Deserters

[Patrick H]

Hey, Specster, I appreciate most of your positions, too, so no worries, buddy. I don't think these guys were difficult to miss where ever they happened to be, but it's for sure that the only real military uniforms they wore were of the occasional stolen or captured variety. Those were fairly haphazardly worn, I think. It had the effect of making them easily pass for a federally-aligned state militia unit. In other words, there's no doubt they donned "enemy" uniforms when it suited their purpose. Now, I realize that doesn't sit well with a lot of people. (It sure didn't sit well with the militias they managed to fool in that manner, either!)

But you could think of it somewhat like French or Italian resistance fighters duping Nazi soldiers in WWII. Just like those guys, the Missouri guerrillas had little or nothing to lose. From the earliest days, they were summarily executed if captured--on orders from the union higher-ups. So...you know...why worry about being executed as a spy when you would be executed, regardless? ...but I do understand that this concept doesn't sit with you and I respect that.

We have wandered way off the original topic--not just you and me, but a few others, too. One other interesting thing about the guerrilla forces in Missouri is that some of the men were deserters from Price's State Guard, or they were left behind while sick and they simply walked home when well, or they came to the bush later, etc. The central point in that comment is this: A lot of these guys were motivated to fight as guerrillas because that was their only option in Missouri. They didn't want to go south to Arkansas or east of the Mississippi. They wanted to stay on their home soil and fight those occupying Feds! After Price left Missouri, the only way to do that was to take to "the bush."

Sure, some of them deserved the way history demonized them, but I think it's important to remember that they were all individuals. Some were as evil has they have been portrayed. Others were motivated by a higher purpose. Ergo, while some were deserters, some were opportunistic, some were bent on revenge and some had that peculiarly southern notion of honor, I can't paint them all with one broad stroke of the brush and I hope you won't, either. I think if you can accept the concept of many guerrillas with many individual motivations, you will have a very accurate picture of things in Missouri. Like I keep saying, it was pretty complicated and crazy out here.

 

[Allie]

I think a lot of people who were truly neutral got caught in the cross fire and paid for the action of these gangs. Often innocent people paid for the actions of a few. When the were reprisals do you want to call foul? Many people have a romantic notion of these gangs. As time went on many got wilder and wilder and just wanted to fill their own pockets at anyone - Pro North or South's expense.

I don't particularly have a romantic notion of these gangs. Some were romantic, others were just straight up bands of robbers and murderers. I just disagree with the idea that fighting off an invading army should be done only in uniforms on a formal battlefield.

As far as calling foul on reprisals - it's a little like asking if you blame a robber for shooting the homeowner who drew a gun on him. Um, yes? It's expected behavior for an invader, but not the same situation as if two people had a gunfight in the middle of a street. Someone invading someone else's home does not get to claim self-defense.

 

[Allie]

Actually, Allie, Missouri WAS invaded and occupied early in the war. After Gov. Jackson sent his nasty letter back to President Lincoln inviting him to "stick it", we were fairly well awash with regulars from Iowa, Illinois, and other states--at least for a while.

Specster, Missouri guerrillas were famous for wearing uniforms--just not the kind you're envisioning. First and foremost was the guerrilla shirt. If you've ever seen the famous death photo of Bill Anderson, that's a guerrilla shirt he's wearing. Everyone in Missouri during the war would have recognized a guerrilla shirt immediately on first sight and it definitely would have identified the wearer.

Of course, some of the guerrillas occasionally wore another kind of uniform, too--captured federal or militia uniforms. This justifiably rankled their adversaries and I can't blame you for feeling the same way.

But our own Missouri militias were known to wear a mix of civilian and uniform clothing, too, and to masquerade as guerrillas from time to time, so they weren't above reproach.

It got just pure-D crazy out here very early in the war and it stayed that war for a very long time!

In saying all that, I'm not making excuses for anyone on either side. I'm just telling you what really happened. ...and some of it happened right here in my home town.

I'll freely confess that most of what I know about Missouri can be summed up by saying Quantrill was not a nice person. Which is undoubtedly an oversimplification, like all simple statements. Thanks for sharing more information.

 

[Patrick H]

I'll freely confess that most of what I know about Missouri can be summed up by saying Quantrill was not a nice person. Which is undoubtedly an oversimplification, like all simple statements. Thanks for sharing more information.

