Quantrill. Good soldier?

[CSA Today]

Brigadier General James Henry Lane, Led the "so-called Kansas Brigade" in the looting and killing at least ten men in Osceola, Missouri September 22-23, 1861. Lane was in Lawrence, Kansas during the Quantrill raid nearly two years later on August 21, 1863. He was seen running through a cornfield in a nightshirt perhaps frightened he would be captured out of uniform.

http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/encyclopedia/sacking-osceola

 

[Patrick H]

I just stumbled into this resurrected thread and invested about an hour to bring myself up to speed.

I lost track of this thread due to having surgery in April of 2016. I'm fine now, thankfully.

Wow, this thread got contentious at times, didn't it? This points up the problem with trying to discuss Quantrill. In this thread, we see some who demonize him and who don't want to listen to anything that might persuade them otherwise. I used to be just like those members.

Then we see those who don't particularly like Quantrill, but who are willing to discuss him and who try to understand why he was the way he was. I am currently among that group. I don't think we have anyone in this thread who truly wants to make Quantrill a hero, but we have some in the former group who will accuse members of the second group of that.

Quantrill is a polarizing figure. There is no doubt about that.

I will say one more time that I think he was a man with a strange duality. Read through all of the thread and you will see what I mean by that. I agree that he was, at times, an opportunist. I will repeat that I think a lot of his reputation was earned for him by George Todd and Bill Anderson. I'll repeat that I have come to think that Todd and Anderson were responsible for most of the excesses at Lawrence. I'll repeat that Q. was in overall command, so he gets to take the blame, even though he probably never fired a shot there. I'll repeat that I believe the men in the various Missouri guerrilla bands saw Lawrence as a military target, because of Lane, Jennison, the Red Leg headquarters, the garrisons there, etc.

I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned in this thread (but it has been mentioned elsewhere) that Anderson's sister and McCorckle's sister were killed in the collapse of an improvised jail in Kansas City. Some writers insist that the Lawrence raid happened as a payback for that. No, it didn't. Quantrill had wanted to go to Lawrence for some time, as witnessed by his death list. His captains were reluctant. Lawrence was 40 miles from the Missouri border, after all. Most of them thought it would be an impossible raid. But after the jail collapse and the death of Josie Anderson and others, Q. was able to use that event as a means to motivate his captains into striking Lawrence.

To me, he is an interesting, compelling, confounding, troubling and enigmatic figure who cannot possibly be well understood. I am aware there are some readers who are about to counsel me that Q. was nothing more than a murdering demon. All of which proves my assertions above.

...all of which brings us back to the original question of the thread: Was he a good soldier? It depends on one's definition of soldier. Was he a good guerrilla leader? He undoubtedly planned an executed a successful raid at Lawrence and he knew enough to resist foolish attacks such as the Fayette fight. Yes, he was a good guerrilla leader regardless of whether you consider him a soldier.

Was he a demon? It depends on whom you ask. I believe most of the offenses for which he was accused in Texas and elsewhere were committed by Todd, Anderson, and some of their men. Those guys left Quantrill because he was too much of a disciplinarian and not violent enough for their tastes. Others, including William Gregg and John Thrailkill, left him entirely after Lawrence, and they went into regular service with Shelby.

Assess Quantrill by himself and ***** his other captains, lieutenants and men as individuals and you will be fine. Paint them all with the same demonizing brush and you will do some of them and yourself a disservice.

 

[archieclement]

I just stumbled into this resurrected thread and invested about an hour to bring myself up to speed.

I lost track of this thread due to having surgery in April of 2016. I'm fine now, thankfully.

Wow, this thread got contentious at times, didn't it? This points up the problem with trying to discuss Quantrill. In this thread, we see some who demonize him and who don't want to listen to anything that might persuade them otherwise. I used to be just like those members.

Then we see those who don't particularly like Quantrill, but who are willing to discuss him and who try to understand why he was the way he was. I am currently among that group. I don't think we have anyone in this thread who truly wants to make Quantrill a hero, but we have some in the former group who will accuse members of the second group of that.

Quantrill is a polarizing figure. There is no doubt about that.

