montgomery. Once I read about the depredations of these men, my thoughts changed. These men were evil.

Is payback a valid excuse for a raid? Who can say for sure? Payback is certainly a contributing factor, and it always will be.

If more people were aware of the depredations of Lane, Jennison, Montgomery, and their ilk, then more people would come to understand the Lawrence raid.

Is revenge a good reason for anything? Probably not. But if my mother had been forced to set fire to her own house in the dead of winter (it happened to Cole Younger's mother), or if my little sister had died in a temporary jail collapse (it happened to Bill Anderson), I might have felt differently.

 

[Booner]

Well spoken and thanks for sharing this history and it's misdirection by Book Writers. Likely much truth in your words and a great explanation to those westerners like myself knowing so little of it all. Like mentioned in another thread, I have family through marriage going back to early 1800's who live in the area called "little dixie" but without their permission I won't share what their family went through other than to say, it was not good.

Thank you.

I don't think its necessarily a misdirection by book writers, it's more of an evolution that has taken place recently whereas more information has become available and more easily obtainable thanks to the internet. Prior to the internet, imagine how difficult and time consuming it must have been to do research. Diaries and first-person accounts that were not available in the past are now much more easily accessed. This allows the latest generation of authors to shed new light on what happened. And we seem to be living in a time where attitudes change rather quickly. So, someone who wrote a book in the 1950's, may give the story a whole new look if they were to re-write it in the 1990's. This is what exactly happened to Albert Castel with his book "Civil War Kansas; Reaping the Whirlwind." He re-wrote the book in the 1990's as new information had come available which allowed him to rewrite a more complete history that would appeal to a broader audience. (He still got the reason for the Lawarence raid wrong though. He said it was for plunder, but I would think that most people who are knowledgeable about the events leading up to the raid would agree the raid was based on revenge and retribution by the guerrillas).

Congratulations on your Missouri "Little Dixie" connection!

I not only live in the heart of Little Dixie, but in a subset of that area known as "The Boonslick." It was guerrilla central in the summer and fall of 1864.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Lawrence looks like a tea party compared to what Union Generals Milroy and Paine did in middle Tennessee in '64 and '65.
They had regular death squads - sent out with lists of people to kill.

 

[archieclement]

I, too used to subscribe to the normal, "authorized" version of the Quantrill story. Then I delved somewhat deeper into the back story. Jim Lane. Charles "Doc" Jennison. James Montgomery. Once I read about the depredations of these men, my thoughts changed. These men were evil.

Is payback a valid excuse for a raid? Who can say for sure? Payback is certainly a contributing factor, and it always will be.

If more people were aware of the depredations of Lane, Jennison, Montgomery, and their ilk, then more people would come to understand the Lawrence raid.

Is revenge a good reason for anything? Probably not. But if my mother had been forced to set fire to her own house in the dead of winter (it happened to Cole Younger's mother), or if my little sister had died in a temporary jail collapse (it happened to Bill Anderson), I might have felt differently.

Indeed most modern scholars would seem to imply Lawrence was simply a criminal enterprise. Not only a illegal center of unrest during the territorial period, but then a jayhawking center for continued criminal robbery raids into Missouri. And will note warehouses filled with stolen plunder from Missouri, and auctions were held in the streets of stolen goods for the citizens of Lawrence.

I generally try to avoid painting all with one brushstroke, but in this case, despite widespread open criminal activity for roughly a decade, its hard to find any good citizens of Lawrence who complained or who had spoke out against the continued criminal activity.

 

[George1863]

Sorry (and absolutely no offence was or is intended), but I am standing by 'vicious, murderous psychopath' purely on the body-count of unarmed persons, particularly civilian or African-American, slain during WCQ's career. If other commanders acted similarly, worse, for longer or first, then they fall under this description, too. Lane's raid on Osceola freed 200+ enslaved persons, Quantrill's on Lawrence killed 160 or so mostly unarmed male civilians. What jury in th land would find moral equivalence in these events?

 

[archieclement]

Sorry (and absolutely no offence was or is intended), but I am standing by 'vicious, murderous psychopath' purely on the body-count of unarmed persons, particularly civilian or African-American, slain during WCQ's career. If other commanders acted similarly, worse, for longer or first, then they fall under this description, too. Lane's raid on Osceola freed 200+ enslaved persons, Quantrill's on Lawrence killed 160 or so mostly unarmed male civilians. What jury in th land would find moral equivalence in these events?

A Kansas one, as the only guerrilla charged for Lawrence was acquitted in Kansas. And at the time Osceola the slaves he freed was no different to US Law then stealing horses, which they also did. Along with household goods, money, even church pews.......

 

[19thGeorgia]

A Kansas one, as the only guerrilla charged for Lawrence was acquitted in Kansas. And at the time Osceola the slaves he freed...

I have read that these "freed" slaves after being brought to Kansas were rented out to local farmers.
Doesn't sound much like freedom.

 

[archieclement]

I have read that these "freed" slaves after being brought to Kansas were rented out to local farmers.
Doesn't sound much like freedom.

I have yet to read any credible historian or even major Union Authority at the time who proposed jay hawkers improved the situation in Missouri-Kansas, or provided more positive gain compared to negative to the Union war effort.

