No quarter giving by Union Guerilla Militia Regiments

A lot of the 39th Mo. was recruited in Northeast Missouri, and you list your ancestor as killed on Oct. 31, 1864. Not long after the 39th lost all of those at Centralia. I suspect members of the the unit were a bit trigger happy, and maybe looking for some payback for their lost comrades. Either way their is no excuse for murder. Most of the guerrillas had probably cleared out of that part of the state by then, Centralia having occurred in Sept. of 1864. Anderson's men had left the area, and Anderson was dead by then. The 39th was clearly looking for payback.
 
Not so sure about that. The 7th Kansas got around and they had a chip on their shoulder . It doesn't take much for them to stir up the Confedrate leaning Missourians. The Confedrate guerrllas in turn killed plenty of Unionists in Missouri. Once the killings start there hard to stop.
Leftyhunter
Though it rather illogical to think Union outrages and responses to them from Missouri Militia, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, and other non Kansas troops had much to do with bleeding Kansas at all, it's just a old false talking point that became myth. Because in reality the majority of Missouri's 104 counties never had KS troops as occupiers, nor were visited by jayhawkers at all.
 
Though it rather illogical to think Union outrages and responses to them from Missouri Militia, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, and other non Kansas troops had much to do with bleeding Kansas at all, it's just a old false talking point that became myth. Because in reality the majority of Missouri's 104 counties never had KS troops as occupiers, nor were visited by jayhawkers at all.
The 'bleeding kansas' myth was an invention of eastern newspapers. Missourians had as much right to resettle in eastern kansas, as the New Englanders did. Missouri did not ship to kansas crates of arms mislabeled as books and other miscellaneous goods, as the New Englanders did. Missourians did not not organize vigilante groups and send them out to murder and evict settlers, as the New Englanders did.
 
The 'bleeding kansas' myth was an invention of eastern newspapers. Missourians had as much right to resettle in eastern kansas, as the New Englanders did. Missouri did not ship to kansas crates of arms mislabeled as books and other miscellaneous goods, as the New Englanders did. Missourians did not not organize vigilante groups and send them out to murder and evict settlers, as the New Englanders did.
Yes, in Nicole Etchisons book she points out it was orginally being settled by Missourians. The first murder was by the anti slavery agitators as well....

Its somewhat surprising considering modern scholarship has dispelled many of the old myths, that they are still continued by some......assume agenda talking points.

Even the modern works into it are somewhat skewed, as what they include as "political deaths" of anti slavery people....... Often were people resisting actual law enforcement, hardly nefarious.
 
Yes, in Nicole Etchisons book she points out it was orginally being settled by Missourians. The first murder was by the anti slavery agitators as well....

Its somewhat surprising considering modern scholarship has dispelled many of the old myths, that they are still continued by some......assume agenda talking points.

Even the modern works into it are somewhat skewed, as what they include as "political deaths" of anti slavery people.......were people resisting actual law enforcement, hardly nefarious.
Kansas was birthed in fraud. Eastern sponsors, such as the New England Emigrant Aid Company imported and funded 'bully-boys', violent criminals and a host of bad actors to foment dissent and instigate violence. The leading citizens of kansas after the War included infamous thugs and murderers, rehabilitated by their usefulness to the Union during the War. In contrast, the official pre-War position of the State of Missouri was to maintain a peaceful western frontier. Efforts to facilitate migration of Missourians into kansas were private and most settlers were only interested in establishing their own homesteads.
 
He was a southern partisen who son Lorenzo Parks served with his uncle Abner Finell in the Militia. They where all targets from the 39th Missouri Infantry Williams son my great cousin, died in their cornfield they think he was wounded from the fight he came home got his belongings. William Parks uncle Abner Finell was murdered by them for protecting his daughter who saw the whole thing. They didn't like it that he married into a slave holding family. His uncle George Hurt was also killed. From after helping a young boy being hung by the militia days before they where murdered. They where all targets for the raid on the train with Bloody Bill Anderson.

William Jordan Parks.jpg


Lorenzo Parks.jpg


Captain Abner Finell.jpg


Moses Hurt.jpg
 
Though it rather illogical to think Union outrages and responses to them from Missouri Militia, Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, and other non Kansas troops had much to do with bleeding Kansas at all, it's just a old false talking point that became myth. Because in reality the majority of Missouri's 104 counties never had KS troops as occupiers, nor were visited by jayhawkers at all.
Your not grasping the concept of one bad deed leads to others.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Your not grasping the concept of one bad deed leads to others.
Leftyhunter
No I grasp the concept as guerrillas were indeed a response to Union bad deeds.

Your not grasping the majority involved had experienced no bad deeds before the war. So it a rather glaring herring and false premise to say bleeding Kansas however.
 
Last edited:
I
There indeed was no conflict before 1855 and

No I grasp the concept as guerrillas were indeed a response to Union bad deeds.