I will say one more time that I think he was a man with a strange duality. Read through all of the thread and you will see what I mean by that. I agree that he was, at times, an opportunist. I will repeat that I think a lot of his reputation was earned for him by George Todd and Bill Anderson. I'll repeat that I have come to think that Todd and Anderson were responsible for most of the excesses at Lawrence. I'll repeat that Q. was in overall command, so he gets to take the blame, even though he probably never fired a shot there. I'll repeat that I believe the men in the various Missouri guerrilla bands saw Lawrence as a military target, because of Lane, Jennison, the Red Leg headquarters, the garrisons there, etc.

I don't believe anyone has yet mentioned in this thread (but it has been mentioned elsewhere) that Anderson's sister and McCorckle's sister were killed in the collapse of an improvised jail in Kansas City. Some writers insist that the Lawrence raid happened as a payback for that. No, it didn't. Quantrill had wanted to go to Lawrence for some time, as witnessed by his death list. His captains were reluctant. Lawrence was 40 miles from the Missouri border, after all. Most of them thought it would be an impossible raid. But after the jail collapse and the death of Josie Anderson and others, Q. was able to use that event as a means to motivate his captains into striking Lawrence.

To me, he is an interesting, compelling, confounding, troubling and enigmatic figure who cannot possibly be well understood. I am aware there are some readers who are about to counsel me that Q. was nothing more than a murdering demon. All of which proves my assertions above.

...all of which brings us back to the original question of the thread: Was he a good soldier? It depends on one's definition of soldier. Was he a good guerrilla leader? He undoubtedly planned an executed a successful raid at Lawrence and he knew enough to resist foolish attacks such as the Fayette fight. Yes, he was a good guerrilla leader regardless of whether you consider him a soldier.

Was he a demon? It depends on whom you ask. I believe most of the offenses or which he accused in Texas and elsewhere were committed by Todd, Anderson, and some of their men. Those guys left Quantrill because he was too much of a disciplinarian and not violent enough for their tastes. Others, including William Gregg and John Thrailkill, left him entirely after Lawrence, and they went into regular service with Shelby.

Assess Quantrill by himself and ***** his other captains, lieutenants and men as individuals and you will be fine. Paint them all with the same demonizing brush and you will do some of them and yourself a disservice.

I disagree a bit how effective a leader he was, The Union attributed him as such and hence everything everyone did to him....but I have came to the conclusion personally I don't think he had much control as a leader, other then Lawrence and fall trips to Texas the bands operated independently primarily, even membership within the bands was fluid, even for Lawrence he had to hold a council and ask the others such as Todd and Anderson if they would go, treating them as equals, not subordinate's , If he was an effective leader in control, he would have simply ordered them to...….and certainly not have fell entirely from grace in 64-65 where the numbers he could muster was only in the tens instead of hundreds.....

Though I think he certainly was a soldier, even a soldier dishonorably discharged was still a soldier...……..There's confederate correspondence addressing him by rank which would indicate he was an officer and certainly considered in service.

That's one the more interesting aspects of his enigma, the Union generally attributed more leadership and effectiveness to him then the Confederacy...

 

[leftyhunter]

I am just finishing 'Quantrill and the Border Wars' by William Elsey Connelley which I got as a freebie Kindle download. It was published in 1909 and initially I thought the writer was going to be a bit too biased against Quantrill to be able to make any kind of balanced judgement about the man but as the book went on, Connelley, although merciless in his opinions of Quantrill, his morals and his guerillas depredations against the populations of Kansas and Missouri, seemed to be giving an unbiased slant to his operations in the field against, sometimes superior Federal forces. Now there are a lot of people on here who are far more qualified than me to judge Quantrills ability as the commander of a unit of cavalrymen/ mounted infantry and I would appreciate their comments because to a layman like me, he seemed to be a pretty capable tactician on the battlefield.

To be fair and balanced we have to have some common metrics to judge Quantrill by.
1. What guerrilla leaders are we comparing him to?
2. How many Union troops did Quantrill tie down?
3. Did Quantrill bring down retailiation thst could of been easily avoided i.e. the Lawrence Massacre?
4. Did the Lawrence Massacre ultimately hurt or help the Confederate cause in Missouri.
5. How does Quantrill stack up against other Civil War era guerrilla leaders such has but not limited to Newt Knight, Tinker Dave, Samual Hildebrand, Mosby, O'Neill etc?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I disagree a bit how effective a leader he was, The Union attributed him as such and hence everything everyone did to him....but I have came to the conclusion personally I don't think he had much control as a leader, other then Lawrence and fall trips to Texas the bands operated independently primarily, even membership within the bands was fluid, even for Lawrence he had to hold a council and ask the others such as Todd and Anderson if they would go, treating them as equals, not subordinate's , If he was an effective leader in control, he would have simply ordered them to...….and certainly not have fell entirely from grace in 64-65 where the numbers he could muster was only in the tens instead of hundreds.....

