MO Bushwhacker Victims

[archieclement]

Or is there? By making a point to condemn both sides the attempt is to draw some blame away from the side of your preference (your agenda). In this case although civilians were killed it was their own fault for forming an ad-hoc militia and coming up with a defensive strategy. That makes the confederate attackers somewhat justified in their killing since it was a war action (though apparently the objective was not to take prisoners). See how that works? We're on to it.

actually wrong again, I generally don't condemn either side, I just recognize what was, was. And once again I've never said either side was any more justified in killing captives then the other, that seems to be what you want to imply. Your the one who seems to insist its OK for one, but not other....I'm on to you or otherwise when both were doing the same, and someone simply recognizes both were doing the same, you wouldn't feel some apparent need to always to try to defend one but not the other. When one was never slighted anymore then the other, by simply recognizing they were doing the same.

 

[byron ed]

I'll call them militia, but if you want to insist they were illegal Unionist guerrillas that's fine

No, I never described or insisted they were "illegal Unionist guerillas." That's you making up something so you can rail against it. If my points are such an anethema to you, aren't they sufficient to rail against in the form they are?

 

[byron ed]

...When one was never slighted anymore then the other, by simply recognizing they were doing the same.

Boy howdy, I think it's pretty clear here the German settlers were slighted quite a bit more than their attackers. They were civilians and the ones being attacked and murdered in detail -- not so much a war action but a slaughter. This incident is not the best example to use for assigning blame equally. The confederate raiders are more guilty in this case, though not to absolve the German settlers fully.

I'd like to play the fair guy, the hero in the room too, but in the study of history one keeps both eyes open. A lot of incidents in the CW had more to condemn on one side than the other. That's the fair way to look at it. Even in Missouri.

 

[archieclement]

No, I never described insisted they were "illegal Unionist guerillas," that's you making up something so you can rail against it. If my points are such an anethema to you, aren't they sufficient to rail against in the form they are?

Well make up your mind, they were either legal militia, or a illegal vigilante/guerrilla force.....Pretty sure forming a group of "civilians" to ambush people isn't generally legal. I'm just responding to what you say, you used "civilians" repeatedly, used "innocent civilians" when they actively trying to participate in a military action which is neither innocent or civilian, Either they were doing so under military authority (legal) or without authority which wouldn't be.

I'll note we disagree, see little point in continuing to watch you chase your tail in circles, have witnessed it several times now..

 

[byron ed]

Well make up your mind, they were either legal militia, or a illegal vigilante/guerrilla force...Either they were doing so under military authority (legal) or without authority which wouldn't be.

Not an either/or. They didn't have to have any legal standing at all to be defending themselves against imminent attack.
And whether under military authority or not? pffft. Last thing on their minds in the heat of the moment.

How much have you studied what was really going on in your state at that time?

 

[archieclement]

Not an either/or. They didn't have to have any legal standing at all to be defending themselves against imminent attack.
And whether under military authority or not? pffft. Last thing on their minds in the heat of the moment.

How much have you studied what was really going on in your state at that time?

Not an either/or? Reckon not as that would require an actual standard your willing to apply equally regardless of side, once again your lack of any consistent standard is noted.

obviously more then you have...… oh wait was that supposed to be some personal insult? Har Har if so. If want to put a friendly wager on respective libraries of Missouri history, I'll accept

So now your recognizing guerrillas were authorized to do what they felt necessary for defense of their communities whether they had military authority or not? Or yet another classic example of your utilizing double standards? Or if it wasn't on their minds in the heat of the moment its OK? Or is that only for one side as well?

I'll simply note we disagree, and cant ever see us agreeing on anything until you can decide on one standard to apply equally. Just from the last several threads I've responded to you, slavery, killing noncombatants, scalping/mutilation, even taking up arms without authority is always OK for one side to do......but never OK for the other....But of course you claim your not biased . While I've recognized both did all of the above, and that it was no better or worse depending on who was doing it consistently....

But have a good nite Myron

 

[Keiri]

My guy worked for the railroad in the latter portion of his life. I'm assuming he subsistence farmed right off though. Not sure of any mines in that area but I can look.

From What I have heard that the French were into mining and the Germans were into farming. I think they all migrated to areas that were like home to them or follows relatives to the new world.

 

[Keiri]

Oh goodness not my dirt poor ancestors! They didn't have slaves, barely a "pot to pee in" as my dad liked to say.

The French seem fairly diversified here, originally mainly fur/Indian trade, then agriculture/commerce, then lead mining when lead was discovered west of Ste Genevieve. Not sure how many French were mining themselves, they imported 500 slaves from Santa Domingo to work the mines.

