Quantrill. Good soldier?

[diane]

That's one of the things that cuts Quantrill away from the regular army commanders - personal matters influencing military operations. There was plenty of personal matter underlying plenty of military operations and one could make a very good case for Quantrill being not much better than Champ Ferguson. Champ, however, would shoot you for thinking bad thoughts about him - Quantrill maybe not!

(That set-to was between Forrest and Cheatham, about who would cross a river first. The Union was breathing down their necks and Cheatham tried to pull rank on Forrest, whose men had reached the river first, and get his troops across first... so Forrest hauled out his pistol and rested it on his saddle, saying, "If you are a better man than I am, you may cross first." That made it a duel, until S D Lee made his appearance.)

 

[Patrick H]

I don't believe Quantrill was a psychopath, but he was a sociopath. Anderson (especially after the death of his sister) was totally unhinged. I could be persuaded that he fit the psychopath label. William Gregg said Anderson frothed at the mouth in battle!

 

[alexjack]

What would Quantrill have done had he survived the War? He would surely have been a fugitive all the rest of his life.

 

[diane]

What would Quantrill have done had he survived the War? He would surely have been a fugitive all the rest of his life.

That's an intriguing thought, considering that a number of his men were outlaws after the war. That was true of many guerrillas and partisans afterward. Some came west and became famous - or infamous! - and some stayed in their states and became the same thing. Others returned to life as before, and a handful were brought up on charges for wartime activities. I don't know if Quantrill would have been one of the latter or not, but there's always a possibility he might have come west.

 

[Patrick H]

It's a VERY intriguing thought, Diane! I wonder if he would have been allowed to survive. As you say, many of his men managed to assimilate back into society. Some had a degree of celebrity. Most lived quiet lives. I can't quite imagine that for Quantrill. In the first place, I suspect he'd have gone back to his pre-war, criminal ways. Even if not, I expect some punk looking to make a reputation would have capped him.

 

[18thVirginia]

That's one of the things that cuts Quantrill away from the regular army commanders - personal matters influencing military operations. There was plenty of personal matter underlying plenty of military operations and one could make a very good case for Quantrill being not much better than Champ Ferguson. Champ, however, would shoot you for thinking bad thoughts about him - Quantrill maybe not!

(That set-to was between Forrest and Cheatham, about who would cross a river first. The Union was breathing down their necks and Cheatham tried to pull rank on Forrest, whose men had reached the river first, and get his troops across first... so Forrest hauled out his pistol and rested it on his saddle, saying, "If you are a better man than I am, you may cross first." That made it a duel, until S D Lee made his appearance.)

Actually, the confrontation was between Forrest and General Bate, I was curious and went back and looked at the memoir. The other officers thought they were going to shoot one another over a line that didn't hold during a battle, but they both backed off.

I don't believe Quantrill was a psychopath, but he was a sociopath. Anderson (especially after the death of his sister) was totally unhinged. I could be persuaded that he fit the psychopath label. William Gregg said Anderson frothed at the mouth in battle!

Patrick, I think we're just disagreeing about which label goes with which individual, according to our sources. Here's mine, which will hopefully explain my disagreement about Quantrill, and Anderson.

When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue.

Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

 

[diane]

Actually, the confrontation was between Forrest and General Bate, I was curious and went back and looked at the memoir. The other officers thought they were going to shoot one another over a line that didn't hold during a battle, but they both backed off.

Oh, yes! That's true - 3rd Murfreesboro, Bate's men broke and ran. It wasn't Bate's fault - at this time in the war a lot of tried and true brigades were getting shell shocked and doing the same - but Forrest was furious and sometimes his anger lit wrong. Neither challenged the other, though, but Forrest's temper was legendary - observers might well think violence was imminent. (Especially since Forrest had just shot the flag bearer dead...)

 

[Borderruffian]

I'd say it was pretty easily proven that Quantrill was a dangerous psychopath.

How many other commanders in any unit, Confederate or Union, presided over the execution of 180-200 civilians while attacking a non-military target?

It's a simple measurement.