You're right, he wasn't a nice person. But he might have been mistaken for genteel in comparison to Todd, Anderson or Clements. The more I've read about Quantrill, the more it strikes me that he had the most odd duality. On the way to Lawrence, he kidnapped and killed something like seven local guides. Then he protected a number of people once in town, while allowing others to be murdered. In other operations, he paroled some prisoners but not others. He executed at least one of his own men for abusing a woman. There is just no explaining Quantrill in an easy way.

 

[leftyhunter]

Actually, Allie, Missouri WAS invaded and occupied early in the war. After Gov. Jackson sent his nasty letter back to President Lincoln inviting him to "stick it", we were fairly well awash with regulars from Iowa, Illinois, and other states--at least for a while.

Specster, Missouri guerrillas were famous for wearing uniforms--just not the kind you're envisioning. First and foremost was the guerrilla shirt. If you've ever seen the famous death photo of Bill Anderson, that's a guerrilla shirt he's wearing. Everyone in Missouri during the war would have recognized a guerrilla shirt immediately on first sight and it definitely would have identified the wearer.

Of course, some of the guerrillas occasionally wore another kind of uniform, too--captured federal or militia uniforms. This justifiably rankled their adversaries and I can't blame you for feeling the same way.

But our own Missouri militias were known to wear a mix of civilian and uniform clothing, too, and to masquerade as guerrillas from time to time, so they weren't above reproach.

It got just pure-D crazy out here very early in the war and it stayed that war for a very long time!

In saying all that, I'm not making excuses for anyone on either side. I'm just telling you what really happened. ...and some of it happened right here in my home town.

Actually Mo was not invaded by US forces because Mo is part of the US and a US soldier has every legal right to enter any US territory at any time to fight treason. The majority of Missourians fought for the Union 110k vs 30k plus many more Missourians joined pro-Union militias vs those who where CSA irregulars. Mo was invaded by rebelsvia general Price in September 1864 but the people of Mo showed them the door along with other fine Americans.
Leftyhunter

 

[Allie]

Actually Mo was not invaded by US forces because Mo is part of the US and a US soldier has every legal right to enter any US territory at any time to fight treason. The majority of Missourians fought for the Union 110k vs 30k plus many more Missourians joined pro-Union militias vs those who where CSA irregulars. Mo was invaded by rebelsvia general Price in September 1864 but the people of Mo showed them the door along with other fine Americans.
Leftyhunter

A number of people disagreed with you. That's why there was a war. Winning the war does give the victors the right to write the history books, but it doesn't make them correct.

 

[huskerblitz]

Actually Mo was not invaded by US forces because Mo is part of the US and a US soldier has every legal right to enter any US territory at any time to fight treason.

I'm curious as to what extremely narrow definition source you're using for 'invade'.

 

[Patrick H]

Actually Mo was not invaded by US forces because Mo is part of the US and a US soldier has every legal right to enter any US territory at any time to fight treason. The majority of Missourians fought for the Union 110k vs 30k plus many more Missourians joined pro-Union militias vs those who where CSA irregulars. Mo was invaded by rebelsvia general Price in September 1864 but the people of Mo showed them the door along with other fine Americans.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, you are probably correct in the technical and legal sense. However, I live in Boonville...on the south bank of the Missouri River...in an area known as "Little Dixie". Now, I assure you that I am very proud of my Howard County (that's just across the river to the north) ancestor's choice to join the Union cavalry. I'd have been just as proud of him if he'd joined Price's State Guard. But that's all beside the point.

The point is that "occupation" was largely a matter of perception in a lot of the state...and particularly in the river counties. It was also very much a matter of governance. Out of state troops were put here to keep this state in the union. True, very many (perhaps most) of the local citizens were unionists. Others were trying very hard to remain neutral and just be left alone.

Unfortunately, too many of those out of state troops came into Missouri with the attitude that all Missourians (even the loyalists) must be evil, because Missouri was a slave state. (Ironically, some of the loyalists were "constitutional unionists" who chose that side because they thought the union would protect their slave holding rights. How sad!)

Regardless, these out of state troops were too often bullying and abusive to the citizenry. They seized assets, destroyed businesses, burned farm houses and imprisoned citizens--often on nothing more than an accusation. They did this with the protection of their officers and often under the orders of their commanding Provost Marshals and governing generals. In the process, they drove a helluva bunch of "neutrals" and constitutional unionists over to the rebellion side.

