Documentary of Quantrill.

[Patrick H]

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."

I will join @Booner in recommending this book. It's a very good resource.

 

[TnFed]

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."

That would certainly make a lot of sense about the 40%. In East-TN many of the partisan/guerrilla fighters on both sides were from the same counties and related to each other. I would imagine the same held true at Kings Mountain. Many of the patriots related and many of the Tories under Ferguson related. I would suspect they were even some relatives fighting each other.

 

[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...…

In past threads you defended the Lawrence Massacre as being completely justified due to previous Jayhawker attacks. If we can excuse the Lawrence Massacre why not excuse the Jayhawkers for there alleged wrong doings?
Leftyhunter

 

[Lusty Murfax]

That would certainly make a lot of sense about the 40%. In East-TN many of the partisan/guerrilla fighters on both sides were from the same counties and related to each other. I would imagine the same held true at Kings Mountain. Many of the patriots related and many of the Tories under Ferguson related. I would suspect they were even some relatives fighting each other.

Several of my Virginia ancestors were granted land in East Tennessee for their Revolutionary Was service, including two
who fought at Kings Mtn. Several settled there along the French Broad and the Nolichucky Rivers in Cocke County, formerly Green Co., N.C. The next generation moved on to Missouri, away from the rocks, hills and sticks and onto the prairies.

 

[archieclement]

In past threads you defended the Lawrence Massacre as being completely justified due to previous Jayhawker attacks. If we can excuse the Lawrence Massacre why not excuse the Jayhawkers for there alleged wrong doings?
Leftyhunter

I don't think I've ever said it was completely justified....but It certainly was justified to some extent, unless one thinks people should be allowed to murder/rob/ destroy homes to run out innocent people without any punishment at all, I certainly don't. One big difference every historian notes that you seem blind to, is Lawrence was in a fact a nest of thieves and murderers and the raid there was to pay them back for the misdeeds they had conducted..... Guerrillas had list of guilty to go after. Historians note there were warehouses in Lawrence full of stolen goods.

Jayhawkers raids weren't, they were random, not targeting anyone for anything, just to conduct wholesale robbery for personal gain, they would just cut swaths through countryside's robbing and burning all. And whole towns for example's Osceola, Dayton, Papinsville, Butler, West Point, Rose Hill, Columbus, Chapel Hill, Holden, and Morristown. Between the two think any serious historian could answer between the two which was motivated primarily by monetary gain, every one I have talked to at roundtables has, and its the jayhawkers, notable difference in motivation. Revenge may not be pretty, but more noble then just petty greed IMO.

Something I've noticed, because there is a redeeming vigilante virtue to guerrillas look at sheer number of books movies made about them......on the other hand Jayhawkers are so without any redeeming qualities....authors wont touch them, its a story that wont sell, inflicting hardships on people for petty greed

 

[leftyhunter]

I don't think I've ever said it was completely justified....but It certainly was justified to some extent, unless one thinks people should be allowed to murder/rob/ destroy homes to run out innocent people without any punishment at all, I certainly don't. One big difference every historian notes that you seem blind to, is Lawrence was in a fact a nest of thieves and murderers and the raid there was to pay them back for the misdeeds they had conducted..... Guerrillas had list of guilty to go after. Historians note there were warehouses in Lawrence full of stolen goods.

Jayhawkers raids weren't, they were random, not targeting anyone for anything, just to conduct wholesale robbery for personal gain, they would just cut swaths through countryside's robbing and burning all. And whole towns for example's Osceola, Dayton, Papinsville, Butler, West Point, Rose Hill, Columbus, Chapel Hill, Holden, and Morristown. Between the two think any serious historian could answer between the two which was motivated primarily by monetary gain, every one I have talked to at roundtables has, and its the jayhawkers, notable difference in motivation. Revenge may not be pretty, but more noble then just petty greed IMO.