Instead both conclude at a time Lincoln was trying to keep as many Missourians as possible to the Union, the jayhawkers were being the best recruiting agents for the Confederacy that they had. That along with theft and murder is their only "moral authority" The Lawrence raid Itself was reaping the moral seeds they themselves had sown.

I used to like to think there were perhaps innocent Lawrence'rs......but I have read quite a bit about the subject and period.......and have yet to see any accounts of any Lawrence'rs complaining about the rampant lawlessness and crimes being committed by Lawrence'rs in their midst........so have to conclude the majority if not all were complicit in the crimes originating there. I suppose if someone was innocent, they would have moved away as soon as possible.

 

[Booner]

I have read that these "freed" slaves after being brought to Kansas were rented out to local farmers.
Doesn't sound much like freedom.

This is true.
It was reported that Senator Lane was paid a commission for the slaves he brought from Missouri back to Kansas to work on farms as there was a huge farm labor shortage in Kansas during the war. Even though these "liberated" slaves were paid a wage to work on the farms, there were many complaints by the white Kansans that many of the former slaves refused to work, as they equated working with slavery.

 

[Booner]

Sorry (and absolutely no offence was or is intended), but I am standing by 'vicious, murderous psychopath' purely on the body-count of unarmed persons, particularly civilian or African-American, slain during WCQ's career. If other commanders acted similarly, worse, for longer or first, then they fall under this description, too. Lane's raid on Osceola freed 200+ enslaved persons, Quantrill's on Lawrence killed 160 or so mostly unarmed male civilians. What jury in th land would find moral equivalence in these events?

No need to be sorry, and no offence was taken. You gave your reasons for your thinking, and I'll accept them.

As I said earlier, after studying the Civil War in general for many years, I now "specialize" in what happened locally here in Missouri. I've come to find that much of the history that has come down regarding the war in Missouri, especially in its relationship with Kansas, is based on propaganda by abolitionists and radical republican publications that has come down as the true situation. It's far from it.

The war back east was fought by men who didn't know each other. When Sherman invaded Georgia, the vast majority of his men had never been more that 10-15 mile from their home. When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, his men had never seen farms like what they found there. Along the Missouri-Kansas border, the war personal. These men knew each other. 30% of the Kansas troops were displaced Unionist Missourians. They knew which Missouri farmers were slave owners; they knew who the rich farmers were. And the guerrillas knew who these "Missouri Jayhawkers" were. The point of all this is that the war fought out here was on a much more personal level than what was fought anywhere else, and I don't think many people realize this.

I'm not pro-south or pro-guerrilla; I'm pro-knowledge, I'm searching for the true history. My goal on this forum is to bring to light some of the history that occurred out here in the hopes that it may awaken a few individuals in that they don't know what they thought they knew. So, tell me what you know, and we'll see if we agree on things.

With much respect,
-Booner

 

[gc45]

No need to be sorry, and no offence was taken. You gave your reasons for your thinking, and I'll accept them.

As I said earlier, after studying the Civil War in general for many years, I now "specialize" in what happened locally here in Missouri. I've come to find that much of the history that has come down regarding the war in Missouri, especially in its relationship with Kansas, is based on propaganda by abolitionists and radical republican publications that has come down as the true situation. It's far from it.

The war back east was fought by men who didn't know each other. When Sherman invaded Georgia, the vast majority of his men had never been more that 10-15 mile from their home. When Lee invaded Pennsylvania, his men had never seen farms like what they found there. Along the Missouri-Kansas border, the war personal. These men knew each other. 30% of the Kansas troops were displaced Unionist Missourians. They knew which Missouri farmers were slave owners; they knew who the rich farmers were. And the guerrillas knew who these "Missouri Jayhawkers" were. The point of all this is that the war fought out here was on a much more personal level than what was fought anywhere else, and I don't think many people realize this.

I'm not pro-south or pro-guerrilla; I'm pro-knowledge, I'm searching for the true history. My goal on this forum is to bring to light some of the history that occurred out here in the hopes that it may awaken a few individuals in that they don't know what they thought they knew. So, tell me what you know, and we'll see if we agree on things.

With much respect,
-Booner

And what we all should be looking for with a capital "T".

 

[George1863]

I am not beating a drum for marauding Jayhawkers for sure. I am deeply concerned that there is a WCQ society in 2022, however, but may become less concerned as this thread developes. I think it's mostly a question of personal morality, allowing adjustments for the century and a half that has passed. If my sister/wife/other beloved female relative had been killed or maimed in the collapse of a Yankee prison in Kansas City - even if I believed it was deliberately undermined by US authorities - my retribution would not be visited upon unarmed civilians in Lawrence (including boys between 14 and 18). That would be the act of a coward. WCQ himself during Lawrence seems to have been in control of himself, according to Castel. At least he wasn't drunk. His 'command,' if you want to dignify it with a military term, exercised a Viking-like license to slaughter. Bottom line, these are not the acts of Christian men but banditti exploiting the dislocation of war to settle personal feuds dating back to Bleeding Kansas. Lane is not much better, but at least he liberated his fellow man rather than profit by duping runaways for resale to the slave market.

Serious question: does WCQ have one virtue that precludes him from the character of psychopath? Castel records that he had already murdered one man by the age of nineteen.