Quantrill's Raid

[archieclement]

I'm never clear on why, because one side did something it clears the way for the other with impunity. ' They did it, too ' seems as excusatory as the whole ' War is H*** ' nonsense.

Not following that... its a false presumption .Guerrillas knew when they joined the guerrillas by 1862 their lives were forfeit if captured. Union General orders No 2....their was no claim or thought by the guerrillas they were operating with any impunity.

When one reads of individual guerrillas a common theme is many had family members murdered before they ever joined.... The choice was wait at home to see if you get murdered yourself, or take to the brush and least have a chance to protect yourself and in the eyes of many set things right, however their was no illusion to this immunity you allege

That's the thing, that people willingly joined knowing their lives were forfeit if caught or captured, shows how little protection citizens had here from the very government who was supposed to be providing the protection....In some cases mothers actually took their children to the guerrillas after their husbands were murdered because they felt the guerrillas could provide more protection for them then they could.

That actions have consequences is just a reality, Whether a jayhawker, corrupt militia or a guerrilla. That there was a cycle of violence shows no one side/group had any impunity though

 

[Patrick H]

That seems to be the general consensus for the Lawrence raid, 'revenge' I'm inclined to believe that revenge was used to motivate but it wasn't the single motivation for the raid.

I think you are correct. William Gregg wrote a memoir for the historian William Elsey Connelley. The original hand written manuscript is in the collection of the State Historical Society of Missouri. You can read a transcript online, in which Gregg (a Quantrill lieutenant) describes the run-up to Lawrence and the reasons given by Quantrill. It boils down striking at the hotbed of abolitionism, stopping the hated excesses of the jayhawk raids into Missouri, and extracting the most plunder in the process. In short, Lawrence would be thoroughly "cleansed" in Quantrill's own words. Q. used revenge to motivate the rank and file to go with him. Gregg implies that the lieutenants had already been persuaded. It is really a worth while read, as it is an eye witness account of many of the guerrilla actions. It dispels a lot of myths. I'll provide the link here. Do not be put off by the frequent notations "return to index". Just scroll past them and read on. Those mark the new pages of Gregg's hand written account:

http://penningtons.tripod.com/charleythehorse2665-2.html

 

[Brendan]

I'm just reminded of proverbs 22:8 personally "whoever sows injustice reaps calamity" from which comes the country proverb "you reap what you sow"

They sure did.

 

[archieclement]

Never said they didn't, as did those at Lawrence. I'm not sure where some seem to think either side had some immunity or impunity to retaliation. I've never said so

 

[diane]

I've always thought it was important to remember these guerrillas were mostly teens or very young men - Quantrill wasn't all that old himself. I always was impressed by Mosby's chilling reply when answering a critic who accused him of recruiting kids. Mosby said, "Why, they make the very best soldiers. They will do whatever I tell them and haven't got sense enough to be afraid."

I have to also say, a lot of guerillas were more than a mite off and some were straight up crazy! Bill Anderson fits that category - I don't think he could have been a peaceable enough farmer without the war, which definitely shoved him off the deep end.

 

[Patrick H]

I've always thought it was important to remember these guerrillas were mostly teens or very young men - Quantrill wasn't all that old himself. I always was impressed by Mosby's chilling reply when answering a critic who accused him of recruiting kids. Mosby said, "Why, they make the very best soldiers. They will do whatever I tell them and haven't got sense enough to be afraid."

I have to also say, a lot of guerillas were more than a mite off and some were straight up crazy! Bill Anderson fits that category - I don't think he could have been a peaceable enough farmer without the war, which definitely shoved him off the deep end.

I think you're right!

 

[James N.]

Well, they did have it commin.

As Jay Monaghan pointed out in Civil War on the Western Border, Lawrence had been a hotbed of Abolitionist sentiment ever since the days of John Brown and Bleeding Kansas and was often the objective of planned raids, most of which never quite came about or were minor in size compared with this one. In ways I'm afraid it was overdue and should've been anticipated by its residents!

 

[archieclement]

As Jay Monaghan pointed out in Civil War on the Western Border, Lawrence had been a hotbed of Abolitionist sentiment ever since the days of John Brown and Bleeding Kansas and was often the objective of planned raids, most of which never quite came about or were minor in size compared with this one. In ways I'm afraid it was overdue and should've been anticipated by its residents!

