Quantrill. Good soldier?

[Borderruffian]

If rounding up unarmed men and boys and shooting them is not a massacre then I don't know what is. Yes their where war crimes committed by both sides. Most Missourians were loyal to the Union. Almost all Kansans where. Neither of them rounded up and massacred young boys. I never said all the Union COIN forces where angels. I never said Jim Lane was a saint.
Leftyhunter

The reason they were unarmed ,expect for a couple documented cases , can be blamed on the edicts of the Mayor of Lawrence.Seems his honor was worried about his militia or Home Guard damaging their issued muskets and ordred them locked in the armorey and further forbid other residents from going armed I guess he was a believer in an unarmed society being a polite society. Theres also the fact that Lawrence was about 40 miles from the state line a distance some of the partisans deemed to great until WCQ (and in a way Ewing) sold them on the idea.Not that the distance made Lawrence feel safe prior to the raid the had at least one false alarm that stood the home guards too and that didn't make them very happy. There was also the lack of warning from Aubray who's commander had seen the guerilla column and only sent a rider to the next post north in defense line

I never alluded that the whole sale killing was a good thing, I simply disagreed with your use of the term massacre, and I still do not agree with it's use.I was simply saying that they had their reasons for the raid and while you don't agree with them they did.

I'm aware that you've not said Lane and Jennison were saints but their depredations in Missouri as well as Ewings G.O.3#10 have to be taken into account as to why this thing occurred , and the reasons for it. It's easy to say that the partisans thought it up and carried out simply for blood lust and no other reason and that they were spawns of Lucifer incarnate ,but again nothing in this theater of war occurede in a vacuan.

 

[18thVirginia]

Were Quantrill and his men the model of a civilized unit while in Grayson County? No not at all.But I'd not believe all that Henry E. McCulloh wrote in his missives to Mcgurader, Smith or any other CS General Officer. Is there truth in some of it? Certainly. Is he accusing the Missourians of some of it to cover his his own inabilty to clear out the droves of deserters both US and CS that were infesting the thickets in his sub-district by laying "most of the murders and robbery at have occured in this section" on them ? Yes . Were murders and robberies committed by them ? Certainly the murder of George Butts was by Fletcher Taylor and John Ross so if a well repected man was killeed for his money and watch yes probably others were also. As far as them killing each other that would be no great surprise this was the time the Command was totally fracturing when the feelings between gurrellias such as Todd and Anderson and Gregg and Quantrill were beginning to weaken and each had their own group of adhernts , when Anderson broke away he fortfied his camp in Sherman fearing it would be raided by Quantrill.

As far as the valued of Household goods, if you are saying you don't think such things were worth taking, then explain the theft of wagohs and teams stolen in Harrisonville, Oseola, Dayton and other places raided by the Jayhawkers and Red Legs to be used to transport loot back to Kansas. I thought slaves being "jayhawked" would go without saying, and what they were worth wasn't even important because as rule Jayhawkers were not liberating them for resale, that would have kinda sorta defeated thier purpose mo wouldn't it?

I said in the post you qouted that the White Recruits were deemed to young and the blacks were mustering in and that neither group was armed as far as going out of his way I take that to be a referance to Baxter Sorings and the troops there which were some blacks of the 2 nd Colored Infantry and some white cavalry. The attack on the fort proper was replused by Pond firing the howitzer and the fort was not breeched some USCT,s were killed yes but the major casulties suffered were of Blunts train of white cavalrymen bandsmen and teamsters. In any event by most reports the partisans were not aware of Ft. Baxter until they stopped and burned and yes killed the teamsters that were haulimg lumber to the fort. But I'm sure that you're referring to something else in some other part of the theater.

Sorry, but blaming everyone else for William Quantrill's desire to kill and harm as many other human beings as possible before he left the planet just doesn't work. He plans a huge massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, which was not a military target, no matter how much Quantrill justifiers want to claim that. Heading south to Texas, his gang of murderers come upon a Union unit and again massacre something like 100 of them, shooting men who tried to surrender. Then he goes to Texas where he's supposed to bring in deserters and lynches 30 "deserters" in the courthouse square.

His men kill a couple of local men for being "deserters"--men who had papers showing them as excused from the army and because they were friends of the local sheriff, Quantrill's guys are actually tried and acquitted. So in retaliation, Quantrill has the Sheriff, the Chief Magistrate, and another local official lynched. This is all away from Missouri, so there are no Kansans there to blame things on.

Blaming Henry McCulloch for being unable to control what happened along the Texas--Indian Territory border might make sense to some, but I grew up traveling to Lake Texoma to fish and visiting a grandfather who lived across the road from the Red River, on the Texas side. Trying to excuse Quantrill's murderous personality by making Henry McCulloch responsible for the fact that it was easy to cross the River and prey upon the North Texans--again, just not a good excuse.

