Enrolled Missouri Militia question

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW:REGISTER HERE!

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
2,267
Location
Boonville, MO
The earlier EMM members/soldiers had no real uniforms and supplied their own weapons. They were also called the Paw Paw Militia. They would put Paw Paw leaves in their hats as an identification. They were extremely unreliable and therefore suspect by many. Later on when it became the Provisional Enrolled Missouri Militia they were issued US issued uniforms.
I will have to politely disagree with this statement. It implies that all EMM units were called PAW PAW's which is not the case.

The Paw Paw's were two experimental EMM units (the 81st & 82nd EMM) organized in the summer of '63 by Gov. Hamilton Gamble and Mj.Gen Schofield to specifically combat Kansas Jayhawking raids into Platte, Clay, Buchanan, & Clinton counties in MO. These counties were full of returned MSG & Rebel soldiers as well as southern sympathizers who were the largely targets of the Jayhawker's raids. Since the southerners in these counties were exempt from regular service in the EMM, and since martial law prevented the locals from having arms to defend themselves, the Gov. & Gen. enrolled the returned southern soldiers into the two special EMM units, (again, the 81st & 82nd) as a defensive force to combat the Jayhawking raids.

As one can imagine, there was a lot of controversy regarding these two units, but they did drive out and substantially reduce the Jayhawking raids. There a number of accounts, made by local unionist, that praised the Paw Paw's (many with prior military training), in their efforts in bringing peace to the area. And why not? The Paw Paw's were protecting their families and farms against the KS raiders. For about a year, the Paw Paw experiment looked to be a success.

However, in anticipation of Price's raid into MO in the fall of '64, a number of Confederate recruiters came into the area during the summer with the hope and idea that they could recruit and hold the counties until Price's arrival. These recruiters found many of their recruits among the Paw Paw's, who seem to have willingly reverted back to overt support of the South. Thus ended the experiment and the Paw Paw's were disbanded.
 
Last edited:

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
670
Location
Northwest Missouri
Pretty much every bridge on the Hannibal-St Joe had blockhouse to guard it, because they were burnt so often early on.
Early on Federal authorities applied a levy against farmers and business owners living near the burned bridges and guardhouses in order to pay for their repair and replacement. Retribution against Missourians by Union commanders begs the question, why was Missouri treated as a conquered seceded southern State if it's secession was not recognized as legitimate? Clearly, Union commanders treated the people of Missouri as an enemy.
 
Last edited:

mofederal

Captain
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
6,744
Location
Southeast Missouri
A good article. I think they were pretty bad troops most of the time. I know the ones closest to the border being more motivated as soldiers to protect their family and friends. Those closer to the interior were questionable. Once they became PEMM, they were totally equipped by the Union Army, and were later eligible for pensions. There were some really bad EMM units, they should not have made everyone enroll in the EMM. That was wrong on the part of the state, but they felt they had no choice. It was a Gamble/Schofield deal. I tend to think Missouri was forced into it by the Federal authorities in the state. Schofield was not well thought of by the Missouri population.
 
Last edited:

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
670
Location
Northwest Missouri
a link showing the Paw Paw's conversion from blue (back) to grey-->

http://www.majorkey1920ksscv.org/BashiBazouks.html
Nice find/share! Am familiar with these skirmishes, as they occurred less than a half hour drive from my farm. Many of my Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia ancestors (the geography gets confusing, due to the changing boundaries as new States were established west of the original southern colonies) migrated to Missouri during the early to mid- 1830s and temporarily settled in Clay Co., waiting for the U.S. government to open up the Platte Purchase territory for permanent settlement. These southern families came to Missouri to claim bounty lands and/or patents or land grants in the newly opened region of northwest Missouri, which they had been promised in gratitude for their military service in the War of 1812 back east. First settlement was offered to the families of these veterans and succeeding generations continued to filter northward through northwest Missouri. Other land grants were issued subsequent to military service in the Mexican War. The first County opened was Platte and my ancestors claimed land, up to 200 acres each near present day Platte City, Camden Point, Weston, Dearborn, New Market, Ridgely and Edgerton. The Counties of northwest Missouri, initially settled by southern pioneer families provided the rich Confederate recruiting grounds described in the article shared by Booner.
 

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
2,267
Location
Boonville, MO
Early on Federal authorities applied a levy against farmers and business owners living near the burned bridges and guardhouses in order to pay for their repair and replacement. Retribution against Missourians by Union commanders begs the question, why was Missouri treated as a conquered seceded southern State if it's secession was not recognized as legitimate? Clearly, Union commanders treated the people of Missouri as an enemy.
Radical Unionist, viewed all slave owners as being rebels. In their view, MO is a slave state, all Missourians are rebels. (granted, this is a simplistic view, but not that far from the truth). Not only did Missouri fight with itself, (pro southerners vs pro federals) and with others, ( KS vs MO) the Federals within the state fought with each other in how they governed the state. (radicals vs conservatories). And then MO was a backwater to the larger conflict, we didn't get the best and brightest when it came to Federal Commanders.
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,448
Location
mo
Radical Unionist, viewed all slave owners as being rebels. In their view, MO is a slave state, all Missourians are rebels. (granted, this is a simplistic view, but not that far from the truth). Not only did Missouri fight with itself, (pro southerners vs pro federals) and with others, ( KS vs MO) the Federals within the state fought with each other in how they governed the state. (radicals vs conservatories). And then MO was a backwater to the larger conflict, we didn't get the best and brightest when it came to Federal Commanders.
Would add a slight caveat, federal and out of state units typically viewed all slaveholders as rebel....however slaveholders were a decided minority...….they lost control of the country side because the appointed Republicans viewed all Democrats as rebel and/or a political threat, and the majority of rural Missouri was Democrat...…

In 1860 there was 24,320 slaveholders in Missouri
In 1860 there was 148,442 Democrat votes compared to 17,029 Republican….