Legally, technically, maybe Missouri wasn't occupied. But perceptually and in a practical sense, it MOST CERTAINLY was. That's the pure truth of it. And that's why the war was so particularly personal and bitter here from start to finish.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, you are probably correct in the technical and legal sense. However, I live in Boonville...on the south bank of the Missouri River...in an area known as "Little Dixie". Now, I assure you that I am very proud of my Howard County (that's just across the river to the north) ancestor's choice to join the Union cavalry. I'd have been just as proud of him if he'd joined Price's State Guard. But that's all beside the point.

The point is that "occupation" was largely a matter of perception in a lot of the state...and particularly in the river counties. It was also very much a matter of governance. Out of state troops were put here to keep this state in the union. True, very many (perhaps most) of the local citizens were unionists. Others were trying very hard to remain neutral and just be left alone.

Unfortunately, too many of those out of state troops came into Missouri with the attitude that all Missourians (even the loyalists) must be evil, because Missouri was a slave state. (Ironically, some of the loyalists were "constitutional unionists" who chose that side because they thought the union would protect their slave holding rights. How sad!)

Regardless, these out of state troops were too often bullying and abusive to the citizenry. They seized assets, destroyed businesses, burned farm houses and imprisoned citizens--often on nothing more than an accusation. They did this with the protection of their officers and often under the orders of their commanding Provost Marshals and governing generals. In the process, they drove a helluva bunch of "neutrals" and constitutional unionists over to the rebellion side.

Legally, technically, maybe Missouri wasn't occupied. But perceptually and in a practical sense, it MOST CERTAINLY was. That's the pure truth of it. And that's why the war was so particularly personal and bitter here from start to finish.

True Union troops especially from Kn did not conduct them selves properly. It would not be that last time US forces would mistreat civilians. of course the same can very much be said about CSA forces while they occupied Unionist areas and their operations against Indians in ( see the chapter in "The South Bitterly divided and" the South Dvided' "The wolf has come") none the less Mo was not invaded. If US forces conducted themselves in a more professional manner yes there would have been less of a COIN problem in Mo.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I'm curious as to what extremely narrow definition source you're using for 'invade'.

A duly sworn soldier of a country in this case the USA operating per his orders is not invading if he stays in the territorial confines of his country in this case the USA. per the US Constitution the President has the right and duty to deploy troops to fight forces committing treason.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

A number of people disagreed with you. That's why there was a war. Winning the war does give the victors the right to write the history books, but it doesn't make them correct.

How can a US soldier invade his own country?
Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

A duly sworn soldier of a country in this case the USA operating per his orders is not invading if he stays in the territorial confines of his country in this case the USA. per the US Constitution the President has the right and duty to deploy troops to fight forces committing treason.
Leftyhunter

How can a US soldier invade his own country?
Leftyhunter

Invading is invading is invading. Any definition will concur sending in military troops into an area is an invasion, even if it is within the boundaries of the same country.

Google
in·vade
inˈvād/
verb
verb: invade; 3rd person present: invades; past tense: invaded; past participle: invaded; gerund or present participle: invading
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
"it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, win, gain, secure;More
march into, storm
"the army invaded the town"
antonyms: withdraw from

• enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
  "demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
  synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundate
  "every summer, tourists invaded the beach"
• (of a parasite or disease) spread into (an organism or bodily part).

Merriman-Webster
: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
: to enter (a place) in large numbers
: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)

Dictionary.com
invade

[in-veyd]

verb (used with object), invaded, invading.
1.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2.
to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
3.
to enter as if to take possession:
to invade a neighbor's home.
4.
to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5.
to intrude upon:
to invade the privacy of a family.
6.
to encroach or infringe upon:
to invade the rights of citizens.
7.
to permeate:
The smell of baking invades the house.


It is what it was. Not sure why people are so afraid to use the correct term.

 

[unionblue]

Invading is invading is invading. Any definition will concur sending in military troops into an area is an invasion, even if it is within the boundaries of the same country.

Google
in·vade
inˈvād/
verb
verb: invade; 3rd person present: invades; past tense: invaded; past participle: invaded; gerund or present participle: invading
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
"it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, win, gain, secure;More
march into, storm
"the army invaded the town"
antonyms: withdraw from

• enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
  "demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
  synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundate
  "every summer, tourists invaded the beach"
• (of a parasite or disease) spread into (an organism or bodily part).