I'd say you need to delve into the actions of Jennison,Lane,Montgomery, Tough and Hoyt with their Jayhawkers and Red Legs mascarading as Union Volunteers.Osceola has been mentioned how about Dayton? there were other towns and villages that were "Jayhawked" in Missouri as well as homes and crops burned men and boys executed some loyal some were southern sympathizers household goods carried off to Kansas stock stolen etc, granted the butchers bill wasn't as great as it was at Lawrenceand yes WCQ presided over that.However he wasn't the only half "officer in the Mo/Ks fraces to preside over such dealings. I;ve said it before I'll say it now "there is enough blame to go around".

Do I believe Lawrence was a personal vendetta by WCQ? Yes I do.But again there is areason he was able to muster those raiders and the reason lay in what had been done by the Kansasans in Missouri and the collaspe of the Grand St jail that housed female realatives of partisans . Lawrence was the seat of power for Lane and the abolishtionist movent in Ks and striking at it was a pretty easy sell.

 

[Patrick H]

I've thought about this a lot. Lawrence was a legitimate military target. It had a military garrison and was home to Lane and the Redlegs, as had been said. However, its civilian residents were NOT legitimate targets. Quantrill gets to take the rap for those excesses, even though they were committed by people under his command.

He was a good leader in terms of tactics, but a bad man in terms of what he ordered on that raid.

 

[Borderruffian]

There may have been massacres of USCT at Poison Springs or at Ft. Pillow, but those were in the midst of a battle. Forrest is reviled by many for what he allowed to happen at Ft. Pillow, but having one's soldiers lose control doesn't rise to the same level as putting together a list of people to kill, including people who were on the list because they were abolitionists and going off to massacre people in a civilian town. Ft. Pillow was also a military target. Poison Springs was a military battle.

Being murderously angry because Lawrence had been a center of abolitionism and because one had been indicted as a horse thief there is totally different.

I've read the accounts of Quantrill in North Texas. These were simply outlaws who rode their horses into the general stores and let them eat out of the bags of flour. They shot up the towns, did the kinds of things that both sides are accused of in Missouri and Kansas--but this was on their same side. There are accounts are of the constant killing of each other by Quantrill's gang.

I remember reading a story by an old guy who'd been at a confrontation between Forrest and another officer during the war, where he said later they all thought for awhile that Forrest might shoot the officer over their disagreement. Quantrill and his guys did shoot each other. He was simply a murderous psychopath.

Yeah, Well Ft Pillow was not a massacre nor was Lawrence. Yes there were death lists naming abloitionists and former or part time Jayhawkers and red legs, members of the emigrant aide society and none conductors and other swho aided the under ground rail road. Larence was the end point for much of what was plundered in missouri and the end point for many of the slave stealing raids,

There were two military camps at Lawrence one for a white Kansas unit and one for recruits fom the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry, granted at the time of the raid niether were armed the whites were considered too young to be issoed rifles and the blacks were in process of mustering

Well if you've read Quantrill in Texas then your referring to the antics surrounding a victory over the said Jayhawker invasion that was suposedly checked by them or the Christmas Celebration in 1863 when the whiskey flowed. As far as killing each other yes it did happen at times but it was hardly a common occurance, perhaps your referring to Morgan being killed after WCQ had run him out of command and warned him not to return to Texas?

There may have been some who did enjoy killing Bloody Bill and Lil' Archie leap to mind but you are using to broad a bursh when you state for all of them.

 

[leftyhunter]

Yeah, Well Ft Pillow was not a massacre nor was Lawrence. Yes there were death lists naming abloitionists and former or part time Jayhawkers and red legs, members of the emigrant aide society and none conductors and other swho aided the under ground rail road. Larence was the end point for much of what was plundered in missouri and the end point for many of the slave stealing raids,

There were two military camps at Lawrence one for a white Kansas unit and one for recruits fom the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry, granted at the time of the raid niether were armed the whites were considered too young to be issoed rifles and the blacks were in process of mustering

Well if you've read Quantrill in Texas then your referring to the antics surrounding a victory over the said Jayhawker invasion that was suposedly checked by them or the Christmas Celebration in 1863 when the whiskey flowed. As far as killing each other yes it did happen at times but it was hardly a common occurance, perhaps your referring to Morgan being killed after WCQ had run him out of command and warned him not to return to Texas?