As small a minority the slaveholders were out of a white population over a million, they were a larger group then the Republicans who were put in control...….
 
Last edited:

TnFed

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
1,005
Good question. These units were organized by Federal authorities in Missouri, mainly for the purpose of keeping the peace on a local basis. However, they were often filled with men of unknown or ambiguous loyalties. Sometimes these men covertly held opinions hostile to Union aims. It was a good place for a southern man to ride out the war and avoid Union service in combat against his fellows. Also, by joining an MEM unit he might be able to prevent Union retribution against his family and kinsmen.
 

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
2,267
Location
Boonville, MO
Nice find/share! Am familiar with these skirmishes, as they occurred less than a half hour drive from my farm. Many of my Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia ancestors (the geography gets confusing, due to the changing boundaries as new States were established west of the original southern colonies) migrated to Missouri during the early to mid- 1830s and temporarily settled in Clay Co., waiting for the U.S. government to open up the Platte Purchase territory for permanent settlement. These southern families came to Missouri to claim bounty lands and/or patents or land grants in the newly opened region of northwest Missouri, which they had been promised in gratitude for their military service in the War of 1812 back east. First settlement was offered to the families of these veterans and succeeding generations continued to filter northward through northwest Missouri. Other land grants were issued subsequent to military service in the Mexican War. The first County opened was Platte and my ancestors claimed land, up to 200 acres each near present day Platte City, Camden Point, Weston, Dearborn, New Market, Ridgely and Edgerton. The Counties of northwest Missouri, initially settled by southern pioneer families provided the rich Confederate recruiting grounds described in the article shared by Booner.
Very informative post Lusty. I missed it the first time around.

--a piece of trivia
-- (perhaps this might make a good trivia question? Hmm, we'll see who's paying attention)--
Lusty mentioned the "Platte Purchase;" When Missouri first became a state in 1820, the NW state line boundary originally went due north from approximately present day Kansas City to the Iowa line. The area west of this line to the Missouri River was Indian territory, until the government purchased it in the late 1830's, and of course, it became part of the state of Missouri. Then they sent surveyors in and after that it open for settlement in the early 1840's. This is when Lusty's family and mine moved to NW Missouri.
---the bit of trivia-- I've seen it written that the Platte Purchase was the only time in our country's history where to government acquired territory and did not put a vote before congress as to whether that territory would be slave of free. Perhaps that vote didn't happen because the territory was purchased with the idea that it would become part of MO, and MO was already a slave holding state?
 

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
2,267
Location
Boonville, MO
Would add a slight caveat, federal and out of state units typically viewed all slaveholders as rebel....however slaveholders were a decided minority...….they lost control of the country side because the appointed Republicans viewed all Democrats as rebel and/or a political threat, and the majority of rural Missouri was Democrat...…

In 1860 there was 24,320 slaveholders in Missouri
In 1860 there was 148,442 Democrat votes compared to 17,029 Republican….

As small a minority the slaveholders were out of a white population over a million, they were a larger group then the Republicans who were put in control...….
I will agree with what you say, but need to point out that in 1860, the vast majority of Republican Missourians were probably German immigrants living around the St. Louis area.
 

Lusty Murfax

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
670
Location
Northwest Missouri
Very informative post Lusty. I missed it the first time around.

--a piece of trivia
-- (perhaps this might make a good trivia question? Hmm, we'll see who's paying attention)--
Lusty mentioned the "Platte Purchase;" When Missouri first became a state in 1820, the NW state line boundary originally went due north from approximately present day Kansas City to the Iowa line. The area west of this line to the Missouri River was Indian territory, until the government purchased it in the late 1830's, and of course, it became part of the state of Missouri. Then they sent surveyors in and after that it open for settlement in the early 1840's. This is when Lusty's family and mine moved to NW Missouri.
---the bit of trivia-- I've seen it written that the Platte Purchase was the only time in our country's history where to government acquired territory and did not put a vote before congress as to whether that territory would be slave of free. Perhaps that vote didn't happen because the territory was purchased with the idea that it would become part of MO, and MO was already a slave holding state?
When I was a young man I rented a farm between Boxford and Cosby on Third Fork River bottoms. The farm straddled the joint boundary between Andrew and DeKalb Counties. This County line boundary is a section of the eastern boundary of the Platte Purchase Territory. While plowing on the bottom, I unearthed several large limestone boulders. They appeared to be cut or hand hewn and were generally situated on the County line. Dad looked at them and said they were ballast rocks brought up-river and used by the 19th century survey crews to mark the County boundary.
 

TnFed

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
1,005
I can't answer your question as I have no idea of how the British used them during the Boar War. Can you enlighten us, please?
I recall that they used a series of blockhouses near railroads and communication centers, they would place them about a thousand yards apart with barb wire placed between them at a zigzag, so the soldiers would not fire directly toward each other when the Boer tried to get through. My understanding is they dotted a large part of the area. I'm not really an expert on the subject. I believe the British started to use them when De Witt and others resorted to guerrilla war.
 
Top