Your not grasping the majority involved had experienced no bad deeds before the war. So it a rather glaring herring and false premise to say bleeding Kansas however.
I can only repeat myself so many times. One bad deed leads to another. The Border Ruffians started a chain reaction and the Jayhawkers especially the 7th Kn got around fast. The 7Kn poisoned the well.
Leftyhunter
 
As I can too, as the majority of the participants in the ACW, Missourians and the occupiers had nothing to do with, nor had experienced anything in "bleeding Kansas" so it was not either a cause or effect for them.

People react to what they actually experienced, not things they never had at all.

So yes Union outrages in ACW did lead to others.....however something never experienced didn't.......

As I said name actual guerrillas at the sack of Lawrence in 1856, I'm still waiting.........for examples of those influenced by bleeding Kansas. If it was significant you should be able name plenty. Because you simply saying over and over something that the majority never experienced at all, was what influenced them, remains false no matter how many times you say it. You can't wish it true.
 
Last edited:
Guerilla fighting has no real heroes. There is an old adage that, for every action there is an equal reaction; in other words, if someone does something horrible to me (or family for friends), I will do something despicable in return. The very sad thing about war is it dehumanizes--it allows each side to see the other not as fellow humans but as The Enemy; it allows the slaughter of children and of unarmed civilians (in fact, these are often favored targets).

All this is complicated by the fact that what is said to have happened and what actually happened are two different things (if this is a puzzle for later people looking back consider the seriousness for those living through the situation).

The losers far out number the "Good Guys".
 
As I can too, as the majority of the participants in the ACW, Missourians and the occupiers had nothing to do with, nor had experienced anything in "bleeding Kansas" so it was not either a cause or effect for them.

People react to what they actually experienced, not things they never had at all.

So yes Union outrages in ACW did lead to others.....however something never experienced didn't.......

As I said name actual guerrillas at the sack of Lawrence in 1856, I'm still waiting.........for examples of those influenced by bleeding Kansas. If it was significant you should be able name plenty. Because you simply saying over and over something that the majority never experienced at all, was what influenced them, remains false no matter how many times you say it. You can't wish it true.
We enjoy the 'benefit' of the histories recorded after the War, but the common citizen living in Missouri during those times had no concept of "burning kansas". They weren't reading the anti-Southern propaganda of the Eastern newspapers. I doubt many common citizens had any awareness of efforts by Sen. Atchison and other prominent Missourians to motivate pro-slavery Missourians to resettle in eastern kansas in the decade before the War. However, every Missourian, including those residing far outside the immediate danger zone understood all too well the terror visited on defenseless Missouri citizens by invading bands from kansas.
 
However, every Missourian, including those residing far outside the immediate danger zone understood all too well the terror visited on defenseless Missouri citizens by invading bands from kansas.
Alas the poor civilians. Missouri might have been suffered from invading bands from Kansas--but, at the same time, Arkansas suffered from invading bands from Missouri--to wit, Jackman's raid at Huntsville in November of 1862. As Ozark Watch (summer 1991) said: The Ozarks was a victim of the Civil War" and notes that "Confederate armies of invasion" plagued the area. There was a grim tit-for-tat: Jayhawkers destroyed Osceola and, in retribution, Quantril burned Lawrence. Missouri was what Denny & Bradbury (The Civil War's First Blood) called "armed neutral".

The Arkansas Historical Quarterly ("Guerillas, Jayhawckers & Bushwackers in Northern Arkansas during the Civil War") writes about the small bands, whose allegiances were to their leaders who preyed upon the civilian population.

The area was a desert by the war's end with the damage being done by partisans of both sides.
 
We enjoy the 'benefit' of the histories recorded after the War, but the common citizen living in Missouri during those times had no concept of "burning kansas". They weren't reading the anti-Southern propaganda of the Eastern newspapers. I doubt many common citizens had any awareness of efforts by Sen. Atchison and other prominent Missourians to motivate pro-slavery Missourians to resettle in eastern kansas in the decade before the War. However, every Missourian, including those residing far outside the immediate danger zone understood all too well the terror visited on defenseless Missouri citizens by invading bands from kansas.
Yes despite someones obsession with the 7th Kansas, the majority of the occupiers were not from Kansas at all, much less the 7th. And very few guerrillas would have ever had a connection to Kansas pre-war as well.

But when talking of the guerrilla war overall, I don't focus on one county, area, or unit at all, but the whole......which is the majority weren't from Kansas nor had ever been in Kansas........which leaves it out as a motivation for the majority.
 
Last edited:
Alas the poor civilians. Missouri might have been suffered from invading bands from Kansas--but, at the same time, Arkansas suffered from invading bands from Missouri--to wit, Jackman's raid at Huntsville in November of 1862. As Ozark Watch (summer 1991) said: The Ozarks was a victim of the Civil War" and notes that "Confederate armies of invasion" plagued the area. There was a grim tit-for-tat: Jayhawkers destroyed Osceola and, in retribution, Quantril burned Lawrence. Missouri was what Denny & Bradbury (The Civil War's First Blood) called "armed neutral".

The Arkansas Historical Quarterly ("Guerillas, Jayhawckers & Bushwackers in Northern Arkansas during the Civil War") writes about the small bands, whose allegiances were to their leaders who preyed upon the civilian population.