As others have said, there was plenty of blame to go around in Kansas and Missouri and the Union officials at the time complained about the jayhawkers, even the Kansans got tired of them. But North Texas was the same side and the locals were not happy with the murderous, thieving, marauding ways of the Quantrill gang. The massacre at Lawrence was only the largest and most well-known of the Quantrill killings, but when one reads about his travels, there are killings everywhere he goes. He chooses guides to lead him to Lawrence, then shoots them, all except the last one, who gets beaten to death because they're too close for gunshots.

 

[leftyhunter]

The reason they were unarmed ,expect for a couple documented cases , can be blamed on the edicts of the Mayor of Lawrence.Seems his honor was worried about his militia or Home Guard damaging their issued muskets and ordred them locked in the armorey and further forbid other residents from going armed I guess he was a believer in an unarmed society being a polite society. Theres also the fact that Lawrence was about 40 miles from the state line a distance some of the partisans deemed to great until WCQ (and in a way Ewing) sold them on the idea.Not that the distance made Lawrence feel safe prior to the raid the had at least one false alarm that stood the home guards too and that didn't make them very happy. There was also the lack of warning from Aubray who's commander had seen the guerilla column and only sent a rider to the next post north in defense line

I never alluded that the whole sale killing was a good thing, I simply disagreed with your use of the term massacre, and I still do not agree with it's use.I was simply saying that they had their reasons for the raid and while you don't agree with them they did.

I'm aware that you've not said Lane and Jennison were saints but their depredations in Missouri as well as Ewings G.O.3#10 have to be taken into account as to why this thing occurred , and the reasons for it. It's easy to say that the partisans thought it up and carried out simply for blood lust and no other reason and that they were spawns of Lucifer incarnate ,but again nothing in this theater of war occurede in a vacuan.

I appreciate your polite and courteous disagreement . You are obviously very knowledgeable about the conflict in Missouri and Kansas. On the other hand 18th VA nailed Quantrill to the wall on this one. For some reason due to divine providence Edwin Terril who was arguably as much an Eagle Scout as Quantrill some how decided not to leave Quantrill to just slowly die like a dog but instead some how got him to a hospital or at least the closest equivalent available. I never figured why Terril went soft so to speak.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

Sorry, but blaming everyone else for William Quantrill's desire to kill and harm as many other human beings as possible before he left the planet just doesn't work. He plans a huge massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, which was not a military target, no matter how much Quantrill justifiers want to claim that. Heading south to Texas, his gang of murderers come upon a Union unit and again massacre something like 100 of them, shooting men who tried to surrender. Then he goes to Texas where he's supposed to bring in deserters and lynches 30 "deserters" in the courthouse square.

His men kill a couple of local men for being "deserters"--men who had papers showing them as excused from the army and because they were friends of the local sheriff, Quantrill's guys are actually tried and acquitted. So in retaliation, Quantrill has the Sheriff, the Chief Magistrate, and another local official lynched. This is all away from Missouri, so there are no Kansans there to blame things on.

Blaming Henry McCulloch for being unable to control what happened along the Texas--Indian Territory border might make sense to some, but I grew up traveling to Lake Texoma to fish and visiting a grandfather who lived across the road from the Red River, on the Texas side. Trying to excuse Quantrill's murderous personality by making Henry McCulloch responsible for the fact that it was easy to cross the River and prey upon the North Texans--again, just not a good excuse.

As others have said, there was plenty of blame to go around in Kansas and Missouri and the Union officials at the time complained about the jayhawkers, even the Kansans got tired of them. But North Texas was the same side and the locals were not happy with the murderous, thieving, marauding ways of the Quantrill gang. The massacre at Lawrence was only the largest and most well-known of the Quantrill killings, but when one reads about his travels, there are killings everywhere he goes. He chooses guides to lead him to Lawrence, then shoots them, all except the last one, who gets beaten to death because they're too close for gunshots.

You seem to have a problem with WCQ A BIG ONE (perhaps you're channeling Jeff Davis, Bobby Lee or Henry McCulloch?).
I've never said that the forces in Blue in Missouri nor the less than steller McCulloch was at fault for the trail of blood and bodies left by Quantrill or the other Partisans and Partisans leaders had no fault in the way they conducted the war or their No Quarter policy or their actions in North Texas,Lousiana or IT. BOTH SIDES OF THE FIGHT EARN THEIR OWN Reputations, and really neither is good, just and fair read it again No Side was without their excesses and depredations of civilians.No Side exsisted in a vacuem .

I never excused Quantrills ( or the members of his Command of any murders or Robberies or any other depredation committed in the Sub district of North Texas, in fact I stated that they murdered George Butts and this was admitted by Taylor to your vaunted McCulloch at Bonham Texas what did Henry do? Zip,Nada, Nothin. My Point was that Henry was a less than able Sub-District Commander,who's area was over run with deserters from both sides and bands of miscreants from both Texas amd IT that he could not or would not attempt to bring to ground. In fact the Only thing that recommended Henry for a Generals Star was his brothers proven effectivnss

Yes the Union Officers complained about Jayhawkers and RedLegs in fact on one occision they were escorted from the state by Union Cavalry, whats your point?I've don't get what you're driving at. Nor do I understand the reference fishing on Texoma , although the Butts property is now under Texoma .


