Free State Of Jones

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Why does a guerrilla need official sanction to becomea guerrilla? Guerrillas walk the walk they don't have to talk the talk.
Leftyhunter


I apologize for getting us bogged down in semantics. I rarely disagree with you, Lefty, but if Knight's force were Unionist guerrillas, then the New York Draft Rioters have an equal claim to being considered Confederate guerrillas. Sorry, it just doesn't wash.

That Knight's men were independent partisans or Confederate outlaws (rather than guerrillas) takes nothing away from them, and doesn't diminish their courage or moral stature. As Americans we are supposed to admire princilped resistance to tyranny.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I will start a new thread about Knight and I will use the dictionary to help educate you that guerrillas and deserters,are not exactly the same.
Leftyhunter
I never said they were........you did LOL

"If men desert from the Confederacy that also serves the Union cause. If someone d ties down Union troops that serves the Union cause." Lefty post 58

the same would also be true of union deserters, they hurt the union cause by deserting, then hurt it again by forcing troops to used to try to round up deserters, and in fact there were union deserters who formed bandit bands.........

If your going to argue something don't keep changing your definition you yourself are using...........Or seem to only want to use it to define one side, while holding the other side apparently to some different standard
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I never said they were........you did LOL

"If men desert from the Confederacy that also serves the Union cause. If someone d ties down Union troops that serves the Union cause." Lefty

the same would also be true of union deserters, they hurt the union cause by deserting, then hurt it again by forcing troops to used to try to round up deserters, and in fact there were union deserters who formed bandit bands.........

If your going to argue something don't keep changing your definition you yourself are using...........Or seem to only want to use to define one side, while holding the other side apparently to some different standard
True Union deserters hurt the Union cause. However for the most part they did not conduct sustained small unit actions against Union troops and militia as did Knight and the boy's.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
True Union deserters hurt the Union cause. However for the most part they did not conduct sustained small unit actions against Union troops and militia as did Knight and the boy's.
Leftyhunter
Wow sustained small unit actions......he captured five wagonloads of corn, a bandit band being attacked by the authorities isn't a guerrilla action........so exactly how many sustained offensive operations did ole Newt do besides the great corn heist?................From what I've read he only was involved in 14 skirmishes total, most rather minor at that, and it seems quite a few were initiated by the authorities hunting the bandits.........since you yourself acknowledge being a guerrilla is conducting offensive and harassment, not hiding and fighting defensive as common bandits would do, elaborate on these sustained small unit actions.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Wow sustained small unit actions......he captured five wagonloads of corn, a bandit band being attacked by the authorities isn't a guerrilla action........so exactly how many sustained offensive operations did ole Newt do besides the great corn heist?................
We have with the help of others more then completely derailed @Jimklag thread. I hope @Jimklag can get a moderator to remove all of our posts concerning Knight to a new thread.
Leftyhunter
 

Borderruffian

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Location
Marshfield Missouri
the same would also be true of union deserters, they hurt the union cause by deserting, then hurt it again by forcing troops to used to try to round up deserters, and in fact there were union deserters who formed bandit bands.........

TRUE. the Big Thicket, the Wild Cat Thicket, Jerrnigan and other Thickets in North Central Texas and Southern Indian Territory were fairly ate up with "Bush Men" . Quantrills men spent some time hunting deserters both CS and US during their winters in Texas.......course they went and killed more than they took into custody or returned to the CS Army....but sometimes ya has to break some eggs I reckon.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Nah. It's okay. Not the worst deviation from the OP in the history of CWT.
It's your thread. On the other hand it apoears,we need a more sourced thread,about a great man maligned by pro Confederate folk. Knight as we shall see was a very effective Unionist guerrilla and caused a lot of harm to tbe Confederate cause. I most likely wont be able to start the new thread until the weekend.
Has far as the he movie being accurate its not bad. Yes not every scene is accurate but the spirit was. That is it did accurately portray that far from all Southerners supported the Confederacy and the Confederacy faced a popular revolt against it in the last half of the war.
The Confederacy had to resort to harsh measures against the population to sustain itself.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It's your thread. On the other hand it apoears,we need a more sourced thread,about a great man maligned by pro Confederate folk. Knight as we shall see was a very effective Unionist guerrilla and caused a lot of harm to tbe Confederate cause. I most likely wont be able to start the new thread until the weekend.
Has far as the he movie being accurate its not bad. Yes not every scene is accurate but the spirit was. That is it did accurately portray that far from all Southerners supported the Confederacy and the Confederacy faced a popular revolt against it in the last half of the war.
The Confederacy had to resort to harsh measures against the population to sustain itself.
Leftyhunter
I have no problem with you saying he hurt the confederate cause, any bandits that forced eithers sides troops to have to be detailed to counter it did that..........

However Union and Confederate are sides in the civil war, to be Unionist or Confederate you have to have ties to that side, which he clearly did not.........which leaves him just a bandit. Just being in opposition to a side does not make you allied or sanctioned to the other side, especially if you had already been in opposition to that side too........ Enlisting twice into the Confederate Army clearly does not demonstrate any form of loyalty or devotion to the Union cause or ideals......

Just because a war is going on doesn't mean criminal activity stops, it actually causes new forms like desertion , however the criminals are still just criminals......committing crimes in Maine doesn't make one a confederate nor does committing crimes in Mississippi make one a Unionist

BTW there were a few Unionists in the south, who clearly showed and demonstrated a loyalty and devotion to the Union cause and ideals, which some paid for with their lives, and IMO you do them a disservice by elevating bandit trash that showed loyalty to neither side as somehow being the same.........
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Yes its a movie based loosely on a real life historical character, Gettysburg was a movie too and you should look at the number and size of those threads.............apparently movies can spark discussion on what they are based on, wouldn't say that's a bad thing

I am of the opinion that if one only gets their history from a movie it's like getting quality food from the gutter.

I like the example of the movie, Lincoln. We have a thread here that discussed the movie and how historically accurate it was. That caused a lot of discussion and debate, requiring a lot of research amongst the forum members here. The end result was a lot of learning because of that movie.

Movies should not be used as a stand alone lesson for history. Movies are designed for their entertainment value so that they can earn money, not teach accurate history.

Unionblue
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Don't disagree, but looking through this thread it has been mostly people correcting the historical inaccuracies of the movie, not people taking the movie itself as history........
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I have no problem with you saying he hurt the confederate cause, any bandits that forced eithers sides troops to have to be detailed to counter it did that..........

However Union and Confederate are sides in the civil war, to be Unionist or Confederate you have to have ties to that side, which he clearly did not.........which leaves him just a bandit. Just being in opposition to a side does not make you allied or sanctioned to the other side, especially if you had already been in opposition to that side too........ Enlisting twice into the Confederate Army clearly does not demonstrate any form of loyalty or devotion to the Union cause or ideals......

Just because a war is going on doesn't mean criminal activity stops, it actually causes new forms like desertion , however the criminals are still just criminals......committing crimes in Maine doesn't make one a confederate nor does committing crimes in Mississippi make one a Unionist

BTW there were a few Unionists in the south, who clearly showed and demonstrated a loyalty and devotion to the Union cause and ideals, which some paid for with their lives, and IMO you do them a disservice by elevating bandit trash that showed loyalty to neither side as somehow being the same.........
I will try to put together a new sourced thread on the good and brave Newt Knight this weekend.
Leftyhunter
 
Top