Quantrill's Raiders

[leftyhunter]

Posts never begin well with all due respect. There should be no shock by reading threads concerning bloodlust of Quantrill and Anderson considering certain biases that exist. Kansas certainly bled, but so did Mo. Don't
forget about Ewing's General Order 11:

"I -- All persons living in Jackson, Cass and Bates Counties, Missouri, and in that part of Vernon included in this district, except those living within one mile of the limits of Independence, Hickman Mills, Pleasant Hill and Harrisonville, and except those in that part of Kaw Township, Jackson County, north of Brush Creek and west of the Big Blue River, are hereby ordered to remove from their present places of residence within fifteen days from the date hereof.

"Those who, within that time, establish their loyalty to the satisfaction of the commanding officer of the military station nearest their present places of residence, will receive from him certificates stating the fact of their loyalty and the names of the witnesses by whom it can be shown. All who receive such certificates will be permitted to remove to any military station in this district, or to any part of the State of Kansas, except the counties on the eastern border of the state. All others shall remove out of this district. Officers commanding companies and detachments in the counties named, will see this paragraph is promptly obeyed.

"II -- All grain and hay in the field or under shelter, in the districts from which the inhabitants are required to remove, within reach of military stations, after the 9th day of September next, will be taken to such stations, and turned over to the proper officers there; and report of the amount so turned over made to district headquarters, specifying the names of all loyal owners, and the amount of such produce taken from them. All grain and hay found in such district after the 9th day of September next, not convenient to such stations, will be destroyed.

"III -- The provisions of General Orders No. 10 from these headquarters will be at once vigorously executed by officers commanding in the parts of districts, and at the stations, not subject to the operation of Paragraph I of this order -- and especially in the towns of Independence, Westport and Kansas City.

"IV -- Paragraph 3, General Orders No. 10, is revoked as to all who have borne arms against the government since the 20th day of August, 1863."

General Order No. 10, above referred to, provided for an escort to all loyal persons desiring to remove to a military post in the district; ordered the arrest of all persons, except women, who as heads of families gave aid to guerrillas; wives and children of known guerrillas, women, who as heads of families willfully engaged in assisting guerrillas, were to remove out of the district unmolested, and if they refused to remove they were taken to Kansas City for shipment to some point within theConfederate lines.

In enforcing the order, Ewing commanded his men to refrain from looting or other depredations but he was unable to control his troops, many of whom were Kansans eager to exact any revenge possible upon theirMissouri neighbors. The soldiers wasted no time in wreaking havoc on the area, stealing property and burning homes and outbuildings to the ground. As the Missouri residents fled for their lives, all that was left of many once fertile farms, were charred chimneys and burned fields.

Again, it was a war of retribution.

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/mo-generalorder11.html

On the other hand their isnothing wrong with the above order. A guerrilla has note by Mao is a fish that lives among the sea of people. If the guerillas become a major problem then the seas must be drained. Depopulation is a standard COIN technique used at least has far back has 70AD when the jews where expelled from what is nowIsrael by the Romans. During the mist of a civil war the US is indeed justified in removin disloyal people from its territory. Thousands of loyal American where driven from their homes in Ar and Tx what is good for the goose is good for the gnder.
Leftyhunter

 

[MRB1863]

Another interesting and fine post with much exchange of ideas concerning another popular and obviously favorite Civil War personality. Thank you all for sharing your viewpoints.

 

[Lost Cause]

On the other hand their isnothing wrong with the above order. A guerrilla has note by Mao is a fish that lives among the sea of people. If the guerillas become a major problem then the seas must be drained. Depopulation is a standard COIN technique used at least has far back has 70AD when the jews where expelled from what is nowIsrael by the Romans. During the mist of a civil war the US is indeed justified in removin disloyal people from its territory. Thousands of loyal American where driven from their homes in Ar and Tx what is good for the goose is good for the gnder.
Leftyhunter

There is argument concerning the effectiveness of the order. Ewing was criticized because the expulsion of the civilian population allowed the guerrillas greater access to supplies left behind in the path and opened an opportunity for plunder by the Unionist raiders. Orders such as these were not without additional consequences. Lincoln understood this when he previously rescinded Grant's Order 11 that ordered the expulsion of Jewish populations from districts in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

 

[leftyhunter]

There is argument concerning the effectiveness of the order. Ewing was criticized because the expulsion of the civilian population allowed the guerrillas greater access to supplies left behind in the path and opened an opportunity for plunder by the Unionist raiders. Orders such as these were not without additional consequences. Lincoln understood this when he previously rescinded Grant's Order 11 that ordered the expulsion of Jewish populations from districts in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

Expelling a small amount of Jewish traders is not germane to depopulation or population resettlement in a COIN war. In the case of the Jewish traders Grant was perhaps guilty of using a club has a flyswatter. Does who illegally traded with the enemy should of simply been brought before the proper court. In the book"Union Guerrilla hunters of Missouri by Sam Erwin " Erwin makes the argument that due to popular revulsion of Ewings order depopulation was not given sufficient time to see if it worked. Guerrilla activity died down when the disloyal population was removed but resumed when the disloyal population was allowed to return.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

There is argument concerning the effectiveness of the order.

Lost Cause brings up some interesting points in a previous post. Order Number 11 continues to be controversial in the border region even today and valid points can be made for it and against it.