View attachment 201676

Its odd, all historians concede Lawrence was in effect the HQ of a criminal enterprise that illegally raided another state, and after murdering and burning, would return with wagon trains of loot and livestock to sell on the streets

One would think there would be innocent people in Lawrence......but have yet to come across any account of a resident or group of citizens petitioning the Governor, the President, or the US Army at Fort Scott to come and enforce the law. Nothing at all to indicate they weren't complicit in what was occurring there or were opposed to it.

Would guess most decent people would quickly remove themselves from a community living off the blood of others.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Its odd, all historians concede Lawrence was in effect the HQ of a criminal enterprise that illegally raided another state, and after murdering and burning, would return with wagon trains of loot and livestock to sell on the streets

One would think there would be innocent people in Lawrence......but have yet to come across any account of a resident or group of citizens petitioning the Governor, the President, or the US Army at Fort Scott to come and enforce the law. Nothing at all to indicate they weren't complicit in what was occurring there or were opposed to it.

Would guess most decent people would quickly remove themselves from a community living off the blood of others.

I suspect most of the decent people did leave. Looking back, it is stunning that Federal authorities ruling Missouri tolerated such lawlessness by militia units allegedly under allied command.

 

[leftyhunter]

So if it's perfectly ok to kill unarmed men and boys why is it not perfectly ok to intiate Order #11 to relocate Missouri civilians in order to create a free fire zone to prevent further raids. No one here has mentioned that the Border Ruffians in Western Missouri initiated raids against the abolitionist settlers in Eastern Kansas.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Well, they did have it commin.

By that logic so did the pro Confederate civilians in the burnt district.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I fully understand why Quantrills attack against civilians is viewed by many as a callous act but if you think about it Quantrills attack against Lawrence was a clever move and fully understandable especially when you understand that guerilla tactics are more often than not about forcing a reaction. It's all about payoff and costs. What better way to elicit a response from a more powerful enemy without having to directly engage them and suffer any damage to your own men. It's was a win win situation, Quantrill gets to exact revenge and force his enemy to respond, if they respond with equal violence then his own people are likely to suffer but there's also the chance that they will unite against a common enemy and be stronger for it, if there is no response then he's managed to send out a very strong message and no harm done to either himself or his men. I don't believe for one second that Quantrill hadn't given any thought to repercussions, of course he did, he would have known exactly what the response was likely to be but the pay off was worth it. It's obvious that the raid on Lawrence would in the long term have an adverse effect on his own people but that's the world in which guerilla warfare operates, civilians on both sides will get killed and things will turn nasty pretty quick but civilian deaths are a byproduct of that type of warfare. Things probably did get out of hand but what would you expect, I've yet to read a single article where guerilla attacks in any period of history had a happy ending. Obviously these are just my opinions but I do feel that there's a desperate need to understand the raid in the correct context with due consideration given to the things Quantrill and his men had suffered.

Quantrill's raid on Lawrence was the worst move he could make. Quantrill did not harm the Union Army other then killing some unarmed recruits. Quantrill exposed pro Confederate civilians to justified Union retaliation yet offered no protection for them. Quantrill now gave Union counterinsurgency troops especially from Kansas more the adequate motivation to destroy Confederate insurgents by any means necessary.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Quantrill's raid on Lawrence was the worst move he coukd make. Quantrill did not harm the Union Army other then killing some unarmed recruits. Quantrill exposed pro Confederate civilans to justified Union retaliation yet offered no protection for them. Quantrill now gave Union counterinsurgency troops especially from Kansas more the adequate motivation to destroy Confederate insurgents by any means necessary.
Leftyhunter

I would say to those involved then, that wasn't true at all.

If someone raped and killed your daughter, and no one did anything about it. So you finally do, and are convicted and killed for it.....People without a dog in the fight can easily say Lefty was stupid, all he did was get himself killed too. There's some truth to it

However to some, it is or was worth it, if its the only way left to set things right. They would freely give their lives to do so. And there's some truth to that too whether one agrees with them or not. It is human nature however.

 

[Patrick H]

So if it's perfectly ok to kill unarmed men and boys why is it not perfectly ok to intiate Order #11 to relocate Missouri civilians in order to create a free fire zone to prevent further raids. No one here has mentioned that the Border Ruffians in Western Missouri initiated raids against the abolitionist settlers in Eastern Kansas.
Leftyhunter

No one here has said it's perfectly okay to kill unarmed men and boys. Two wrongs have never made a "right." The border ruffians have been mentioned many times in previous threads, and I'm not aware of anyone ever saying their actions were okay, either. General Shelby later regretted having taken part in some of those actions. I have no idea what Col. Robert McCulloch thought later.