There may have been some who did enjoy killing Bloody Bill and Lil' Archie leap to mind but you are using to broad a bursh when you state for all of them.

I don't quite follow how shooting unarmed men and boys at close range is not a massacre. Not that the Redlegs, Jayhawkers and troops were angeles but let's give them credit they didn't kill young Missouri boys in revenge. In a past threads their were examples of the USCT getting some payback from Ft.Pillow. Can't blame them what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Leftyhunter

 

[18thVirginia]

Yeah, Well Ft Pillow was not a massacre nor was Lawrence. Yes there were death lists naming abloitionists and former or part time Jayhawkers and red legs, members of the emigrant aide society and none conductors and other swho aided the under ground rail road. Larence was the end point for much of what was plundered in missouri and the end point for many of the slave stealing raids,

There were two military camps at Lawrence one for a white Kansas unit and one for recruits fom the 2nd Kansas Colored Infantry, granted at the time of the raid niether were armed the whites were considered too young to be issoed rifles and the blacks were in process of mustering

Well if you've read Quantrill in Texas then your referring to the antics surrounding a victory over the said Jayhawker invasion that was suposedly checked by them or the Christmas Celebration in 1863 when the whiskey flowed. As far as killing each other yes it did happen at times but it was hardly a common occurance, perhaps your referring to Morgan being killed after WCQ had run him out of command and warned him not to return to Texas?

There may have been some who did enjoy killing Bloody Bill and Lil' Archie leap to mind but you are using to broad a bursh when you state for all of them.

My family on several sides is from the counties where Quantrill wintered in North Texas, Collin, Grayson, Fannin, so I've read various sources about that time. Quantrill hung the Sheriff of Collin County and the Chief Judge for having a trial with some of his men, even though they were found not guilty, supposedly he hung people in the Courthouse Square in McKinney in Collin County, quite a few. McCulloch thought that Quantrill and his men could round up deserters and bring them in, but they just killed them. There are various instances reported in the area where they killed farmers, just shot people Lawrence style. The talk of riding horses into the stores was not the one incidence that you refer to, it was a common thing. Some of the talk of killing each other was from one of the people who rode with Quantrill--about their time in Sherman-Denison-McKinney.

The white "military camp" had 21 kids and it doesn't sound like the black one had many more. Interesting that Quantrill always seemed to go out of his way to attack black soldiers. "Household goods carried off to Lawrence." Now, would the furniture have been more valuable than the 200 slaves that Jim Lane took back to Kansas from Osceola? Because I remember when looking at the list of household goods from my husband's family in the mid 1850s that furniture was all valued at less than $10, while slaves were $500 to $1,000. I've noticed that various accounts of what Lane allowed his men to take back to Lawrence omit the slaves.

According to the Texas State Library Assn., General Henry McCulloch didn't want Quantrill in North Texas as he said, we cannot, as a Christian people sanction a savage, 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."

 

[Borderruffian]

I don't quite follow how shooting unarmed men and boys at close range is not a massacre. Not that the Redlegs, Jayhawkers and troops were angeles but let's give them credit they didn't kill young Missouri boys in revenge. In a past threads their were examples of the USCT getting some payback from Ft.Pillow. Can't blame them what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Leftyhunter

You want to give them credit for removing Jepth Crawford from his home and hanging him? Would you like to give Penniks 5th MSM militia troops credit for killing Col. Younger?Pick a county in western or central districts of Missouri and you'll find ample examples of Southern sympathizers shoot or hung or drowned by the federals as well as homes burned crops burned, property "confiscated' and familys left without fathers. Once again there is no one side that is guilty and no one side that is totally and without a doubt little angels who did nothing, it was a guerrilla war a nasty bloody guerrilla war and no hand was unstained by innocent blood regardless of what flag the fought or claimed to fight under.Plenty of unarmed men and boys not of military aged were "paroled" by Federal Troops in Missouri.