Though I think he certainly was a soldier, even a soldier dishonorably discharged was still a soldier...……..There's confederate correspondence addressing him by rank which would indicate he was an officer and certainly considered in service.

That's one the more interesting aspects of his enigma, the Union generally attributed more leadership and effectiveness to him then the Confederacy...

I agree with most of your post. However under the then legal doctrine of the Civil War era Quantrill was not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war since he and his men were not in uniform and often. wore captured Union uniforms.
Quantrill did have a Captain's commission but if captured and he was it did little good.
For example if Edwin Terrell had captured Quantrill in full Confederate uniform perhaps Terrell would have spared his life.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Not sure what your disagreeing with. Special forces of any nation can be shot if not in uniform, especially if wearing the enemies uniform, however that doesn't change they were soldiers in service of that countries special forces...….Being in service of a nation, and being in violation of the rules are war, are two different things. One doesn't exclude the other

And yet oddly enough the Union standard was to give the medal of honor to its troops who were executed for clearly violating the rules of war by conducting operations out of uniform......it would appear they condoned it.

 

[Patrick H]

And yet oddly enough the Union standard was to give the medal of honor to its troops who were executed for clearly violating the rules of war by conducting operations out of uniform......it would appear they condoned it.[/QUOTE]

Archie points out a particular bit of irony with this observation. Andrews was a civilian, but most of his men were soldiers who volunteered for their raiding mission. They operated out of uniform and were honored for their mission--justifiably honored, I might add. I'll add a point that I've made previously: Guerrilla shirts were a de facto uniform. They obviously were not specified by the CSA or Missouri government in exile, but I assure you that every civilian in the counties bordering Kansas would recognize them on sight.

 

[leftyhunter]

Yet the argument has been made that Newt Knight was not a soldier since he was not regularly enlisted in the Union Army and thus was not entitled to a pension.
By that standard what percentage of the Confederate guerrillas received post war pensions?
Did Quantrill's widow receive a post war Missouri State Civil War pension?
Both sides executed captured guerrillas in accordance with the then contemporary legal standard.
My point was even if we consider Quantrill and his men as soldiers the Union Army and or the various Union militias per the Leiber Code did not have to treat captured guerrillas as soldiers.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

My point was even if we consider Quantrill and his men as soldiers the Union Army and or the various Union militias per the Leiber Code did not have to treat captured guerrillas as soldiers.

Your point is understood, but the Lieber code came into being in late April of 1863. Halleck's "No Quarter" order of March, 1862 obviously preceded the Lieber Code by a little more than a year. It is often cited as one reason the guerrillas took so few captives.

Getting back to Q's worth as a leader, I think we also have to consider his timeline. He made some early mistakes--failing to post pickets at the Tate house, attacking the brick courthouse at Lamar with revolvers, etc. He learned from those mistakes and was a shrewd and cunning planner through the middle of the war. Although he was no longer in overall command by the summer of 1864, he knew better than to attack the well-defended garrison at Fayette, Missouri. Todd and Anderson thought him a coward for this, but learned their own bitter lesson in that fiasco. I don't know whether Quantrill should properly be called a coward, but he certainly knew how to choose his fights and avoid those he wasn't likely to win.

 

[leftyhunter]

Your point is understood, but the Lieber code came into being in late April of 1863. Halleck's "No Quarter" order of March, 1862 obviously preceded the Lieber Code by a little more than a year. It is often cited as one reason the guerrillas took so few captives.

Getting back to Q's worth as a leader, I think we also have to consider his timeline. He made some early mistakes--failing to post pickets at the Tate house, attacking the brick courthouse at Lamar with revolvers, etc. He learned from those mistakes and was a shrewd and cunning planner through the middle of the war. Although he was no longer in overall command by the summer of 1864, he knew better than to attack the well-defended garrison at Fayette, Missouri. Todd and Anderson thought him a coward for this, but learned their own bitter lesson in that fiasco. I don't know whether Quantrill should properly be called a coward, but he certainly knew how to choose his fights and avoid those he wasn't likely to win.