In any event, I'm perfectly fine with discussion of Order#11 in this thread, because it was a direct consequence of the Lawrence Raid, which is the true thread topic. Border ruffians are harder to connect here, but they'd be a good topic for a separate thread. I don't believe they've ever been thoroughly discussed here.

 

[Patrick H]

Whether Q's big raid on Lawrence was his worst move is debatable. It certainly brought a lot of retribution down on many people on both sides of the border. It was a well planned and well executed raid--somewhat amazing to me, in fact. But I also think it was a raid that got out of hand. @Booner and I were reading the Stiles book about it yesterday, and we disagree with part of Stiles's assessment. Stiles says the raid was because Lawrence was a center of abolitionism. I conditionally agree that it was one of several motives. I think @Booner leans more toward the revenge motive. I conditionally agree with that, too. I also believe it was targeted against Lane and other jayhawkers. I see it as a "cut the head off the snake" sort of operation in that way. But @Booner had a point when he said to me that John McCorckle didn't go to Lawrence to strike a blow against abolitionism. McCorckle told us himself that he went because his sister had been killed.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

By that logic so did the pro Confederate civilians in the burnt district.
Leftyhunter

No, the innocent Missouri civilians were not complicit in the war crimes committed by Confederate guerrillas. In contrast, those residing in Lawrence whose names were recorded on the Q-forces hit lists had been identified as personally involved in large numbers of war crimes committed against Missouri civilians. Additionally, many more Lawrence citizens had financially profited from liquidating the stolen goods and livestock carted off by the Union affiliated Kansas militia border raiders. Lawrence was renowned for marketing the booty stolen from Missourians. In this regard, the town deserved to be burnt to the ground, in kind.

 

[leftyhunter]

So everyone in Lawrence, Ks got what they deserved and everyone in the Burnt District was completely innocent? It was perfectly ok to kill 150 men and boys almost all of whom where unarmed vs it was not ok for Union troops to tough a hair on the head of any Missourian who supported the Confederacy?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I would say to those involved then, that wasn't true at all.

If someone raped and killed your daughter, and no one did anything about it. So you finally do, and are convicted and killed for it.....People without a dog in the fight can easily say Lefty was stupid, all he did was get himself killed too. There's some truth to it

However to some, it is or was worth it, if its the only way left to set things right. They would freely give their lives to do so. And there's some truth to that too whether one agrees with them or not. It is human nature however.

I think your analogy is off.
If I kill someone who actually did rape mt daughter and I get caught and convicted then I just have to take my lumps.
If the rapist in question lived in a small town and I killed 150 boys and men to extract my revenge then that would be a bit excessive.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Whether Q's big raid on Lawrence was his worst move is debatable. It certainly brought a lot of retribution down on many people on both sides of the border. It was a well planned and well executed raid--somewhat amazing to me, in fact. But I also think it was a raid that got out of hand. @Booner and I were reading the Stiles book about it yesterday, and we disagree with part of Stiles's assessment. Stiles says the raid was because Lawrence was a center of abolitionism. I conditionally agree that it was one of several motives. I think @Booner leans more toward the revenge motive. I conditionally agree with that, too. I also believe it was targeted against Lane and other jayhawkers. I see it as a "cut the head off the snake" sort of operation in that way. But @Booner had a point when he said to me that John McCorckle didn't go to Lawrence to strike a blow against abolitionism. McCorckle told us himself that he went because his sister had been killed.

The Lawrence Massacre had no benefit for the cause of the Confederacy. Nor did it harm the military authorties that held the female supporters and family members of the guerrillas that died in the prison collapse. It merely caused more civilian suffering on both sides. It did not in any way cause significant harm to the Union counterinsurgency forces.
In insurgency warfare killing is a tool to win a political objective. No political objective was achieved by the Confederate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

There may not of been an oral order to kill all males 13 and over. On the other hand Quantrill did state something to the effect" to kill all and you won't be wrong" So in essence Quantrill did condone mass execution of any male found. In the book "Inside War the guerrilla conflict in Missouri during the Civil War" Michael Fellman Oxford University Press
did point out on p.25 there were no written orders to kill every male but the guerrillas did kill at least 150 boys and men so there was definitely murderous attempt. Did all of these males bear responsibility for the deaths of the female prisoners and any crimes committed in Missouri ? Fellman points out sometimes the guerrillas merely beat men almost to death and burned their homes down.
Based on the posts in this thread I have to disagree with what @PatrickH stated that no one on this thread condoned the murderous actions of Quantrill's Lawrence massacre.
Leftyhunter