 

[Borderruffian]

My family on several sides is from the counties where Quantrill wintered in North Texas, Collin, Grayson, Fannin, so I've read various sources about that time. Quantrill hung the Sheriff of Collin County and the Chief Judge for having a trial with some of his men, even though they were found not guilty, supposedly he hung people in the Courthouse Square in McKinney in Collin County, quite a few. McCulloch thought that Quantrill and his men could round up deserters and bring them in, but they just killed them. There are various instances reported in the area where they killed farmers, just shot people Lawrence style. The talk of riding horses into the stores was not the one incidence that you refer to, it was a common thing. Some of the talk of killing each other was from one of the people who rode with Quantrill--about their time in Sherman-Denison-McKinney.

The white "military camp" had 21 kids and it doesn't sound like the black one had many more. Interesting that Quantrill always seemed to go out of his way to attack black soldiers. "Household goods carried off to Lawrence." Now, would the furniture have been more valuable than the 200 slaves that Jim Lane took back to Kansas from Osceola? Because I remember when looking at the list of household goods from my husband's family in the mid 1850s that furniture was all valued at less than $10, while slaves were $500 to $1,000. I've noticed that various accounts of what Lane allowed his men to take back to Lawrence omit the slaves.

According to the Texas State Library Assn., General Henry McCulloch didn't want Quantrill in North Texas as he said, we cannot, as a Christian people sanction a savage, 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."

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.

 

[leftyhunter]

You want to give them credit for removing Jepth Crawford from his home and hanging him? Would you like to give Penniks 5th MSM militia troops credit for killing Col. Younger?Pick a county in western or central districts of Missouri and you'll find ample examples of Southern sympathizers shoot or hung or drowned by the federals as well as homes burned crops burned, property "confiscated' and familys left without fathers. Once again there is no one side that is guilty and no one side that is totally and without a doubt little angels who did nothing, it was a guerrilla war a nasty bloody guerrilla war and no hand was unstained by innocent blood regardless of what flag the fought or claimed to fight under.Plenty of unarmed men and boys not of military aged were "paroled" by Federal Troops in Missouri.

My point was that you stated that Lawrence, Kansas and Ft. Pillow were not massacres while I argued they were.It may be true that after the Lawrence massacre Union forces may of killed young Missourians in revenge. On the other hand the Lawrence massacre is documented and I will patiently await proof that Union forces killed boys in Missouri for revenge.
I agree has did General Hallack that the Kansas forces did far more harm then good.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

My point was that you stated that Lawrence, Kansas and Ft. Pillow were not massacres while I argued they were.It may be true that after the Lawrence massacre Union forces may of killed young Missourians in revenge. On the other hand the Lawrence massacre is documented and I will patiently await proof that Union forces killed boys in Missouri for revenge.
I agree has did General Hallack that the Kansas forces did far more harm then good.
Leftyhunter

A massacre denotes the total annileation of a given unit or the persons involved was everyone in Lawrence killed? No unlike the troops who followed Ave Johnston at Centariala the were not. Were all killed at Ft. Pillow ? No they were not. Some both white and black were taken prisoner or in the case of blacks sent back into slavery. So neither are massacres was there whole killing? Yes there was, but the term massacre does not fit either of those events the word id used to cause a knee jerk "OMG!Look at what those SOB's WCQ and his nasty guerillas did to the peaceful unoffending hamlet of Lawrence Kansas they were demonic outlaws and ner'do wells" As has been stated here if one can't look into the past and try to understand why certain events transpired and certain feelimgs came to forfront then what results is just a circular argument that devlves into parroting of the propaganda ( both wartime and post war ) of one side or the other.

I've already stated Lawrence was beyond the pale but then again so was Ocseola,Dayton Harrisonville and other towns thatr can't be laid at the feet nor on the heads of partisans but squarely at the feet and on the heads of Lane.Jennison and Montgomery not to mention the drumhead trials or no trial executions of "southern or supposed soutern sympathizers in west and central and north Missouri which can be laid squarely at the feet of the Out-State Union volunteers (including the various Red Leg and Jayhawker "REGIMENTS" and the various MSM regiments and Bn's.Nothing happens in a vacum not during a civil war, it becomes tit for tat and often as in Missouri revenge driven. All in all the civilian population suffered the worst because of the guerrilla war both those with southern sympathies and those with union sympathies. These also were non-combatants but usually are left out of the discussions in favor of Lawrence and thoae demonic Partisans.

