Quantrill. Good soldier?

[Tin cup]

Full Definition of soldier

1. 
   1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the armyb : an enlisted man or womanc : a skilled warrior
   
   
2. 2: a militant leader, follower, or worker

I would say he was a soldier.

So, WHICH dictionary did you use? And what year did it come out?

Kevin Dally

 

[leftyhunter]

Quantrill was a very effective guerrilla leader. But to better understand him and his actions, you have to have an understanding of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas that started with "Bleeding Kansas" and did not end until long after the end of the war. I'm not trying to defend him or his actions, but the war in this area of the country was on a completely different level, than what what happening in the rest of the country.

I'm pressed for time right now so I can't say more, but I will be watching this with much interest.

I have a thread on post Civil War insurgency. I agree Missouri was afflicted with quite a bit of violence from insurgents but it's experience was far from unique. I have a whole thread that explores that topic " Union vs CSA guerrillas".
Leftyhunter

 

[Lost Cause]

IMO, he was a product of the "total" style of warfare that often occurred in the western area of operations. To compare his actions to the "civilized" style of warfare in the more eastern regions and judge his actions vs. modern rules of war miss out on the totality of the conflict. An expansive study of the guerilla conflict leads, not to the justification, but an interesting study of the brutal war of retribution on both sides.

 

[Rebforever]

But that definition confirms he was not a soldier - an irregular military force is not part of the regular army.

But he was a leader. A soldier.

 

[diane]

But he was a leader. A soldier.

Yes, he was a leader! I'm sure Booner or Patrick H will be able to give us more about his military talents. One of his problems, I think, was he was pretty young to be leading a tough crew. Think they got away from him more than a few times.

 

[Rebforever]

"During 1861, Quantrill served as a regular soldier and fought in the Battle of Wilson's Creek. By 1862, he had formed a band of guerrillas that attacked Union supporters in Kansas and Missouri. Confederate government officials never sanctioned Quantrill's tactics. With the war's outbreak, Confederate officials debated whether they should allow guerrilla forces to combat the invading Northern forces. In 1862, officials issued the Partisan Ranger Law, which permitted the creation of partisan ranger units. These units were to operate behind enemy lines, attacking supply and communication systems, as well as ambushing Northern forces. Because of Quantrill's unwillingness to obey orders and because of his brutal tactics, Confederate officials refused to permit him to form a Confederate unit of partisan rangers to wage war against Northern civilians and military forces. However, Quantrill did receive a commission as a colonel in the Confederate military."

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/William_C._Quantrill

 

[leftyhunter]

IMO, he was a product of the "total" style of warfare that often occurred in the western area of operations. To compare his actions to the "civilized" style of warfare in the more eastern regions and judge his actions vs. modern rules of war miss out on the totality of the conflict. An expansive study of the guerilla conflict leads, not to the justification, but an interesting study of the brutal war of retribution on both sides.

I don't know about East vs West since their was plenty of guerrilla/insurgency warfare back East. In particular Unionist guerrillas in Western North Carolina and South Eastern Florida. What sets Quantrill apart from numerous other guerrilla leaders is he killed young boys in cold blood.
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

I have a whole thread that explores that topic " Union vs CSA guerrillas".
Leftyhunter

Thank you, I'll check your thread out a little later. The appraiser is coming tomorrow and I'm in the final act of packing things up for the move to Missouri.

real quick- Quantrill as soldier? No he was not a soldier. He was a guerrilla. A soldier is paid, takes orders, has a chain of command, is recognized by his government, wears a uniform, is supplied by his government, takes prisoners, follows rules of war, etc. This may not be a part of any definition, but is part of what makes a soldier. Quantrill, Anderson and other guerrillas were mostly boys, mostly in their teens or early 20's. Other than the leader of their band, they had no other authority over them, and being the leader was a tenuous position. Anyone in your band could take over your "command," as Anderson did in the winter of '63-'64 from Quantrill. Certainly the Confederate Gov. didn't recognize them, but the Confederate command would not hesitate to use them, As 'Pap" Price did in his raid into Missouri in '64. They either wore civilian clothes, or captured Federal uniform in order to deceive the Federals. (see the battle of Fayette, Mo). ANd they asked for no Quarter, or gave any. They expected to be killed if they fell into the hands of the Federals, and in most cases, they did not take prisoners. They were not soldiers.

 

[Lost Cause]

I don't know about East vs West since their was plenty of guerrilla/insurgency warfare back East. In particular Unionist guerrillas in Western North Carolina and South Eastern Florida. What sets Quantrill apart from numerous other guerrilla leaders is he killed young boys in cold blood.
Leftyhunter

My East vs West analogy was geared more toward conventional vs unconventional warfare. That certainly does not take away from the guerrilla activity in other theaters of operation.

