Documentary of Quantrill.

[archieclement]

Your absolutely right. Honest people recruit others to liberate slaves then tell the slave owner to set up an ambush. Honest people gladly kill US soldiers. Honest people Rob rape and murder those who support the Union.
We should all teach our children to be has honest as William Clarke Quantrill.

Leftyhunter

What a goofy response.....honest people don't liberate things that are legal...……. Honest soldiers don't rob and murder those who they are entrusted to protect, honest people actually would rise up to fight such criminal activities. Actually honest people like law enforcement set up criminals all the time

Once again you refuse to acknowledge the mistreatment wasn't a one way street, which Leslie and most historians acknowledge.....Quantrill's crimes were no worse then the crimes that he was responding to. But as I said no surprise you disagree with most respected sources, as you seem to have blinders firmly on and refuse to ever look at the whole picture and what both sides were doing.

But I will note yet again you disagree with a noted authority to provide nothing contrary, other then the world according to lefty....which seems a very small world...… You even argue with me noting you disagree...…….to say you do disagree...….hmmmmm

Do you have some credible source that jayhawkers weren't robbing, murdering and burning people illegally out an a large scale, both before and during the war? As every source I've read notes they were...…. and to think it wouldn't draw a response of people banding together to fight back seems rather unrealistic, as it does to condemn people for not standing by to be illegally murdered/robbed/ or burned out

Really I wonder do you even watch the documentaries or read the books you claim? Because its odd time and time again you refer to a source that clearly shows both side were guilty, to somehow seem to suggest it said it was just all one side and pretend it doesn't even mention the others actions.....….when that isn't what the source said at all.....

I would add if you want to refer to honest people, Honest people don't misrepresent the facts to pretend something occurred in a vacuum when there were many contributing factors that lead to it...…..

 

[Patrick H]

"Ride With The Devil" the movie, was based on the book, "Woe to Live On" by Daniel Woodrell. The movie follows the book pretty closely.



Lefty, I think you mean that "The Devil Knows How to Ride" is a non fiction book. The movie is called "Ride With the Devil." Notice the difference in the titles?

The book is primarily about Quantrill's life, while the movie is about a fictional character who rode with Capt. Bill Anderson.

Thanks, @Booner.

 

[Patrick H]

What a goofy response.....honest people don't liberate things that are legal...……. Honest soldiers don't rob and murder those who they are entrusted to protect, honest people actually would rise up to fight such criminal activities. Actually honest people like law enforcement set up criminals all the time

Once again you refuse to acknowledge the mistreatment wasn't a one way street, which Leslie and most historians acknowledge.....Quantrill's crimes were no worse then the crimes that he was responding to. But as I said no surprise you disagree with most respected sources, as you seem to have blinders firmly on and refuse to ever look at the whole picture and what both sides were doing.

But I will note yet again you disagree with a noted authority to provide nothing contrary, other then the world according to lefty....which seems a very small world...… You even argue with me noting you disagree...…….to say you do disagree...….hmmmmm

Do you have some credible source that jayhawkers weren't robbing, murdering and burning people illegally out an a large scale, both before and during the war? As every source I've read notes they were...…. and to think it wouldn't draw a response of people banding together to fight back seems rather unrealistic, as it does to condemn people for not standing by to be illegally murdered/robbed/ or burned out

Really I wonder do you even watch the documentaries or read the books you claim? Because its odd time and time again you refer to a source that clearly shows both side were guilty, to somehow seem to suggest it said it was just all one side and pretend it doesn't even mention the others actions.....….when that isn't what the source said at all.....

I would add if you want to refer to honest people, Honest people don't misrepresent the facts to pretend something occurred in a vacuum when there were many contributing factors that lead to it...…..

Archie, you are well aware that there are a significant number of people whose opinion about Quantrill and all Missouri guerrillas is that they are all alike and they are all vicious, cold blooded, and beyond any redemption. They won't open their minds on the matter to even consider evidence which challenges their firmly pre-conceived notions. I appreciate your effort for the sake of some readers who are being exposed to this material for the very first time. But I fear arguing about Quantrill with someone whose mind is made up is an utter waste of time.

Let me add that I used to be one of those who believed everything the nay sayers claimed about Quantrill. Then I started reading some histories. Q. was never understood very well in life. He's not going to be well understood in death, either.