I don't care for WCQ nor Iam I crazy about the way Todd, Anderson or Lil' Archie and the like conducted the war after the spring of 64, but the partisans had no corner on pillaging and killing the Union got there licks in and made the most of them also.

If we are to discuss the civil war /guerilla war in Missouri we would do well to discuss all the warts and blemishes of both sides and not hold one up to be saintly and unstained they were both stained some more than others, they both had their reasons, some better than others. If we don't try to at least acknowledge they had whatever reason whether we agree with it or not then discussing just leads to circular "My guy can beat up youre guy cause your guy is a big doody head"

 

[leftyhunter]

A massacre denotes the total annileation of a given unit or the persons involved was everyone in Lawrence killed? No unlike the troops who followed Ave Johnston at Centariala the were not. Were all killed at Ft. Pillow ? No they were not. Some both white and black were taken prisoner or in the case of blacks sent back into slavery. So neither are massacres was there whole killing? Yes there was, but the term massacre does not fit either of those events the word id used to cause a knee jerk "OMG!Look at what those SOB's WCQ and his nasty guerillas did to the peaceful unoffending hamlet of Lawrence Kansas they were demonic outlaws and ner'do wells" As has been stated here if one can't look into the past and try to understand why certain events transpired and certain feelimgs came to forfront then what results is just a circular argument that devlves into parroting of the propaganda ( both wartime and post war ) of one side or the other.

I've already stated Lawrence was beyond the pale but then again so was Ocseola,Dayton Harrisonville and other towns thatr can't be laid at the feet nor on the heads of partisans but squarely at the feet and on the heads of Lane.Jennison and Montgomery not to mention the drumhead trials or no trial executions of "southern or supposed soutern sympathizers in west and central and north Missouri which can be laid squarely at the feet of the Out-State Union volunteers (including the various Red Leg and Jayhawker "REGIMENTS" and the various MSM regiments and Bn's.Nothing happens in a vacum not during a civil war, it becomes tit for tat and often as in Missouri revenge driven. All in all the civilian population suffered the worst because of the guerrilla war both those with southern sympathies and those with union sympathies. These also were non-combatants but usually are left out of the discussions in favor of Lawrence and thoae demonic Partisans.

I don't care for WCQ nor Iam I crazy about the way Todd, Anderson or Lil' Archie and the like conducted the war after the spring of 64, but the partisans had no corner on pillaging and killing the Union got there licks in and made the most of them also.

If we are to discuss the civil war /guerilla war in Missouri we would do well to discuss all the warts and blemishes of both sides and not hold one up to be saintly and unstained they were both stained some more than others, they both had their reasons, some better than others. If we don't try to at least acknowledge they had whatever reason whether we agree with it or not then discussing just leads to circular "My guy can beat up youre guy cause your guy is a big doody head"

It depends on you define a massacre. I would argue a given group does not have to kill every single non combatant or every single captured prisoner in order to qualify as a massacre.
I have never said all Union forces especially the Red Legs were model soldiers. I mentioned General Halleck who had major issues with them. I am aware of Bleeding Kansas and that the conflict in Missouri has deep roots. Perception is reality. Both the people of Kansas and the Union were outraged by the Lawrence massacre and many soldiers from Kansas thirsted for revenge. After Ft Pillow many in the USCT did what anyone else would have done in their place.
I have mentioned Union excess in past threads such as what occurred to the Younger's. I never said Union forces in Missouri conducted a model Counterinsurgency. Then again no other army has either especially the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

It depends on you define a massacre. I would argue a given group does not have to kill every single non combatant or every single captured prisoner in order to qualify as a massacre.
I have never said all Union forces especially the Red Legs were model soldiers. I mentioned General Halleck who had major issues with them. I am aware of Bleeding Kansas and that the conflict in Missouri has deep roots. Perception is reality. Both the people of Kansas and the Union were outraged by the Lawrence massacre and many soldiers from Kansas thirsted for revenge. After Ft Pillow many in the USCT did what anyone else would have done in their place.
I have mentioned Union excess in past threads such as what occurred to the Younger's. I never said Union forces in Missouri conducted a model Counterinsurgency. Then again no other army has either especially the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