Merriman-Webster
: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
: to enter (a place) in large numbers
: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)

Dictionary.com
invade

[in-veyd]

verb (used with object), invaded, invading.
1.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2.
to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
3.
to enter as if to take possession:
to invade a neighbor's home.
4.
to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5.
to intrude upon:
to invade the privacy of a family.
6.
to encroach or infringe upon:
to invade the rights of citizens.
7.
to permeate:
The smell of baking invades the house.


It is what it was. Not sure why people are so afraid to use the correct term.

Like I said, always handy to keep a dictionary handy when cruising about this forum.

Unionblue

 

[Specster]

I don't particularly have a romantic notion of these gangs. Some were romantic, others were just straight up bands of robbers and murderers. I just disagree with the idea that fighting off an invading army should be done only in uniforms on a formal battlefield.

As far as calling foul on reprisals - it's a little like asking if you blame a robber for shooting the homeowner who drew a gun on him. Um, yes? It's expected behavior for an invader, but not the same situation as if two people had a gunfight in the middle of a street. Someone invading someone else's home does not get to claim self-defense.

I try to stay away from secession and politics. I have never posted in that forum and hopefully I never will. Yet, I cannot equate the Federal Government enter a territory which, in 1860, was part of the USA, as an invading army. I know there are many ways of looking at it and arguing about it, but I not going to be part of those arguments, it is just how I feel.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

CSA deserters from FL sometimes went over to the Union units, sat out the rest of the war in the Keys, or hid out in what was then pretty rural South Florida.

 

[leftyhunter]

Invading is invading is invading. Any definition will concur sending in military troops into an area is an invasion, even if it is within the boundaries of the same country.

Google
in·vade
inˈvād/
verb
verb: invade; 3rd person present: invades; past tense: invaded; past participle: invaded; gerund or present participle: invading
(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
"it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"
synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, win, gain, secure;More
march into, storm
"the army invaded the town"
antonyms: withdraw from

• enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
  "demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
  synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundate
  "every summer, tourists invaded the beach"
• (of a parasite or disease) spread into (an organism or bodily part).

Merriman-Webster
: to enter (a place, such as a foreign country) in order to take control by military force
: to enter (a place) in large numbers
: to enter or be in (a place where you are not wanted)

Dictionary.com
invade

[in-veyd]

verb (used with object), invaded, invading.
1.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2.
to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
3.
to enter as if to take possession:
to invade a neighbor's home.
4.
to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5.
to intrude upon:
to invade the privacy of a family.
6.
to encroach or infringe upon:
to invade the rights of citizens.
7.
to permeate:
The smell of baking invades the house.


It is what it was. Not sure why people are so afraid to use the correct term.[/Q
None of these definitions apply since US soldiers are following lawfull orders in the confines of the United States. Do US troops suppressing a riot "invade' the riarea that is being set upon by rioters? No where do your definitions apply or mention US soldiers performing their duty per the US Constitution.
Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

None of these definitions apply since US soldiers are following lawfull orders in the confines of the United States. Do US troops suppressing a riot "invade' the riarea that is being set upon by rioters? No where do your definitions apply or mention US soldiers performing their duty per the US Constitution.
Leftyhunter

I will respectfully disagree with you, Lefty. This discussion is not really about deserters and probably more fitting for another thread which I would be happy to continue. But an invasion is still an invasion.

 

[Patrick H]

Let's get back to deserters for a while. I can't offer anything informative about deserters in other states (most of you know I'm a Missourian). Heck, I can't even offer much about deserters in my home state.

I am too ignorant to comment on any of the Ohio, Illinois, Iowa or other out of state Union troops who temporarily served in Missouri. However, I can give you two examples of young boys who enlisted in the Missouri State Guard and then went on to serve in Quantrill's guerrilla force.

One was a person perhaps not known to all of you. He was John McCorckle. He fell sick in southwest Missouri and was left behind by Price's retreating army. He was captured, paroled, walked home, was then threatened with execution if he didn't join a state militia, so he went to the bush.

Another was Frank James. He's known, in one way or another, to all of you. He was with Price's State Guard at their victory at Lexington, MO. He fell sick, too, was left behind during Price's retreat, was captured, paroled, etc. etc. etc. He was forced to sign the oath of allegiance (which he undoubtedly did to save his own neck, but had no intention of honoring). He went to the bush, too.