It would be an interesting topic if a respected writter or a Phd theis compared and contrasted all of the major Civil War guerrilla leaders on both sides to see how they stack up.
Possibly could be a topic for a future thread but we would need commonly agreed metrics.
An interesting off line discussion is how Quantrill compares to foreign guerrilla leaders.

The great irony of the history of the U.S. Army which is quite different from that of the USMC is despite many flaws in 232 odd years warts and all the U.S.Army won the counterinsurgency conflict in the Civil War. Other then fighting the Indians the Civil War is as good as it gets in terms of effectively quelling an insurgency.
Edit to add one can argue the U.S. Army won the Counterinsurgency conflict in the Philippines at the turn of the century although with the caveat the U.S. would eventually have to grant the Philippines independence.

Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Yet the argument has been made that Newt Knight was not a soldier since he was not regularly enlisted in the Union Army and thus was not entitled to a pension.
By that standard what percentage of the Confederate guerrillas received post war pensions?
Did Quantrill's widow receive a post war Missouri State Civil War pension?
Both sides executed captured guerrillas in accordance with the then contemporary legal standard.
My point was even if we consider Quantrill and his men as soldiers the Union Army and or the various Union militias per the Leiber Code did not have to treat captured guerrillas as soldiers.
Leftyhunter

I've never made an argument based on pensions alone....However when the Union never recognized him either during the war or afterwards not seeing a link. Newt was never following specific orders gave to him by any higher authority.

Q and his men on the other hand, were recognized by rank and clearly had orders issued to them showing they were in service, they even fought along side regular forces in regular battles and were recognized for their discipline and valor when doing so at both Pea Ridge and Lone Jack.....and were ordered to gather deserters in Texas which they also did.

Not seeing any comparable links to being in service by Newt. Instead there's governmental denial he ever was...…...He may have been under arms, but not sanctioned by anyone, hence an outlaw band, the only nation he was ever a soldier of was the confederacy until he became a deserter.

Also would argue the civil war was never a counterinsurgency war, it was a conventional war, the counterinsurgency aspects were minor and always secondary to the conventional war, so they ended with the conventional war that was won.

 

[major bill]

I agree with most of your post. However under the then legal doctrine of the Civil War era Quantrill was not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war since he and his men were not in uniform and often. wore captured Union uniforms.
Quantrill did have a Captain's commission but if captured and he was it did little good.
For example if Edwin Terrell had captured Quantrill in full Confederate uniform perhaps Terrell would have spared his life.
Leftyhunter

Both sides used spies. Both sides executed captured enemy spies. This happened then and still happens.

 

[diane]

Brigadier General James Henry Lane, Led the "so-called Kansas Brigade" in the looting and killing at least ten men in Osceola, Missouri September 22-23, 1861. Lane was in Lawrence, Kansas during the Quantrill raid nearly two years later on August 21, 1863. He was seen running through a cornfield in a nightshirt perhaps frightened he would be captured out of uniform.

http://www.civilwaronthewesternborder.org/encyclopedia/sacking-osceola

Well, I got to say, if I was Lane in that situation, I'd be streaking through that cornfield never mind the nightshirt! He wasn't the only officer to throw dignity to the wind along with his rear end - Washburn run off in his wife's cutty sark because Jesse Forrest had his britches and Kilpatrick had no problem galloping off with his nightshirt flapping in the breeze. But they didn't have a tenth of the excuse Lane had!

 

[Patrick H]

Also would argue the civil war was never a counterinsurgency war, it was a conventional war, the counterinsurgency aspects were minor and always secondary to the conventional war, so they ended with the conventional war that was won.

I don't really see Missouri's war as an insurgency / counterinsurgency, either.

 

[leftyhunter]

Both sides used spies. Both sides executed captured enemy spies. This happened then and still happens.

Guerillas are by definition not spies. Guerrillas are irregular fighters although they can pass on information to conventional forces.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I don't really see Missouri's war as an insurgency / counterinsurgency, either.

As discussed before many do consider the conflict in Missouri as a classic counterinsurgency conflict i.e. A Question of Command. Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq. "Mark Moyar The Yale Library of Military History.
The term insurgent is used quite a bit in the Civil War in regards to the Confederate's. In past threads I have quoted various dictionaries that defined insurency and the Confederate guerrillas fit the bill.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I've never made an argument based on pensions alone....However when the Union never recognized him either during the war or afterwards not seeing a link. Newt was never following specific orders gave to him by any higher authority.