 

[leftyhunter]

Thank you, I'll check your thread out a little later. The appraiser is coming tomorrow and I'm in the final act of packing things up for the move to Missouri.

real quick- Quantrill as soldier? No he was not a soldier. He was a guerrilla. A soldier is paid, takes orders, has a chain of command, is recognized by his government, wears a uniform, is supplied by his government, takes prisoners, follows rules of war, etc. This may not be a part of any definition, but is part of what makes a soldier. Quantrill, Anderson and other guerrillas were mostly boys, mostly in their teens or early 20's. Other than the leader of their band, they had no other authority over them, and being the leader was a tenuous position. Anyone in your band could take over your "command," as Anderson did in the winter of '63-'64 from Quantrill. Certainly the Confederate Gov. didn't recognize them, but the Confederate command would not hesitate to use them, As 'Pap" Price did in his raid into Missouri in '64. They either wore civilian clothes, or captured Federal uniform in order to deceive the Federals. (see the battle of Fayette, Mo). ANd they asked for no Quarter, or gave any. They expected to be killed if they fell into the hands of the Federals, and in most cases, they did not take prisoners. They were not soldiers.

Let me know what you find out about some private land access in Mo for does. Will trade real good Scotch for does .
Your quite right about the the definition of a soldier vs a guerrilla. As you will see both the US Army and USN effectively used guerrillas to fight the CSA.
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

Let me know what you find out about some private land access in Mo for does.

As in female deer? If you want to hunt deer in MO, we have several hundred acres in NW MO either owned or have access to. send me a private pm. if your interested.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Clearly whether Quantrill was a soldier depends on how you define the term. Which is interesting because that definition also is a point on controversy for discussing Black Confederates. It also raises a question of whether certain controversial groups today are soldiers. However you define "soldier" make sure it is a consistent definition.

 

[johan_steele]

But he was a leader. A soldier.

So why do you think the CS military did not view the man as a soldier?

Just because a man camps outside in a tent once in a while and calls himself a boy scout does not a boy scout make.

For all those who say no one defends the like of Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, Booth, etc. One of the usual suspects has made his appearance.

 

[Rebforever]

So why do you think the CS military did not view the man as a soldier?

Just because a man camps outside in a tent once in a while and calls himself a boy scout does not a boy scout make.

For all those who say no one defends the like of Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, Booth, etc. One of the usual suspects has made his appearance.

I'll post this because you must have missed it. It doesn't say he was NOT a soldier under a different assignment because he was a soldier because he fought!

"During 1861, Quantrill served as a regular soldier and fought in the Battle of Wilson's Creek. By 1862, he had formed a band of guerrillas that attacked Union supporters in Kansas and Missouri. Confederate government officials never sanctioned Quantrill's tactics. With the war's outbreak, Confederate officials debated whether they should allow guerrilla forces to combat the invading Northern forces. In 1862, officials issued the Partisan Ranger Law, which permitted the creation of partisan ranger units. These units were to operate behind enemy lines, attacking supply and communication systems, as well as ambushing Northern forces. Because of Quantrill's unwillingness to obey orders and because of his brutal tactics, Confederate officials refused to permit him to form a Confederate unit of partisan rangers to wage war against Northern civilians and military forces. However, Quantrill did receive a commission as a colonel in the Confederate military."

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/William_C._Quantrill

 

[Suzanne A]

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.

The Quantrill raid of Lawrence Kansas where women, men and children were shot and killed and the town burned regardless of age or civilian status is the Civil War equivalent of the Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam. That's the end of it.

 

[johan_steele]

One man's hero.

 

[Michael W.]

Soldier? No. Good at what it was that he did? Yes.

 

[johan_steele]

The Quantrill raid of Lawrence Kansas where women, men and children were shot and killed and the town burned regardless of age or civilian status is the Civil War equivalent of the Mai Lai massacre in Viet Nam. That's the end of it.

That's all good to them. His targets were US. If they had been CS then they would treat him as the anti Christ. As I said: one mans hero.

 

[Reb]

Quantrill Good soldier?

Definition of good: that which is morally right; righteousness.

On a scale of zero to Robert E. Lee, Quantrill scores about a -50.

 

[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.

I guess it depends on how you define success. If by success you mean did Quantrill and other Confederate Guerrillas divert Union forces from the front lines as well as diverting civilians from their occupations into the militia then they were successful. Of course the same can be said for Unionist guerrillas.
By the same token Confederate officers complained about a lack of manpower due to men deserting conventional units to join guerrillas.
If by success did Quantrill and other Confederate Guerrillas achieve their military and political objectives then the answer is no.
Leftyhunter