Apparently, a lot of livestock was driven off and some crops simply abandoned while others were burned. The guerrillas had no friends populating the countryside after the order, but they had little trouble finding food for themselves and their horses. One very unfortunate consequence is that so many homes were destroyed. Only a comparative handful of pre-war homes remain in this region today. It comprises about three and one-half counties and is still known in Missouri as "The Burnt District".

After the order was enforced, George Caleb Bingham set out to blame and destroy the reputation of Gen. Ewing with his famous painting "Martial Law--Order Number 11" and he did a pretty good job of it. I totally blamed Ewing for decades.

Not too long ago I came across a different perspective that really surprised me. I don't have the book in hand right now so my memory fails as to the exact source. It might have been Donald Gilmore but I think it was John Newman Edwards (arguably the most fervent champion of the guerrillas). In any event, the author defended the guerrillas through most of the book, but then also defended Ewing. He argued that Ewing was not in favor of the order and was reluctant to implement it. He further argued that Sen. Jim Lane (already very well connected in Washington) more or less brow beat Ewing into implementing the order. Lane was also a general. The threat was that Lane would derail Ewing's political aspirations if he failed to comply. Thus, the author asserted that Ewing was a very good officer, obeying orders from a superior officer and that he (Ewing) should not be held responsible. Of course, this might have been the author's way of putting another black mark on Lane's reputation.

If, indeed, it WAS Edwards who made this assertion, it is extra surprising to me. Edwards was a Lafayette County native, a Major and adjutant on JO Shelby's staff, later one of the authors contributing to the lost cause construct, a pot-stirring newspaper editorialist and the creator of the Jesse James legend. He would be one of the last people I'd expect to find defending Gen. Ewing. Still...I think it was Edwards. I've loaned the book out so I can't verify at the moment. Perhaps someone else can. It would have been in NOTED GUERRILLAS.

 

[Scotsman]

Lost Cause brings up some interesting points in a previous post. Order Number 11 continues to be controversial in the border region even today and valid points can be made for it and against it.

Apparently, a lot of livestock was driven off and some crops simply abandoned while others were burned. The guerrillas had no friends populating the countryside after the order, but they had little trouble finding food for themselves and their horses. One very unfortunate consequence is that so many homes were destroyed. Only a comparative handful of pre-war homes remain in this region today. It comprises about three and one-half counties and is still known in Missouri as "The Burnt District".

After the order was enforced, George Caleb Bingham set out to blame and destroy the reputation of Gen. Ewing with his famous painting "Martial Law--Order Number 11" and he did a pretty good job of it. I totally blamed Ewing for decades.

Not too long ago I came across a different perspective that really surprised me. I don't have the book in hand right now so my memory fails as to the exact source. It might have been Donald Gilmore but I think it was John Newman Edwards (arguably the most fervent champion of the guerrillas). In any event, the author defended the guerrillas through most of the book, but then also defended Ewing. He argued that Ewing was not in favor of the order and was reluctant to implement it. He further argued that Sen. Jim Lane (already very well connected in Washington) more or less brow beat Ewing into implementing the order. Lane was also a general. The threat was that Lane would derail Ewing's political aspirations if he failed to comply. Thus, the author asserted that Ewing was a very good officer, obeying orders from a superior officer and that he (Ewing) should not be held responsible. Of course, this might have been the author's way of putting another black mark on Lane's reputation.

If, indeed, it WAS Edwards who made this assertion, it is extra surprising to me. Edwards was a Lafayette County native, a Major and adjutant on JO Shelby's staff, later one of the authors contributing to the lost cause construct, a pot-stirring newspaper editorialist and the creator of the Jesse James legend. He would be one of the last people I'd expect to find defending Gen. Ewing. Still...I think it was Edwards. I've loaned the book out so I can't verify at the moment. Perhaps someone else can. It would have been in NOTED GUERRILLAS.

I agree that Ewing was not the biggest proponent of the order, but Lane did not have the authority to order Ewing to issue it.

Some authors, including Albert Castel, suggest that Ewing issued it due to pressure from Lane and from the threat that he and other Kansans made to launch a retribution raid into Missouri. The order headed off any unofficial raid by enraged Kansans. And it helped Ewing appear more of a hardliner against guerrillas, in the face of criticism by some in Kansas who argued that he was too passive.

Castel also points out that the roots of Order No. 11 can be traced to the prewar fighting between Kansas and Missouri--a series of escalating strikes among the forces within.

 

[Patrick H]

I agree that Ewing was not the biggest proponent of the order, but Lane did not have the authority to order Ewing to issue it.

Some authors, including Albert Castel, suggest that Ewing issued it due to pressure from Lane and from the threat that he and other Kansans made to launch a retribution raid into Missouri. The order headed off any unofficial raid by enraged Kansans. And it helped Ewing appear more of a hardliner against guerrillas, in the face of criticism by some in Kansas who argued that he was too passive.

Castel also points out that the roots of Order No. 11 can be traced to the prewar fighting between Kansas and Missouri--a series of escalating strikes among the forces within.

This would lend some credence to the possibility that whoever made the assertion was trying to besmirch Lane.
And, yes, I have also read that Ewing had his hands full trying to stop Kansas militias from launching a retaliatory raid. I've even read one account where Ewing and his forces met Lane and a militia on the prairie and turned them back. No way to verify that, of course, and some authors DO get creative in the telling!