 

[Keiri]

You guys why do you have to state your opinions or thoughts with such digs into the other person? I'm not pointing fingers, but why is it necessary to be nasty or snide simply because you disagree? We're all old enough to be past that, cmon. I like you all and enjoy reading your comments, let's all cool down...

 

[Lusty Murfax]

You guys why do you have to state your opinions or thoughts with such digs into the other person? I'm not pointing fingers, but why is it necessary to be nasty or snide simply because you disagree? We're all old enough to be past that, cmon. I like you all and enjoy reading your comments, let's all cool down...

Maybe one of them is from Kansas.

 

[Badgercwcollector]

I cannot say who is right or wrong as I was not there but to me it was 2 different wars west and east . The war in the east is a lot easier to follow which is why I find Missouri's CW involvement so interesting. So many variations to follow and how several hundred Bushwackers could tie up several thousand union infantry and cavalry soldiers with an occasional visit from the Confederate army.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

I cannot say who is right or wrong as I was not there but to me it was 2 different wars west and east . The war in the east is a lot easier to follow which is why I find Missouri's CW involvement so interesting. So many variations to follow and how several hundred Bushwackers could tie up several thousand union infantry and cavalry soldiers with an occasional visit from the Confederate army.

Might explain the rationale behind Union mistreatment of the civilian population here. Justified depredations in reaction to a few Confederate partisans.

 

[byron ed]

Might explain the rationale behind Union mistreatment of the civilian population here. Justified depredations in reaction to a few Confederate partisans.

Oxford dictionary for the meaning of few: "not many, hardly any, scarcely any. a small number, a handful, a sprinkling, one or two, a couple, two or three..."

There were far more than a "few" Confederate gang incidents in Missouri. But in any event the OP here is about one large Missouri confederate gang attacking and killing civilians. It was not a defensive action. Those particular Germans posed no physical threat to anyone in Missouri, being a political threat at best. So they were killed for that. We're supposed to suspend reason and consider that a fair response, a tit-for-tat?

btw we all know there were Union outrages ("justified depredations") in Missouri too, no one here having denied it. But that doesn't lessen the awfulness of this incident one whit. This is not some sort of zero-sum tally. We're on to it, the attempt.

 

[byron ed]

Maybe one of them is from Kansas.

Dorothy

 

[mofederal]

The lead mines were well west of St. Louis and then in the Southeast and Southwest parts of the state. Lead mining began in the 1700's at Mine La Motte. Missouri has always been a leader in lead production. From the early days to today. Actually by the time of the Civil War a lot of the areas the French settled became predominately German, like St. Genevieve and Cape Girardeau, but it still remained a mix.

 

[Badgercwcollector]

The lead mines were well west of St. Louis and then in the Southeast and Southwest parts of the state. Lead mining began in the 1700's at Mine La Motte. Missouri has always been a leader in lead production. From the early days to today. Actually by the time of the Civil War a lot of the areas the French settled became predominately German, like St. Genevieve and Cape Girardeau, but it still remained a mix.

Still quite a few French names around Richwoods Mo. and in the cemeteries. I am finding the mining industry history very interesting for this part of the state . We have about 20 Barite pits on our land and I hope to get rich someday with our mining rights . lol

 

[archieclement]

Still quite a few French names around Richwoods Mo. and in the cemeteries. I am finding the mining industry history very interesting for this part of the state . We have about 20 Barite pits on our land and I hope to get rich someday with our mining rights . lol

Have you been to the Missouri Mines State Historic Site?

 

[Badgercwcollector]

Have you been to the Missouri Mines State Historic Site?

Is this in Bonne Terre ? I have driven by this place a few times but have not had the chance to go into it. I have heard of a mining school in Rolla . But that's it . When I bought our land I saw about 20 holes in the ground 8-10 ' deep x 10-12' diameter. So I asked if there was an air force base in the area and she looked at me weird and asked why . I said these look like bomb craters and she said they were Tif mines and that I would have mining rights .

 

[archieclement]

Is this in Bonne Terre ? I have driven by this place a few times but have not had the chance to go into it. I have heard of a mining school in Rolla . But that's it . When I bought our land I saw about 20 holes in the ground 8-10 ' deep x 10-12' diameter. So I asked if there was an air force base in the area and she looked at me weird and asked why . I said these look like bomb craters and she said they were Tif mines and that I would have mining rights .

It's in Park Hills just to the south of Bonne Terre, by St Joe state park

Have you dug in any of em to see if find anything?

My heart doc that saved my life relocated to Festus mo, so I go down there a couple times a year for checkups, and poke around surrounding area if weather is nice.

 

[BigMuddy]

Booner

No telling how many times I've driven past this sight and was never aware. I will be sure to stop by there soon. Thanks for posting.

No blame game...just suffice to say living in MO at that time was very difficult no matter your affiliations. Even trying to remain neutral was hazardous.

Dan