 

[archieclement]

Archie, you are well aware that there are a significant number of people whose opinion about Quantrill and all Missouri guerrillas is that they are all alike and they are all vicious, cold blooded, and beyond any redemption. They won't open their minds on the matter to even consider evidence which challenges their firmly pre-conceived notions. I appreciate your effort for the sake of some readers who are being exposed to this material for the very first time. But I fear arguing about Quantrill with someone whose mind is made up is an utter waste of time.

Let me add that I used to be one of those who believed everything the nay sayers claimed about Quantrill. Then I started reading some histories. Q. was never understood very well in life. He's not going to be well understood in death, either.

I have no issue with him having his mind made up or whatever opinion he wants, that's entirely his right...…nor if he wants to offer opinion as opinion

I do take issue to his continued presenting opinion as fact and misrepresenting what sources actually say on the issues. When if he actually read the sources he would know his presentation is false....So not sure if he hasn't actually read them when he says he has or if he is purposely trying to deceive....but see little reason for either

 

[Patrick H]

When if he actually
I have no issue with him having his mind made up or having a closed mind, that's entirely his right...…

I take issue to his continued presenting opinion as fact and misrepresenting what sources actually say on the issues. When if he actually read the sources he would know his presentation is false....So not sure if he hasn't actually read them or is purposely trying to deceive....but see little reason for either[/QUOTE

 

[Patrick H]

Archie, I agree completely with your "opinion presented as facts" objection. We went around and around on one of those in my thread on Nathaniel Lyon!

 

[Boonslick]

Here we go again. What is this- round 9? Same old, same old on a new thread. Why don't you guys put on some boxing gloves and settle your differences once and forever.

 

[Booner]

Here we go again. What is this- round 9? Same old, same old on a new thread. Why don't you guys put on some boxing gloves and settle your differences once and forever.

Not a bad idea!

 

[leftyhunter]

What a goofy response.....honest people don't liberate things that are legal...……. Honest soldiers don't rob and murder those who they are entrusted to protect, honest people actually would rise up to fight such criminal activities. Actually honest people like law enforcement set up criminals all the time

Once again you refuse to acknowledge the mistreatment wasn't a one way street, which Leslie and most historians acknowledge.....Quantrill's crimes were no worse then the crimes that he was responding to. But as I said no surprise you disagree with most respected sources, as you seem to have blinders firmly on and refuse to ever look at the whole picture and what both sides were doing.

But I will note yet again you disagree with a noted authority to provide nothing contrary, other then the world according to lefty....which seems a very small world...… You even argue with me noting you disagree...…….to say you do disagree...….hmmmmm

Do you have some credible source that jayhawkers weren't robbing, murdering and burning people illegally out an a large scale, both before and during the war? As every source I've read notes they were...…. and to think it wouldn't draw a response of people banding together to fight back seems rather unrealistic, as it does to condemn people for not standing by to be illegally murdered/robbed/ or burned out

Really I wonder do you even watch the documentaries or read the books you claim? Because its odd time and time again you refer to a source that clearly shows both side were guilty, to somehow seem to suggest it said it was just all one side and pretend it doesn't even mention the others actions.....….when that isn't what the source said at all.....

I would add if you want to refer to honest people, Honest people don't misrepresent the facts to pretend something occurred in a vacuum when there were many contributing factors that lead to it...…..

I never argued the Jayhawkers where not criminals. You seem to ignore the fact that it was the Border Ruffians inspired by Missouri Senator David Acheison to " kill all the dammed Abolitionists" that led to the Trouble's in Missouri.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

I never argued the Jayhawkers where not criminals. You seem to ignore the fact that it was the Border Ruffians inspired by Missouri Senator David Acheison to " kill all the dammed Abolitionists" that led to the Trouble's in Missouri.
Leftyhunter

No I haven't, and one has nothing to do with robbing and killing random citizens for personal gain which is all jayhawkers did. I suppose you have a source for your conclusion that ignores all the contributions to the troubles from the Kansas side to solely focus on just Atchison's rhetoric?