You define massacre different all right so did the union press and the Kansas historians along with a myriad of people who study the ACW. My feeling is that both of the mentioned events are classified "massacres" is because the journalists of the day as well as the politicians and the Federal commanders wished to fire up the North and/or Union Sympathizers in the border states. Historians stay on the band wagon because WCQ and NBF are easy targets to engage and because of Lawrence and the no quarter style of war WCQ is easy to dislike and vilifie as is NBF for involvement in the Klan this also goes into being able to bash the "traitors to the Union" and the perpEtrators of slavery.

Kansas soldiers thristing for revenge is way Lawrence happened as well as the depredations visited on Missouri since the war had started and several (not all) bands of Kansas "volunteers" began their pursuit of Jayhawking in Missouri only this time cloaked in the virtuas blue uniform of the federal government and beneath the old flag. Yes they wanted revenge for Border Ruffian incursions during the border wars and yes they got revenge during the war,is it so so hard to see that perhaps the Partisans felt the same way as did many Missourians? Kansas was only outraged because what had been done in Missouri had been visited upon Kansas and (OMG) Lawrence what was to paraphrase you;Good for the goose wasn't at all good for the gander in this case and the Union population was offended that such an evil thing could befall her saintly and peace loving betheren in a loyal state . Frankly I don't now care nor to I imagine the many people in Missouri did at the time much care what you call Lawrence in an effort to villinize the Partisans the Commanders of the Dept of Missouri did that before Lawrence. So call it a massacre, a blood letting, a demonic act of the devils minions tell me it was a documented massacre whatever just know that I'm not buying what you are selling nor what was sold in 1863.

 

[leftyhunter]

You define massacre different all right so did the union press and the Kansas historians along with a myriad of people who study the ACW. My feeling is that both of the mentioned events are classified "massacres" is because the journalists of the day as well as the politicians and the Federal commanders wished to fire up the North and/or Union Sympathizers in the border states. Historians stay on the band wagon because WCQ and NBF are easy targets to engage and because of Lawrence and the no quarter style of war WCQ is easy to dislike and vilifie as is NBF for involvement in the Klan this also goes into being able to bash the "traitors to the Union" and the perpEtrators of slavery.

Kansas soldiers thristing for revenge is way Lawrence happened as well as the depredations visited on Missouri since the war had started and several (not all) bands of Kansas "volunteers" began their pursuit of Jayhawking in Missouri only this time cloaked in the virtuas blue uniform of the federal government and beneath the old flag. Yes they wanted revenge for Border Ruffian incursions during the border wars and yes they got revenge during the war,is it so so hard to see that perhaps the Partisans felt the same way as did many Missourians? Kansas was only outraged because what had been done in Missouri had been visited upon Kansas and (OMG) Lawrence what was to paraphrase you;Good for the goose wasn't at all good for the gander in this case and the Union population was offended that such an evil thing could befall her saintly and peace loving betheren in a loyal state . Frankly I don't now care nor to I imagine the many people in Missouri did at the time much care what you call Lawrence in an effort to villinize the Partisans the Commanders of the Dept of Missouri did that before Lawrence. So call it a massacre, a blood letting, a demonic act of the devils minions tell me it was a documented massacre whatever just know that I'm not buying what you are selling nor what was sold in 1863.

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

 

[diane]

Massacre is a loaded term, all right, and does have a different definition in military law than in civilian law. That a lot of unarmed and young people were killed goes without saying but doesn't necessarily constitute a massacre. That's one of the reasons I think the operation got away from Quantrill - when you have guys like Todd and Anderson in your command, it's almost a given. Whenever there's a battle with a wealth of underlying and deep grievances on the part of the combatants, there's going to be more bloodshed than necessary, and somebody is going to do something terrible. I do think, though, that Lawrence was more than a bad, bloody battle. However, had Quantrill decided to do a massacre, there would have been very, very few if any survivors and nothing but smoke and ashes left of Lawrence.