Except the Confederate guerrillas did not attack Jayhawkers they just killed any male they found who they perceived as old enough to carry a gun. The guerrillas also indiscriminately burned as many houses as they could. Not sure how that makes Confederate guerrillas more Bible the Jayhawkers.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Except the Confederate guerrillas did not attack Jayhawkers they just killed any male they found who they perceived as old enough to carry a gun. The guerrillas also indiscriminately burned as many houses as they could. Not sure how that makes Confederate guerrillas more Bible the Jayhawkers.
Leftyhunter

No they didn't, and you know they didn't, No point in continuing if your just going to spout off nonsense...…

Lawrenceians themselves put population at around 3000 before the raid......roughly 150 people were killed and 86 homes burned...…..that is not killing every male old enough to carry a gun, if you have actually EVER read ANYTHING about the Lawrence you'd know there's numerous accounts of adult Lawrence males describing being spared...… Honestly don't bother responding to me until you can muster at least some degree of honesty. Because you've either not read a **** thing ever or just keep purposely lying for who know what reason with blatantly false exaggerated statements...…

Your not misrepresenting authors and sources sure didn't last long...………..Haven't read an account that didn't mention survivors who had been spared. In fact despite your misleading rhetoric, the very first thing we know he did during the raid, was to ride to the hotel and start sparing men old enough to carry a gun...…amazing you wouldn't be aware of it...….

 

[leftyhunter]

No they didn't, and you know they didn't, No point in continuing if your just going to spout off nonsense...…

Lawrenceians themselves put population at around 3000 before the raid......roughly 150 people were killed and 86 homes burned...…..that is not killing every male old enough to carry a gun, if you have actually EVER read ANYTHING about the Lawrence you'd know there's numerous accounts of adult Lawrence males describing being spared...… Honestly don't bother responding to me until you can muster at least some degree of honesty. Because you've either not read a **** thing ever or just keep purposely lying for who know what reason with blatantly false exaggerated statements...…

Your not misrepresenting authors and sources sure didn't last long...………..Haven't read an account that didn't mention survivors who had been spared. In fact despite your misleading rhetoric, the very first thing we know he did during the raid, was to ride to the hotel and start sparing men old enough to carry a gun...…amazing you wouldn't be aware of it...….

My friend such anger on my gosh.
Your right killing 56 unarmed men and boys is just harmless fun. The folks in Lawrence had it coming to them. The survivors should of been grateful that not every guerrilla took Quantrill' s order to heart. By the same token the Jayhawkers didn't kill every male in Missouri so we should show them the same live as the Confederate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Except the Confederate guerrillas did not attack Jayhawkers they just killed any male they found who they perceived as old enough to carry a gun.

Lefty, I don't know what you're reading, besides T. J Stiles's biography of Jesse James, but Missouri guerrillas most certainly did attack jayhawkers, state militias, and federal regulars every time they thought the odds favored them. They did this from their organization in 1862 through Q's 1865 retreat to Kentucky. They did it at Lawrence, too. Please quit making these rash statements.

Yes, Quantrill was quoted at Lawrence as telling his men to kill any male old enough to carry a gun. Historians also note that they went there with a specific death list of jayhawk and red leg leaders.

 

[Patrick H]

Regarding the television program, I really liked the guy who said: "He had a certain flexibility in the domain of morality." That's about as nice and polite a way to criticize someone as I've ever heard!

 

[TnFed]

Several of my Virginia ancestors were granted land in East Tennessee for their Revolutionary Was service, including two
who fought at Kings Mtn. Several settled there along the French Broad and the Nolichucky Rivers in Cocke County, formerly Green Co., N.C. The next generation moved on to Missouri, away from the rocks, hills and sticks and onto the prairies.

Mine just hunkered down in Monroe County TN and Cherokee County NC untill after the 2nd World War. Then just spread out all over.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, I don't know what you're reading, besides T. J Stiles's biography of Jesse James, but Missouri guerrillas most certainly did attack jayhawkers, state militias, and federal regulars every time they thought the odds favored them. They did this from their organization in 1862 through Q's 1865 retreat to Kentucky. They did it at Lawrence, too. Please quit making these rash statements.

Yes, Quantrill was quoted at Lawrence as telling his men to kill any male old enough to carry a gun. Historians also note that they went there with a specific death list of jayhawk and red leg leaders.

All well and good but how many Jayhawkers were actually killed at Lawrence vs just random male civilians who had nothing to do with the Jayhawkers?
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

My friend such anger on my gosh.
Your right killing 56 unarmed men and boys is just harmless fun. The folks in Lawrence had it coming to them. The survivors should of been grateful that not every guerrilla took Quantrill' s order to heart. By the same token the Jayhawkers didn't kill every male in Missouri so we should show them the same live as the Confederate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

No we shouldn't treat people who rob and steal solely the same as vigilantes, one is motivated by justice the other solely to commit crime Edited., as you are aware most historians have noted the difference Edited.