I would think the New England Aid Society would be a place to apportion some blame, By offering free passage and help to set up homesteads for free, they are going to attract lower elements of society who have nothing......then they organize them into para military companies, even arming them. It was a recipe for disaster, once the society couldn't provide more "free" stuff they just started robbing and killing to get free stuff. They created a monster they couldn't even control in what became the jayhawkers

Also have to wonder if you've read Bleeding Kansas by Nicole Etcheson.....because she writes "a rabble rousing speech by David Atchison circulated encouraging acts of violence on the citizens of Lawrence"...…………"In truth, Atchison gave no such speech and tried unsuccessfully to restrain Jones and other proslavery leaders.' Monaghan also notes there's differing accounts of what was said.

 

[leftyhunter]

No I haven't, and one has nothing to do with robbing and killing random citizens for personal gain which is all jayhawkers did. I suppose you have a source for your conclusion that ignores all the contributions to the troubles from the Kansas side to solely focus on just Atchison's rhetoric?

I would think the New England Aid Society would be a place to apportion some blame, By offering free passage and help to set up homesteads for free, they are going to attract lower elements of society who have nothing......then they organize them into para military companies, even arming them. It was a recipe for disaster, once the society couldn't provide more "free" stuff they just started robbing and killing to get free stuff. They created a monster they couldn't even control in what became the jayhawkers

Not do sure that it was the emigrants from New England to Kansas that are entirely to blame vs the Border Ruffians. Sounds like an interesting separate thread.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Not a bad idea!

@archieclement @Patrick H ,
Here a deal. I won't bash Quantrill and the other Confederate guerrillas if in turn you gentlemen don't bash John Brown, Jim Lane , Montgomery all the Jayhawkers and of course Nathaniel Lyon.
After all if Quantrill is really a misunderstood but deep down wonderful person so are all of the above.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

@archieclement @Patrick H ,
Here a deal. I won't bash Quantrill and the other Confederate guerrillas if in turn you gentlemen don't bash John Brown, Jim Lane , Montgomery all the Jayhawkers and of course Nathaniel Lyon.
After all if Quantrill is really a misunderstood but deep down wonderful person so are all of the above.
Leftyhunter

No idea what you define "bash"..... and no one has said anyone was "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person" that's a prime example of your disingenuousness. As this thread is about the documentary, what Leslie said was authors have described him either a psychopath with no redeeming values or a knight errant for the CS, but that he didn't find either extreme very useful in trying to describe what was a very complicated man...….which in my words seems to imply hes somewhere in between

No idea where you draw "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person" from Leslies statement......that's the type of misrepresentation of a source I'm getting tired of...……

Leslie never said it
I never said it
Patrick never said it

The only one saying Quantrill was "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person" is you.....though you try to imply others are...….when its just you

 

[Patrick H]

@archieclement @Patrick H ,
Here a deal. I won't bash Quantrill and the other Confederate guerrillas if in turn you gentlemen don't bash John Brown, Jim Lane , Montgomery all the Jayhawkers and of course Nathaniel Lyon.
After all if Quantrill is really a misunderstood but deep down wonderful person so are all of the above.
Leftyhunter

No deal Lefty. These people all deserve criticism for at least some of their actions. That certainly includes Quantrill. I just like to see them fairly evaluated and I want people to remember that Missouri guerrillas and Kansas troopers were as individual then as we are today. Some were ruthless. Some seemed to personify evil. Some were good soldiers. That's the truth of it.

 

[Patrick H]

After all if Quantrill is really a misunderstood but deep down wonderful person so are all of the above.
Leftyhunter

This sarcasm is a perfect example of the closed mindedness I referred to above (without mentioning you, by the way.) I don't think anything useful can come from this sort of sarcasm.

 

[leftyhunter]

No idea what you define "bash"..... and no one has said anyone was "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person" that's a prime example of your disingenuousness. As this thread is about the documentary, what Leslie said was authors have described him either a psychopath with no redeeming values or a knight errant for the CS, but that he didn't find either extreme very useful in trying to describe what was a very complicated man...….which in my words seems to imply hes somewhere in between

No idea where you draw "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person" from Leslies statement......that's the type of misrepresentation of a source I'm getting tired of...……

Leslie never said it
I never said it
Patrick never said it

The only one saying Quantrill was "misunderstood but deep down wonderful person" is you.....though you try to imply others are...….when its just you

By bash I mean what you @Patrick H and a few others claim that Lyon and Brown are somehow evil but Quantrill is basically misunderstood.
If we should take into account that Quantrill behavior was excusable due to the behavior of the Jayhawkers then to be fair and balanced the Jayhawkers behavior was shaped by the Border Ruffians.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