I've never tried to make it not the fault of WCQ

 

[Borderruffian]

derstand the referrance to fishing on Texoma

I appreciate your polite and courteous disagreement . You are obviously very knowledgeable about the conflict in Missouri and Kansas. On the other hand 18th VA nailed Quantrill to the wall on this one. For some reason due to divine providence Edwin Terril who was arguably as much an Eagle Scout as Quantrill some how decided not to leave Quantrill to just slowly die like a dog but instead some how got him to a hospital or at least the closest equivalent available. I never figured why Terril went soft so to speak.
Leftyhunter

Whether you or 18th care to believe it there were reasons that the Guerilla war occured in Missouri and quite a bit of it had to do with Union orders and practices as well as Kansas units actions. Do I think WCQ took advantsge of it? Heck yeah he did . I never tried to paint him a saint.How ever if you want to blame him , you should at least admit that the federal forces were not skipping thru the tulips and tossing out candy nor was the town of Lawrence a tottally unoffending plabe to Missourians .Yes Lawrence was beyond the pale,I've said that repeatedly-And yes the Partisans got more and more out of hand and unacceptable as the war went on.

Ive heard Terril was hired just to get WCQ and yes I've also heard and read he was a Union Partisan. I don't believe he knew he'd drooped WCQ ta Wakefield's until a couple days after. Thats when the Wagon came to transport WCQ to the military prison hospital at Louisville,

 

[leftyhunter]

derstand the referrance to fishing on Texoma


Whether you or 18th care to believe it there were reasons that the Guerilla war occured in Missouri and quite a bit of it had to do with Union orders and practices as well as Kansas units actions. Do I think WCQ took advantsge of it? Heck yeah he did . I never tried to paint him a saint.How ever if you want to blame him , you should at least admit that the federal forces were not skipping thru the tulips and tossing out candy nor was the town of Lawrence a tottally unoffending plabe to Missourians .Yes Lawrence was beyond the pale,I've said that repeatedly-And yes the Partisans got more and more out of hand and unacceptable as the war went on.

Ive heard Terril was hired just to get WCQ and yes I've also heard and read he was a Union Partisan. I don't believe he knew he'd drooped WCQ ta Wakefield's until a couple days after. Thats when the Wagon came to transport WCQ to the military prison hospital at Louisville,

No doubt the Union COIN forces in Missouri especially those from Kansas caused a lot of blowback. Yes in theory the US military learned of its COIN mistakes and incorporated it into the 1940 USMC's Small Wars Manual so they wouldn't happen again. Unfortunately history tells a different story.
Unfortunately history does not give future military leaders a perfect COIN campaign to copy.
Yes the Union COIN campaign in Missouri was horribly flawed. Yes Union brutality did cause many to join Confederate Guerrillas just as did Confederate brutality caused many Missourians to join Union COIN forces. Confederate brutality in Southern States caused many to join Unionist guerrillas. The same holds true in today's conflicts.
From what I read Terril and Quantrill are two birds of the same feather. Had both been born from the 1930"s onward they both would likely belong to a violent outlaw motorcycle gang.
Leftyhunter

 

[18thVirginia]

You

You seem to have a problem with WCQ A BIG ONE (perhaps you're channeling Jeff Davis, Bobby Lee or Henry McCulloch?).
I've never said that the forces in Blue in Missouri nor the less than steller McCulloch was at fault for the trail of blood and bodies left by Quantrill or the other Partisans and Partisans leaders had no fault in the way they conducted the war or their No Quarter policy or their actions in North Texas,Lousiana or IT. BOTH SIDES OF THE FIGHT EARN THEIR OWN Reputations, and really neither is good, just and fair read it again No Side was without their excesses and depredations of civilians.No Side exsisted in a vacuem .

I never excused Quantrills ( or the members of his Command of any murders or Robberies or any other depredation committed in the Sub district of North Texas, in fact I stated that they murdered George Butts and this was admitted by Taylor to your vaunted McCulloch at Bonham Texas what did Henry do? Zip,Nada, Nothin. My Point was that Henry was a less than able Sub-District Commander,who's area was over run with deserters from both sides and bands of miscreants from both Texas amd IT that he could not or would not attempt to bring to ground. In fact the Only thing that recommended Henry for a Generals Star was his brothers proven effectivnss

Yes the Union Officers complained about Jayhawkers and RedLegs in fact on one occision they were escorted from the state by Union Cavalry, whats your point?I've don't get what you're driving at. Nor do I understand the reference fishing on Texoma , although the Butts property is now under Texoma .