Q and his men on the other hand, were recognized by rank and clearly had orders issued to them showing they were in service, they even fought along side regular forces in regular battles and were recognized for their discipline and valor when doing so at both Pea Ridge and Lone Jack.....and were ordered to gather deserters in Texas which they also did.

Not seeing any comparable links to being in service by Newt. Instead there's governmental denial he ever was...…...He may have been under arms, but not sanctioned by anyone, hence an outlaw band, the only nation he was ever a soldier of was the confederacy until he became a deserter.

Also would argue the civil war was never a counterinsurgency war, it was a conventional war, the counterinsurgency aspects were minor and always secondary to the conventional war, so they ended with the conventional war that was won.

Contemporary writing during the Civil War refets to the Confederacy has an insurgency movement. Since the Confederacy never met the legal definition of a nation one can not commit a crime against an illegal entity.
True Knight was never recognized has a U.S. soldier although some in congress did try to get him and his men recognized so they could receive pensions.
In Counterinsurgency one takes a win when one can. If Quantrill was winning the insurgency in Missouri he would not of fled to Kentucky.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

As discussed before many do consider the conflict in Missouri as a classic counterinsurgency conflict i.e. A Question of Command. Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq. "Mark Moyar The Yale Library of Military History.
The term insurgent is used quite a bit in the Civil War in regards to the Confederate's. In past threads I have quoted various dictionaries that defined insurency and the Confederate guerrillas fit the bill.
Leftyhunter

I know you do, Lefty. I know some others do, too. But I don't. In lieu of a regular Confederate presence in Missouri through most of the early part of the war, I see the guerrillas as Missouri volunteer cavalry in opposition to anyone who threatened their homes and families. Perhaps this technically make them insurgents, but I don't think they thought of themselves that way. Later, of course, many of them devolved into free booting pirates of sorts. And I certainly don't see the jayhawkers and redlegs as counter-insurgent forces. They were free booting in their own pirate way, which had nothing to do with putting down the Missouri guerrillas and everything to do with preying on their families.

 

[leftyhunter]

I know you do, Lefty. I know some others do, too. But I don't. In lieu of a regular Confederate presence in Missouri through most of the early part of the war, I see the guerrillas as Missouri volunteer cavalry in opposition to anyone who threatened their homes and families. Perhaps this technically make them insurgents, but I don't think they thought of themselves that way. Later, of course, many of them devolved into free booting pirates of sorts. And I certainly don't see the jayhawkers and redlegs as counter-insurgent forces. They were free booting in their own pirate way, which had nothing to do with putting down the Missouri guerrillas and everything to do with preying on their families.

Counterinsurgency is unfortunately a messy business. The more one studies other counterinsurgency conflicts the more one sees many similarities to Civil War era counterinsurgency. Not exact singularities for all counterinsurgency conflucts have unique differences but they always share many similarities.
The boys from Kansas sometimes killed guerrillas and sometimes committed crimes. They were counterinsurgency forces not the most ethical but nonetheless were sometimes effective.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Contemporary writing during the Civil War refets to the Confederacy has an insurgency movement. Since the Confederacy never met the legal definition of a nation one can not commit a crime against an illegal entity.
True Knight was never recognized has a U.S. soldier although some in congress did try to get him and his men recognized so they could receive pensions.
In Counterinsurgency one takes a win when one can. If Quantrill was winning the insurgency in Missouri he would not of fled to Kentucky.
Leftyhunter

You assume a false goal, the war was never a primary insurgency war, it was a conventional war, the goal of irregular forces in a conventional war is generally to tie down enemy forces out of proportion to the actual threat, they most certainly accomplished that. Even as he left to KY with what 20-40 men? There was still tens of thousands in the militia that were militia instead of being put into federal service because of the fear a few guerrillas put into the Union authorities.

I haven't ever came across any document in the Trans-Mississippi that alleges the goal of the guerrillas was to overthrow anything by themselves, Instead the actual accounts of the guerrillas themselves is for protection from Union persecution and to avenge wrongs, there is no political movement other then a loose alliance to the conventional war.

If your going to allege the guerrilla war had some political movement separate from the conventional war and its end wasn't tied to the end of the conventional war, I disagree, the fact is everything the Union did as "COIN" if you want to call it that, was a failure and only increased guerrilla support through 1863, the support only waned in 64 as the CSA conventional forces were losing across the board and it was obvious the CSA was going to lose the conventional war. Because they weren't separate, but directly connected to one another...….