Guerrillas, bushwhackers, jayhawkers, and red legs.

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
If one got most of their American history from movies and such one would have a skewed view of guerrillas, bushwhackers, jayhawkers, and red legs. In many cases Southern guerrillas, partisans, and bushwhackers are viewed in a neutral or even positive light. I am not sure the same can be said of Jayhawkers and red legs. Has Hollywood helped to make heroes out of Southern guerrillas, partisans, and bushwhackers but shown Jayhawkers and red legs in a negative light?

It would seem like bushwhackers and red legs would be given the same treatment by Americans and Hollywood. When one comes down to it they were about the same. Much the same could be said for partisans and Jayhawkers who in general operated in the same way.

All were more or less part of irregular military operations. There was an overlap of tactics and modes of operation. Both sides were about equally bad or equally good. I can think of movies where bushwhackers are shown in a positive light but can not come up with a movie that showed red legs in a positive light. Any thoughts?
 
You answered your own question, "Both sides were about equally bad or equally good. "

There seems an extreme reluctance then and even today to admit or portray that United States soldiers committed crimes or was accepted policy, guerrillas can be portrayed without any implication it was US soldiers or that it was sanctioned by the United States.

The problem with portraying jayhawkers favorably, say prewar, is they were such notorious thieves, any anti-slavery moral high ground is lost in all the plundering for personal gain they did, I tend to think
 
I thought "red legs" was a nickname for artillery soldiers, as a result of the red stripe down the side of their trousers.

Around the late 1950's or early 1960's, the Cincinnati baseball club altered their nickname from "Reds" to "Redlegs," because the former was viewed as a nickname for Communists and the latter was viewed as being much less objectionable.

Who were the red legs that major bill didn't think were ever viewed in a positive light?
 
We could argue that the Union did not do enough to limit the more unlawful actions of the red legs but we could ask if the Confederacy should have done more to limit some of the more unlawful actions of some of the bushwhackers.
Actually that would another problem with portraying red legs or jayhawkers favorably, by the end of the war the Union was condemning and disbanding them, and even court martialed some............so it would be odd to try portray a group in a movie favorably that both sides ended up condemning.............
 
I thought "red legs" was a nickname for artillery soldiers, as a result of the red stripe down the side of their trousers.

Around the late 1950's or early 1960's, the Cincinnati baseball club altered their nickname from "Reds" to "Redlegs," because the former was viewed as a nickname for Communists and the latter was viewed as being much less objectionable.

Who were the red legs that major bill didn't think were ever viewed in a positive light?
http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/encyclopedia/red-legs
 
Also, since Confederate irregulars could look forward to being hanged, there were instances of them fighting their way out of overwhelming circumstances.

Funny, John Wayne usually played All American characters but he won his only Oscar for playing former Confederate guerilla Rooster Cogburn.

And who can forget, "They say you're a hard and desperate man, Josey Wales."

There has always been a fascination with the anti-hero.
 
I thought "red legs" was a nickname for artillery soldiers, as a result of the red stripe down the side of their trousers.

Around the late 1950's or early 1960's, the Cincinnati baseball club altered their nickname from "Reds" to "Redlegs," because the former was viewed as a nickname for Communists and the latter was viewed as being much less objectionable.

Who were the red legs that major bill didn't think were ever viewed in a positive light?

The Civil War red legs were Kansas irregulars whose actions were often little more than out right theft and murder. Often the actions of the Kansas red legs were of very limited military value and often caused more problems that any value their operations provide. The Union did not need to supply soldiers to protect the Confederate supporters and even Union supporters from some of these Kansas red legs.
 
I suspect that Ken Curtis' twangy talking character in The Horse Soldiers was a nod to the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles, a unit of southern Union irregulars that scouted for Grierson.
 
It seems to me that Kirk's 3rd North Carolina Mounted Infantry has a better reputation among historians than the Kansas Redlegs. Not that a movie has ever been made about them either.
 
Let us assume the Confederacy had a duty to control them. This then becomes a question on what actions the Confederacy took to control them. If the Confederacy did have an obligation to control them, then the Confederacy needed to supply the men and resources needed to control them. Now one can ask if the Confederacy was simply careless in planning and resourcing or if they intentionally did not plan or provide resources.

The Union was under the same obligations to control the Kansas red legs. Basically the same rules apply. How much effort did the Union make to control the Kansas red legs? The Union leaders would same as much as they could and enough. The Confederate supporters and Union supporters who were victimized by the red legs might disagree.

A nation has an obligation to control the soldiers who fight for them. This rule in general applies to irregular forces as well as conventional forces. If the bushwhackers and Kansas red legs were not sanctioned by either side then the obligation to control them is greatly decreased. In every war some criminals will take advantage of the breakdown of the government's ability to enforce laws. Even then a government has an obligation to counter lawlessness. I do understand military operations limit the ability of a government to counter lawlessness in some areas.
 
The Civil War red legs were Kansas irregulars whose actions were often little more than out right theft and murder. Often the actions of the Kansas red legs were of very limited military value and often caused more problems that any value their operations provide.

Their actions sent a fair few otherwise good Missouri and Arkansas youth to the guerilla ranks. Of course, the opposite is probably true as well.
 
Based upon the above argument, both sides failed. Did either side even try to succeed?

Different people will have different views. I have read books that would agree with you that neither side put much effort into succeeding. I have read books that seem to indicate both sides took some action , but the lawlessness caused by the breakdown of civilian control overwhelmed the ability of either or both sides to control the situation.

To be honest I have not studied the situation in enough depth to make a decision. Part of my problem is which author do I trust enough to base my view of this on? I have studied prisoner of war operations and obligations in some depth. The military had me do a reasonable amount of time on the subject of prisoner of war theory and operations. Even though I was a military police officer the amount of time I spent studying law operations in combat areas or areas of operation near combat areas, probably was less than 300 to 500 hundred hours. I do not feel that I am qualified to judge based on such limited formal training in law enforcement operations in a combat area. This compares with many thousands hours of training or conducting in POW operations (I served at a POW camp).
 
The Union Army in Missouri first Curtis and then Schofield did try to control both Redlegs and Jayhawkers. It was successful up to a point. That point being Order No. 11. Else where the Union Army did put a halt to Jayhawker (7th Kansas Cavalry) antics in Mississippi and other areas away from Kansas. Col. Charles Jennison, one of most prominent Jayhawkers was finally ordered out of Missouri. He resigned his commission in 1862 and became a Redleg. The Redlegs were not formal Union Army troops but were actually irregular scouts for various Kansas units. Officially they were commissioned detectives for the District of the Border in Kansas. George S. Hoyt was chief detective of the district, and was nominally head of the Redlegs along with Jennison. He was later recommissioned a Col, and raised the 15th Kansas Cavalry. The Redlegs not being officially part of the military were much harder to control.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top