I've never tried to make it not the fault of WCQ

You're faulting a Confederate officer who had a long military history in Henry McCulloch because you want to make Quantrill seem less like the murderous psychopath that he was. If I have a problem, it's with not labeling a psychopath who liked killing as simply a murderer.

My mother was born at Denison, my parents married at Sherman and after living a lot of places, lived out their lives there. We drove to Nebraska, through some part of southern Oklahoma every year of my childhood. Explain to someone else that Henry McCulloch was a bad commander, compared to a killer, because he couldn't control deserters who could easily cross the Red River into the Indian Territory to hide out or lurk in the hills around the Sherman-Denison area. He also was trying to not leave settlers and women and children defenseless against Indian raids from the territory north of the Red River. And perhaps as someone who'd soldiered for a good deal of his life, he thought that producing grain and cattle in North Texas was important, unlike a murderer who'd spent his adult life thieving and killing people and whose idea of supplying a military group was simply theft and murder of average citizens.

Perhaps McCulloch, who'd served much of his life on the frontier, was sympathetic to North Texas men who were willing to serve in the Texas militia, but didn't want to leave their families to be killed by Indians or outlaws to go off to someplace else in the Confederacy. He also had a tense local situation in which slaveholders in the area had arranged to hang non-slaveholders in nearby Gainesville, and in Sherman, where the slaveholding Confederates had shot and killed the local newspaper editor on the main street for making an offensive comment. Perhaps McCulloch didn't want a Missouri-Kansas conflict on his hands in his area--which a Quantrill was likely to incite, for his own purposes of theft, pillaging and murder.

McCulloch had been a sheriff, a ranger and a legislator. Lynching the local sheriff and chief magistrate in Collin County for defending their local citizenry may not have been as heroic to a former lawman and elected official as to those who would elevate Quantrill beyond his status of murderous thief. Sure, there were depredations on both sides in Kansas-Missouri, and it became like a blood feud, but elsewhere you have 9 people killed in South Texas called a massacre, while Quantrill presides over the murder of 180-200 men at Lawrence, 80-100 in the encounter with Blunt's forces, more on the way to Texas, 30 men lynched at McKinney.

Labeling McCulloch as incompetent because he didn't want a scumbag psychopath killing the citizens under his jurisdiction is a bit much.

 

[Borderruffian]

You


You're faulting a Confederate officer who had a long military history in Henry McCulloch because you want to make Quantrill seem less like the murderous psychopath that he was. If I have a problem, it's with not labeling a psychopath who liked killing as simply a murderer.

My mother was born at Denison, my parents married at Sherman and after living a lot of places, lived out their lives there. We drove to Nebraska, through some part of southern Oklahoma every year of my childhood. Explain to someone else that Henry McCulloch was a bad commander, compared to a killer, because he couldn't control deserters who could easily cross the Red River into the Indian Territory to hide out or lurk in the hills around the Sherman-Denison area. He also was trying to not leave settlers and women and children defenseless against Indian raids from the territory north of the Red River. And perhaps as someone who'd soldiered for a good deal of his life, he thought that producing grain and cattle in North Texas was important, unlike a murderer who'd spent his adult life thieving and killing people and whose idea of supplying a military group was simply theft and murder of average citizens.

Perhaps McCulloch, who'd served much of his life on the frontier, was sympathetic to North Texas men who were willing to serve in the Texas militia, but didn't want to leave their families to be killed by Indians or outlaws to go off to someplace else in the Confederacy. He also had a tense local situation in which slaveholders in the area had arranged to hang non-slaveholders in nearby Gainesville, and in Sherman, where the slaveholding Confederates had shot and killed the local newspaper editor on the main street for making an offensive comment. Perhaps McCulloch didn't want a Missouri-Kansas conflict on his hands in his area--which a Quantrill was likely to incite, for his own purposes of theft, pillaging and murder.

McCulloch had been a sheriff, a ranger and a legislator. Lynching the local sheriff and chief magistrate in Collin County for defending their local citizenry may not have been as heroic to a former lawman and elected official as to those who would elevate Quantrill beyond his status of murderous thief. Sure, there were depredations on both sides in Kansas-Missouri, and it became like a blood feud, but elsewhere you have 9 people killed in South Texas called a massacre, while Quantrill presides over the murder of 180-200 men at Lawrence, 80-100 in the encounter with Blunt's forces, more on the way to Texas, 30 men lynched at McKinney.

Labeling McCulloch as incompetent because he didn't want a scumbag psychopath killing the citizens under his jurisdiction is a bit much.