By bash I mean what you @Patrick H and a few others claim that Lyon and Brown are somehow evil but Quantrill is basically misunderstood.
If we should take into account that Quantrill behavior was excusable due to the behavior of the Jayhawkers then to be fair and balanced the Jayhawkers behavior was shaped by the Border Ruffians.
Leftyhunter

Perhaps you will refresh my memory where I used the term "evil" in connection with Lyon or Brown, I generally try to avoid moralizing terms as it serves little purpose, though would assume hacking people to death in the middle of the night might qualify. And no, not seeing the comparison as most the violence in Kansas prewar was Kansasans killing Kansasans, So not sure how that somehow justifies wholesale randomly killing and robbing people of another state. And once again your assigning statements to sources that I'm not aware were made.... Perhaps you can also provide a source flatly saying everything Quantrill did was excusable. Sources referring to a chaotic situation where neither are innocent and responding to each other tit for tat, each believing they are right, is simply recognizing the reality, it hardly is saying either is or was excusable.



Edit- a quick forum search shows most my references to "evil" are addressing others usage of it, or me noting I never used the term evil in the first place......

Say you have a daughter that is raped, and the police do nothing, so you kill the guy......I wouldn't say what you did was either legal or somehow perfectly excusable.....however that doesn't mean I can't at the same time see why you did it, and perhaps even sympathize somewhat you were put in a situation where vigilante justice was the only way any justice would occur.

But it seems if anyone recognizes a grey area, you attempt to paint it as the other extreme, which wasn't what was said at all...……….

 

[Patrick H]

My Lyon thread asked whether Nathaniel Lyon was a hero, a devil, or both. It was an open discussion about his virtues and his flaws. I admit I've said I thought John Brown was crazy, but I don't believe I ever said he was evil.

 

[leftyhunter]

Perhaps you will refresh my memory where I used the term "evil" in connection with Lyon or Brown, I generally try to avoid moralizing terms as it serves little purpose, though would assume hacking people to death in the middle of the night might qualify. And no, not seeing the comparison as most the violence in Kansas prewar was Kansasans killing Kansasans, So not sure how that somehow justifies wholesale randomly killing and robbing people of another state. And once again your assigning statements to sources that I'm not aware were made.... Perhaps you can also provide a source flatly saying everything Quantrill did was excusable. Sources referring to a chaotic situation where neither are innocent and responding to each other tit for tat, each believing they are right, is simply recognizing the reality, it hardly is saying either is or was excusable.



Edit- a quick forum search shows most my references to "evil" are addressing others usage of it, or me noting I never used the term evil in the first place......

Say you have a daughter that is raped, and the police do nothing, so you kill the guy......I wouldn't say what you did was either legal or somehow perfectly excusable.....however that doesn't mean I can't at the same time see why you did it, and perhaps even sympathize somewhat you were put in a situation where vigilante justice was the only way any justice would occur.

But it seems if anyone recognizes a grey area, you attempt to paint it as the other extreme, which wasn't what was said at all...……….

Actually Bleeding Kansas was a fight between Abolitionists mostly from New England ( the Brown family being an exception being from Ohio) vs Border Ruffians from Missouri.
I can understand why the Youngest joined the Bushwhackers since the Kansas troops most definitely violated military law against their father and many other civilians.
If we argue that the actions of the Confederate guerrillas were understand le then we can use the same argument's to say the actions of the Jayhawkers was understandable.
On the other hand one side fought to protect and expand slavery vs the other that did not.
Nothing wrong with pointing out wrongs on one side and or suspending moral judgement on both sides if it is consistent.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Actually Bleeding Kansas was a fight between Abolitionists mostly from New England ( the Brown family being an exception being from Ohio) vs Border Ruffians from Missouri.
I can understand why the Youngest joined the Bushwhackers since the Kansas troops most definitely violated military law against their father and many other civilians.
If we argue that the actions of the Confederate guerrillas were understand le then we can use the same argument's to say the actions of the Jayhawkers was understandable.
On the other hand one side fought to protect and expand slavery vs the other that did not.
Nothing wrong with pointing out wrongs on one side and or suspending moral judgement on both sides if it is consistent.
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"