You know the "order" you quote comes from just one source years after the fact, while others there say there was no such order, and its not supported by the actual events at all, as the very first thing he does is spare people. Its hardly established fact that what was said.
Edited.

 

[Patrick H]

All well and good but how many Jayhawkers were actually killed at Lawrence vs just random male civilians who had nothing to do with the Jayhawkers?
Leftyhunter

You tell me. You won't find the answer in Stiles's biography of Jesse James. I think you'd do well to broaden your reading horizons, but you go ahead and continue as you wish.

Did you actually watch the documentary? I did. I watched it twice. I noted a couple of timeline errors, but I thought it was pretty objective for the most part.

Lefty, I know you can't get beyond the usual stories of Lawrence and I know you don't want to be dissuaded by any evidence to the contrary.

Lawrence was awful. But you are so fixated on it that you can't see any of the bigger picture--such as the rest of the border war from 1862 to 1865.

 

[Zella]

Several of my Virginia ancestors were granted land in East Tennessee for their Revolutionary Was service, including two
who fought at Kings Mtn. Several settled there along the French Broad and the Nolichucky Rivers in Cocke County, formerly Green Co., N.C. The next generation moved on to Missouri, away from the rocks, hills and sticks and onto the prairies.

My grandfather's family lived along the French Broad just over the state line in Madison County, NC.

 

[leftyhunter]

You tell me. You won't find the answer in Stiles's biography of Jesse James. I think you'd do well to broaden your reading horizons, but you go ahead and continue as you wish.

Did you actually watch the documentary? I did. I watched it twice. I noted a couple of timeline errors, but I thought it was pretty objective for the most part.

Lefty, I know you can't get beyond the usual stories of Lawrence and I know you don't want to be dissuaded by any evidence to the contrary.

Lawrence was awful. But you are so fixated on it that you can't see any of the bigger picture--such as the rest of the border war from 1862 to 1865.

Yes I did see it. Yes the counterinsurgency conflict in Missouri encompasses more then Lawrence. But the fact remains it wasn't the Jayhawkers that took the bunt of the Lawrence Massacre. If we should look at the big picture of the Lawrence Massacre and excuse what happened then to be fair we should do the same for the Jayhawkers and Union troops in Missouri.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Yes I did see it. Yes the counterinsurgency conflict in Missouri encompasses more then Lawrence. But the fact remains it wasn't the Jayhawkers that took the bunt of the Lawrence Massacre. If we should look at the big picture of the Lawrence Massacre and excuse what happened then to be fair we should do the same for the Jayhawkers and Union troops in Missouri.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, you are giving a circular argument. I didn't even participate in your original "fairness" discussion with Archie. I only responded to your contention that the guerrillas didn't fight jayhawkers. See your own post #66.

 

[leftyhunter]

Lefty, you are giving a circular argument. I didn't even participate in your original "fairness" discussion with Archie. I only responded to your contention that the guerrillas didn't fight jayhawkers. See your own post #66.

My point is that the guerrillas didn't fight Jayhawkers very in Lawrence just unarmed males.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

No we shouldn't treat people who rob and steal solely the same as vigilantes, one is motivated by justice the other solely to commit crime Edited., as you are aware most historians have noted the difference Edited.
You know the "order" you quote comes from just one source years after the fact, while others there say there was no such order, and its not supported by the actual events at all, as the very first thing he does is spare people. Its hardly established fact that what was said.
Edited.

Edited. Jayhawkers weren't harmed at Lawrence unarmed makes where. Yes Quantrill did order his men to indiscriminately kill because he didn't stop them in fact he ordered them to do so. Quantrill protected those who befriended him in Lawrence.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Edited. Jayhawkers weren't harmed at Lawrence unarmed makes where. Yes Quantrill did order his men to indiscriminately kill because he didn't stop them in fact he ordered them to do so. Quantrill protected those who befriended him in Lawrence.
Leftyhunter

Edited.

One was a jayhawker if they jayhawked, I suppose by your logic Jesse James ceased to be a bank robber when he took the gunbelt off...… it just makes you an unarmed bank robber or jayhawker, doesn't change what you are at all, or wash away the guilt of what you've done in any way.

There is little evidence Q ordered his men to indiscriminately kill, as already noted, and his actions and others was the opposite., in fact we know the majority killed no one. As well there's numerous accounts of others protecting civilians and houses. Also theres the list, every major historian acknowledges they were going by a list, thats not indiscriminate but selective targeting,