Faulting or finding Fault in Henry E.McCulloch is not a hard thing to so if you make a study of him both prior to the war and during the war as well as after the war. He never led troops in battle thou he was part of an aborted expedition to relieve Vicksburg that is the extant of his CW combat service. He tagged along with brother Ben at the outset of the war to take Federal property and was commissioned a col in the Texas Army (yes they had an army at the very beginning of the war)when the state army mustered in he was given a CS provisional army commision and eventually was given command of the Northern sub district of Texas he made his headquarters at Bonham, Fannin County.The district as I said was Rife with bands of deserters from both sides, rustlers and other not so nuce people that took refuge in the thickets the largest number in Jernigans thicket but other thickets were also home to these bands such as the Wildcat thicket. Henry chose to treat these deserters and conscription dodgers with kid gloves and allow them to enlist in one of his "Brush Bn's" once they were enlisted long enough to obtain weapons ammo and clothing and rations they promptly returned to the thickets. E.Kirby Smith finally had to direct Henry to table the idea and bring them in with no guarentees of where or in what capacity they would serve,he never did.
He was releasef from being the adminisrator of a school for the deaf post war under the cloud of embezelment and it is said he made off with a good bit of loot when the CS gave out.While he may have been a fair administrator he was not a good sub-district CO. No he was not a competent commander his sub-district was rife with problems before he ever heard of WCQ.
I haven't tried to paint WCQ as some type of saint I'll leave that to Paul Peterson as he seems to get off on it, I do however question Henry McCullochs allegations that nearly all robbries and murders were committed by the Missourians when they exsisted before the winter of 63-64 in his sub district. Yes they committed a fair portion of these of that I have no doubt but they became of convient whipping boy for Henry, he even lauded them in a letter to Gen.Bee commanding the district of the Gulf, Admittedly I believe he wanted rid of them because they were not under his command due toWCQhaving a presidential commission.

The Baxter Springs fight was not murder all the union soldiers were armed even the Bandsmen who had just been issued Revolvers and all except the newspaper reporter and some of teamsters were duley mustered members of the Army of the US as were those in the fort. Baxter Springs though you have the Federal line down pat was not murder it was Blunt riding into fire storm and coming out on the losing end although he did manage to get out of Dodge in one heck of a hurry himself.

I've said ad nausem that Lawrence was beyond the pale in it's killing I've also said that their were reasons it took place, but you don't have to accpeot that I guess just go on painting every Partsan as diaobolical is that floats your boat .BTW I was born in Texas. I grew up in Texas in El Paso County, 3 of my kids currently reside in Texas Farmersville,Mesquite
and Paige so I don't see what the connection is you bandy about you havung realtives from Texas in the Northeast part of the state. But okay .

 

[Borderruffian]

No doubt the Union COIN forces in Missouri especially those from Kansas caused a lot of blowback. Yes in theory the US military learned of its COIN mistakes and incorporated it into the 1940 USMC's Small Wars Manual so they wouldn't happen again. Unfortunately history tells a different story.
Unfortunately history does not give future military leaders a perfect COIN campaign to copy.
Yes the Union COIN campaign in Missouri was horribly flawed. Yes Union brutality did cause many to join Confederate Guerrillas just as did Confederate brutality caused many Missourians to join Union COIN forces. Confederate brutality in Southern States caused many to join Unionist guerrillas. The same holds true in today's conflicts.
From what I read Terril and Quantrill are two birds of the same feather. Had both been born from the 1930"s onward they both would likely belong to a violent outlaw motorcycle gang.
Leftyhunter

I can find no fault with any of your conculsions, both sides did not do counter insurgency well and both sides tended to create their own problems, such is COIN type warfare when practiced wrong or without understanding it properly which is why the Corps published the small wars manual , not that it's always been followed and adhered to.

Like I said this conflict was a nasty bloody one and all sides were covered up min it (to qoute Trip.)

 

[Borderruffian]

You





McCulloch had been a sheriff, a ranger and a legislator. Lynching the local sheriff and chief magistrate in Collin County for defending their local citizenry may not have been as heroic to a former lawman and elected official as to those who would elevate Quantrill beyond his status of murderous thief. Sure, there were depredations on both sides in Kansas-Missouri, and it became like a blood feud, but elsewhere you have 9 people killed in South Texas called a massacre, while Quantrill presides over the murder of 180-200 men at Lawrence, 80-100 in the encounter with Blunt's forces, more on the way to Texas, 30 men lynched at McKinney.

.

I neglected to address this, however I do believe you are confusing Henry E. McCulloch with his much abler brother Ben,who was indeed a Texas Ranger, a sheriff in California a legislature for both the Republic of and the State of Texas led a Company of scouts and Rangers in the Mexican War, served briefly as a US Marshal in Texas was also a member of the US Congress fom Texas was a major General of Texas state troops at the beginning of the war, was commissioned Brigader General in the Confederate Army and lead the CS Western Army to protect IT and NW Arkansas at Wilsons Creek and other engagements in Mo and at Pea Ridge where he fell while on a scout and had fought as an Artillery man in Houstons Army during the Texas war of Independence at San Jacinto. Ben was all those things and his brother Henry? Well not so much.