Both men were with Quantrill in Kentucky. McCorckle managed to surrender in Kentucky and return to Missouri after the war and live an honorable live in Howard County, MO. James had his sojourn into the outlaw life, but then famously came in and surrendered to the governor, stood trial twice, was acquitted once and charges were dropped the second time. He went on to live a life that was at least peaceful and which many people considered honorable (even though he wound up doing some things we'd consider cheesy today, such as selling tours of his home place).

Okay, here's what I can't decide: Would Price have considered either man a deserter...or just another casualty? Would the Confederate government have considered either a deserter? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect they would not have been considered deserters.

Price always wanted to get back to Missouri, too. Yet, he did what was asked of him until he finally got his chance in the autumn of 1864. He suffered a lot of "walk offs" during his retreat from Missouri and probably later, too. Those "walk offs" were undoubtedly considered deserters. What do you suppose Price thought of the boys who went back to Missouri and went to the bush? Undoubtedly, they were deserters, but those who joined guerrilla bands were still fighting. What would Price or the Confederate government have officially thought of those boys? I have no idea and that's why I pose the question. I'm hoping to receive a factual answer here, rather than personal opinions.

I know the government recognized "Partisan Rangers", but I'm not sure how it treated the boys who left some units, walked back to Missouri to join the various partisan bands. Deserting one band to join another? Does that redeem a fighter?

Complicated question, I know. I'm sure I'll hear some answers!

 

[Allie]

Let's get back to deserters for a while. I can't offer anything informative about deserters in other states (most of you know I'm a Missourian). Heck, I can't even offer much about deserters in my home state.

I am too ignorant to comment on any of the Ohio, Illinois, Iowa or other out of state Union troops who temporarily served in Missouri. However, I can give you two examples of young boys who enlisted in the Missouri State Guard and then went on to serve in Quantrill's guerrilla force.

One was a person perhaps not known to all of you. He was John McCorckle. He fell sick in southwest Missouri and was left behind by Price's retreating army. He was captured, paroled, walked home, was then threatened with execution if he didn't join a state militia, so he went to the bush.

Another was Frank James. He's known, in one way or another, to all of you. He was with Price's State Guard at their victory at Lexington, MO. He fell sick, too, was left behind during Price's retreat, was captured, paroled, etc. etc. etc. He was forced to sign the oath of allegiance (which he undoubtedly did to save his own neck, but had no intention of honoring). He went to the bush, too.

Both men were with Quantrill in Kentucky. McCorckle managed to surrender in Kentucky and return to Missouri after the war and live an honorable live in Howard County, MO. James had his sojourn into the outlaw life, but then famously came in and surrendered to the governor, stood trial twice, was acquitted once and charges were dropped the second time. He went on to live a life that was at least peaceful and which many people considered honorable (even though he wound up doing some things we'd consider cheesy today, such as selling tours of his home place).

Okay, here's what I can't decide: Would Price have considered either man a deserter...or just another casualty? Would the Confederate government have considered either a deserter? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect they would not have been considered deserters.

Price always wanted to get back to Missouri, too. Yet, he did what was asked of him until he finally got his chance in the autumn of 1864. He suffered a lot of "walk offs" during his retreat from Missouri and probably later, too. Those "walk offs" were undoubtedly considered deserters. What do you suppose Price thought of the boys who went back to Missouri and went to the bush? Undoubtedly, they were deserters, but those who joined guerrilla bands were still fighting. What would Price or the Confederate government have officially thought of those boys? I have no idea and that's why I pose the question. I'm hoping to receive a factual answer here, rather than personal opinions.

I know the government recognized "Partisan Rangers", but I'm not sure how it treated the boys who left some units, walked back to Missouri to join the various partisan bands. Deserting one band to join another? Does that redeem a fighter?

Complicated question, I know. I'm sure I'll hear some answers!

Deserting one unit to join another did count as deserting. I'm most familiar with Mosby, but he was generally hated by other commanders because men deserted to join him. He denied allowing men who were supposed to be elsewhere to join him. A soldier doesn't get to pick what job he wants to do! The appropriate thing is to request a transfer.

Being captured did not count as deserting but a man might get listed as AWOL on one or a few muster rolls before the regiment became aware he had been captured. I've seen this on a few occasions.

 

[ole]

My experience in Missouri is that the Pukes are quite strange. They don't follow any single ideology and you really better not try to preach one. There really is a reason it's called the "show me" state. (Notice I avoided the word "odd.")