The area was a desert by the war's end with the damage being done by partisans of both sides.
Arkansas seemed to have some bands that were simply outlaw.......didn't appear to have any real affiliation to either side or state.
 
Alas the poor civilians. Missouri might have been suffered from invading bands from Kansas--but, at the same time, Arkansas suffered from invading bands from Missouri--to wit, Jackman's raid at Huntsville in November of 1862. As Ozark Watch (summer 1991) said: The Ozarks was a victim of the Civil War" and notes that "Confederate armies of invasion" plagued the area. There was a grim tit-for-tat: Jayhawkers destroyed Osceola and, in retribution, Quantril burned Lawrence. Missouri was what Denny & Bradbury (The Civil War's First Blood) called "armed neutral".

The Arkansas Historical Quarterly ("Guerillas, Jayhawckers & Bushwackers in Northern Arkansas during the Civil War") writes about the small bands, whose allegiances were to their leaders who preyed upon the civilian population.

The area was a desert by the war's end with the damage being done by partisans of both sides.
Your Missouri - Arkansas comparison is ridiculous. The invasions of Missouri by bands of kansas terrorists were systematic, of little military benefit and continued far into the war years after those bands had been absorbed into the Union military. The kansas 7th and other units may have been wearing blue Union uniforms, but their activities in Missouri were fundamentally criminal, including murder, theft and destruction of private property on a grand scale.
 
He was a southern partisen who son Lorenzo Parks served with his uncle Abner Finell in the Militia. They where all targets from the 39th Missouri Infantry Williams son my great cousin, died in their cornfield they think he was wounded from the fight he came home got his belongings. William Parks uncle Abner Finell was murdered by them for protecting his daughter who saw the whole thing. They didn't like it that he married into a slave holding family. His uncle George Hurt was also killed. From after helping a young boy being hung by the militia days before they where murdered. They where all targets for the raid on the train with Bloody Bill Anderson.

View attachment 383322

View attachment 383323

View attachment 383324

View attachment 383325
thank you for posting JD Mayo , very interesting stuff ,too bad it turned into a shoving match in comments ,but I still read all your comments .
 
Your Missouri - Arkansas comparison is ridiculous. The invasions of Missouri by bands of kansas terrorists were systematic, of little military benefit
I don't think so. I am trying to say that the violence and outrage wasn't one-sided (there is a French saying that, if all blame could be put on one side, disputes wouldn't last as long).

Lt. Col. and Professor of Military History Leo Huff states: "As the war dragged to an end, the guerrillas, bushwhackers and jayhawkers became even bolder and more lawless, if such were possible. Deserters from both armies joined men of the brush in forming gangs of outlaws whose sole objective was to pillage, torture, and murder defenseless civilians and lone soldiers. Both Unionist and Secessionist newspapers in Arkansas in the closing months of the war were filled with descriptions of murderous outrages committed against soldiers and civilians by these marauders".

If you take your sources from only one side, you wind up with an inaccurate view. The devastation rained on these unfortunate civilians came from both sides--and from some "freelancers" as well.
 
JD Mayo, your ancestor's unfortunate plight was fairly commonplace in Missouri during the war. It is a sad fact that Missouri civilians suffered terribly during the war. Out-of-state troops occupying the area were often a bullying bunch. Provost Marshals were often corrupt and thieving. Militias were often on their own string, so to speak. A lot of Illinois and Iowa troops tended to look down on ALL Missourians because it was a slave state, and this natuarlly influenced the way many of them treated civilians--even those who didn't own slaves. It was guilt by association, without a doubt. Chariton County and most of the counties along the river corridor harbored a large percentage of southern-leaning citizens. This was a volatile enough mix from the get-go. After General Order Number 11 in 1863, the population of nearly FOUR COUNTIES along the Kansas border was displaced--a large percentage of them coming to the central Missouri river corridor counties. Soon enough, their sons, brothers, husbands, cousins, etc. in the guerrilla bands followed them. Civilians were not safe anywhere around here. Somehow, my own ancestors in Howard County managed to survive with no murders that I know of, although I'm sure they suffered crop and livestock losses. In Boonville (where I live) people were murdered, lynched, bodies were found in alleys and others were thrown into the river. A newspaper, a foundry and a tin shop (among other businesses) were destroyed. Type was thrown into the river. Printing presses, foundry equipment, tin molds, etc., were destroyed. Inventory was taken from stores. It was a rough time to try to live in central Missouri.
 
By your arguement it would also have been a valid excuse and justification for the guerrillas, but in actual reality the majority on both sides had nothing to do with bleeding Kansas, so it's an absurd excuse or justification for either side.

In fact lots of guerrillas reason for becoming guerrillas are recorded, and it's in response to actions during the ACW, and not pre-war bleeding Kansas at all.

I would assume you also know Bleeding Kansas is spin, and in reality it wasn't all that bloody at all. So even during 1855-1857, few were brutalized at all as well.........in reality it was only a one year period of any real strife 1856. Only 8 had died in over the 3 years preceding the CW.
 
Back
Top