 

[18thVirginia]

Perhaps you're more correct than the State of Texas Historical Association, who says that Henry Eustace McCulloch:

+Joined the Texas Rangers and was wounded at the Battle of Plum Creek against the Comanches in 1840.

+Served as a lieutenant in the Hay's Company against the Comanches and Mexican nationals, participated in the Battle of Salado Creek in 1842.

+Was elected Sheriff of Gonzales in 1843.

+During the Mexican War, was captain of a volunteer company guarding the frontier.

+In the 1850s, Henry McCulloch served in both houses of the Texas legislature.

+Was appointed United States Marshall for the Eastern District of Texas in the late 1850s.

+Organized the 1st Regiment, Texas Mounted Riflemen, in 1861.

Here's the page where you can inform the Texas State Historical Association that they have the information about Henry McCulloch stated incorrectly. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/feedback/revision-form

 

[Borderruffian]

Shoot I reckon ya got me good right there Did'nt ya now? Guess you done won and Henry was a saint and the bestest honest and far seeing general and sub district commander in the Dept. of Texas and of course having been in both houses in Texas would never ever try to shift the blame or cover his own short comings to the out staters in his area . Now understand I am not saying some of what they were charged with was not them I'm sure it was. But regardless of your impression and what TSHA cares to put out....I'm saying Henry was an ineffecftual commander at best and most all of the accoldes listed are as result of him riding Ben's coat tails.

 

[18thVirginia]

Found the larger quote of what Henry McCulloch said about Quantrill:

A good many of Colonel Quantrill's command have come into this sub-district, and it is said he is now within it. He has not reported here and I do not know what his military status is. I do not know as much about his mode of warfare as others seem to know; but, from all I can learn, it is but little, if at all, removed from that of the wildest savage; so much so that I do not for a moment believe that our Government can sanction it in one of her officers. Hence, it seems to me if he be an officer of our army, his conduct should be officially noticed, and if he is not an officer of our army , his acts should be disavowed by our Government, and, as far as practicable, he be made to understand that we would greatly prefer his remaining away from our army or its vicinity.


I appreciate his services, and am anxious to have them; but certainly we cannot, as a Christian people, sanction a savege, inhuman warfare, in which men are to be shot down like dogs, after throwing down their arms and holding up their hands supplicating for mercy.

And this:

It may be said that Quantrill will help you, but I have little confidence in men who fight for booty and whose mode of warfare is like that of the savages.


I believe that some have excused Quantrill's command in Texas as when his gang was squabbling internally. It seems that some of the gang were upset that instead of distributing the money he'd captured in Lawrence to those who needed it in Missouri, Quantrill horded it himself. Another pertinent quote from Henry McCulloch:

Quantrill will not obey orders and so much mischief is charged to his command here that I have determined to disarm, arrest and send his entire command to you or General Smith. This is the only chance to get them out of this section of the country, which they have nearly ruined, and I have never yet got them to do any service.

They regard the life of a man less than you would of a sheep-killing dog. Quantrill and his men are determined never to go into the army or fight in any general battle, first, because man you them are deserters from our Confederate ranks, and next, because they are afraid of being captured, and then because it won't pay men who fight for plunder. They will only fight when they have all the advantage and when they can run away whenever they find things to hot for them. I regard them as but one shade better than highwaymen, and the community believe that they have committed all the robberies that have been committed about here for some time, and every man that has any money about his house is scared to death, nearly, and several money men have taken their money and gone where they feel more secure.

 

[Borderruffian]

Found the larger quote of what Henry McCulloch said about Quantrill:

A good many of Colonel Quantrill's command have come into this sub-district, and it is said he is now within it. He has not reported here and I do not know what his military status is. I do not know as much about his mode of warfare as others seem to know; but, from all I can learn, it is but little, if at all, removed from that of the wildest savage; so much so that I do not for a moment believe that our Government can sanction it in one of her officers. Hence, it seems to me if he be an officer of our army, his conduct should be officially noticed, and if he is not an officer of our army , his acts should be disavowed by our Government, and, as far as practicable, he be made to understand that we would greatly prefer his remaining away from our army or its vicinity.


I appreciate his services, and am anxious to have them; but certainly we cannot, as a Christian people, sanction a savege, inhuman warfare, in which men are to be shot down like dogs, after throwing down their arms and holding up their hands supplicating for mercy.

And this:

It may be said that Quantrill will help you, but I have little confidence in men who fight for booty and whose mode of warfare is like that of the savages.


I believe that some have excused Quantrill's command in Texas as when his gang was squabbling internally. It seems that some of the gang were upset that instead of distributing the money he'd captured in Lawrence to those who needed it in Missouri, Quantrill horded it himself. Another pertinent quote from Henry McCulloch:

Quantrill will not obey orders and so much mischief is charged to his command here that I have determined to disarm, arrest and send his entire command to you or General Smith. This is the only chance to get them out of this section of the country, which they have nearly ruined, and I have never yet got them to do any service.

They regard the life of a man less than you would of a sheep-killing dog. Quantrill and his men are determined never to go into the army or fight in any general battle, first, because man you them are deserters from our Confederate ranks, and next, because they are afraid of being captured, and then because it won't pay men who fight for plunder. They will only fight when they have all the advantage and when they can run away whenever they find things to hot for them. I regard them as but one shade better than highwaymen, and the community believe that they have committed all the robberies that have been committed about here for some time, and every man that has any money about his house is scared to death, nearly, and several money men have taken their money and gone where they feel more secure.

Sorry I take most things written to the Dept of Texas and Dept. of the Trans-Mississippi commanders by H.E. McCulloch with and eye to whether or not he was a totally forthcoming and honest as you seem to think he was about the Missouri Guerillas and blaming them for every single incident occuring in the SUB-District during the winter of 63-64 and I have read a good many before including those above.

First of all. Henry was miffed at WCQ for not reporting to Bonham and placing himself under the command of Henry , upon his entering Texas.

Second: WCQ recieved alot of praise for the Baxter Springs fight from other officers in the district and from the commander of the Trans-Miss, including G.O.'S that commended him and his"gallant" command. Okay, so WCQ's report was not accurate as killing Blunt and he never mentioned Lawrence and put forward only his best face for the Commander's to see, yet these things happened, and that didn't sit well with Henry.

Third: Henry was given the suggestion to use the Missourians to road up Deserters and conscription dodgers in the thickets and ignored the suggestion for a good while, until it was made an order. When he did the Missourians killed more than were brought in, which wasn't very adept to placing these man into or back into CS service.

The fact of the matter is that while Henry may or may not have been a former politicn lawman, ranger and raised a regiment at the start of the war ( which he never commanded in battle) he was a fairly lack luster sub-district commander who had had problems in his area well before the winter of 63-64 and had made minimal effort to address them. When the Missourians arrived it gave him a group to pin everything to whether they did it or not.

Now I'm not tryimg to make them angels. I'M COMPLETELY SURE THEY WERE NOT.

What I'm saying is that H.E. McCULLOCH'S reports and letters and other missives to higher command about WCQ and the Missourian's run the committ from blaming them for everything since Eve took a bite of the apple to praising them as "fairly well disciplined and mounted". depending on what he was trying to accomplish at the time.

IMHO.Nothing from his pen can be taken with anything like complete and utter confidence. Like WCQ he was out for H.E.McCulloch.

 

[18thVirginia]

It's sort of amusing to read the protestations that McCulloch was an ineffective district commander. I'd say he was a pretty good judge of character and good at protecting the ordinary citizens under his command from Quantrill.

We know that Quantrill was as vengeful a guy as ever existed, witness his need to preside over the massacre of a large number of citizens in Lawrence to avenge his own personal anger that the locals there had dared to accuse him of horse thieving. We know that he did the same thing in Texas when the local sheriff and magistrate had the temerity to arrest some of his gang for murdering local citizens. Took the sheriff and magistrate out and lynched them. We know that rather than round up deserters and bring them in, Quantrill just lynched them, no doubt so he and his men could go and rob their wives and children, steal their money and cattle and terrorize them with no consequences.

Henry McCulloch nailed exactly who and what William Quantrill was in the last quote. Trying to disparage an eye witness account of Quantrill by someone on his same side of the conflict, someone who's had several years to observe Quantrill's destabilizing influence on a part of the country he commands, insisting that McCulloch was ineffective certainly is one technique for continuing to justify Quantrill as more than just a murderous thug.

Except that, McCulloch seems to have been quite effective. He has a gang, or two gangs of thieving murderers operating with sanction from his superiors who don't have to deal with their preying on the local citizens, in his district. He uses the gang against each other to bring in Quantrill to arrest him. Then, he goes off to lunch and leaves Quantrill guarded so lightly that he manages to escape. Both parts of the gang then leave McCulloch's district for parts elsewhere, without exacting more revenge on the local citizenry or officials as was Quantrill's hallmark.

I'd say that was pretty effective commanding.

 

[Borderruffian]

It's sort of amusing to read the protestations that McCulloch was an ineffective district commander. I'd say he was a pretty good judge of character and good at protecting the ordinary citizens under his command from Quantrill.

We know that Quantrill was as vengeful a guy as ever existed, witness his need to preside over the massacre of a large number of citizens in Lawrence to avenge his own personal anger that the locals there had dared to accuse him of horse thieving. We know that he did the same thing in Texas when the local sheriff and magistrate had the temerity to arrest some of his gang for murdering local citizens. Took the sheriff and magistrate out and lynched them. We know that rather than round up deserters and bring them in, Quantrill just lynched them, no doubt so he and his men could go and rob their wives and children, steal their money and cattle and terrorize them with no consequences.

Henry McCulloch nailed exactly who and what William Quantrill was in the last quote. Trying to disparage an eye witness account of Quantrill by someone on his same side of the conflict, someone who's had several years to observe Quantrill's destabilizing influence on a part of the country he commands, insisting that McCulloch was ineffective certainly is one technique for continuing to justify Quantrill as more than just a murderous thug.

Except that, McCulloch seems to have been quite effective. He has a gang, or two gangs of thieving murderers operating with sanction from his superiors who don't have to deal with their preying on the local citizens, in his district. He uses the gang against each other to bring in Quantrill to arrest him. Then, he goes off to lunch and leaves Quantrill guarded so lightly that he manages to escape. Both parts of the gang then leave McCulloch's district for parts elsewhere, without exacting more revenge on the local citizenry or officials as was Quantrill's hallmark.

I'd say that was pretty effective commanding.

If indeed McCulloch was such an effective sub-district commander and the Missourians were such a scourge to the Department then why did he attempt at variuos times to pawn them off on other sub-district commanders in the dept. by saying they were " fairly well mounted ,armed and under fairly good discipline"? Does it seem to you like a good commander would try and send a problem unit to another simply to alviate his own problem, by transfering it to someone else?

If indeed the Missourians were responsible for all the murders, robberies,rustling etc. in the sub-district would not McCullohs glowing description have been, well found out fairly quickly by the commander recieving the command? I believe it would have.

Given the fact that Magruder had instructed then ordered McCulloch to take care of the Desrters and other bands within his sub-district prior to WCQ's arrival in North Texas, and continued to do so after their arrival suggesting WCQ and his men be used for this purpose until he had to order it, because when he had suggested it McColloch had not done it,instead he had created his oh so effective "Brush BN's) from those he had cajoled and fetted to come in,many of whom in fact a great number deserted again forcing another order that he knock off playing patty cake with them and bring them in without promises of type of service they would do.

So tell me how really,really, really effective exactly was Henry in his command? Most of the previous steps he had taken were not effective and not worth the little effort he put into them and would never completely whip out the "Brush Men" in his sub- district. Yes he disliked WCQ to the point of siding with and believing WCQ's main rival at the time (besides HENRY) William "Bloody Bill " Anderson to the point of allowing him to join the pursuit of WCQ and Party to the Red River. So now we get to a quandry in that this effective Commander decides to side with arguably the bloodiest of Guerillas to get to WCQ and believes Andersons assertion that the men remaining inWCQ's band are resonsible for all the crimes committed in the area while his band is pure as the driven snow. This may not mahe Henry an enapt commander but sure does make him gullibal as heck considering the source he chose to believe.BTW he did'nt choose to use Anderson to arrest WCQ .Quantrill came in with his band subject to McCULLOCHS to report to him in Bonham and then arrested him, and let him and the command escape while he went to dinner. Anderson had been there prior to that Debacle for the express purpose of putting all Blame on WCQ, it worked.

 

[CSA Today]

Maybe look at it this way ; guerrilla warfare does not bring out the warm fuzzies in people. Even in Northern Ireland the British Army in particular the Ulster Defense Regiment didn't always play by the rules and their casualties where less then the COIN troops in Missouri. Confederate troops also killed captured guerrillas the Shelton Laurel massacre being a good example.Actually it was Confederate militia. None the less world wide guerrilla warfare is not played by the Marqis of Queensbury rules.
Your right about the female prisoners at the Garriot Street Prison in St Louis.
Leftyhunter

Actually, it was Confederate troops from three companies of the 64th North Carolina Infantry commanded by Lt. Co, . J.A. Keith.

Company B. raised in Henderson County, NC.
Company D. raised in Madison, County, NC.
Company H. raised in Green County, Tennessee.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Quantrill is practically a legend in Civil War history there's a reason why Ride with the Devil was made and why he is featured in other movies. Quantrill was even influential in the Old West genre.

 

[Specster]

I would not call him a soldier.
He only held a rank as a irregular and only for about a year.
The CSA goverment withdrew support after he commited warcrimes.
I would call him a terrorist since he deliberately killed civilians and tried to kill "enemy" politicians. And did this to promote a political agenda.

And if we call him a soldier, he was a very bad one.
Lack of discipline, didn't follow even basic rules of war, deserted and acted in a way where his own government didn't want anything to do with him.

But He might have been a good leader of guerrillas and good at smal unit tactics...

Amen Issue #1 with me....don't wear a uniform, attack civilians and then blend back into the environment... to me that for starters, was unforgivable. He was not a soldier, IMO, he was a criminal, as most of those he ran with

 

[archieclement]

Not wearing a uniform, instead some buckskin sideshow costume, and attacking civilians as in women and children, not to mention raping women afterwards, your describing Custer,...…..is he not a soldier?