Quantrill's Raiders

[Patrick H]

With all due respect, Patrick, I don't see threads where either Lane or Jennison are portrayed here as heroes. And in my Kansas high school history class, the teacher read from Bruce Catton about the scurrilous activities of the Jayhawkers during the Civil War, just so we'd understand there were two sides.

I haven't defended either Lane or Jennison and I don't see many threads here about them, but I've certainly read enough threads here about how really interesting the bloodlust of Quantrill and Anderson was. And seems like a lot of rationalizing of their psychopathic killing.

Here are the amounts of property destroyed in Bleeding Kansas:

Total: $450,001.70 that includes 78 buildings burned, 368 horses killed, and $37,349.61 worth of crops lost.

Is there a comparable figure for losses in Missouri prior to 1861?

18th, I've already told you I don't know the property damage and loss to theft in Missouri. Do you? It's not your fault if you don't. It's not my fault that I don't know, either. I don't think anyone knows. But I know that Lane and Jennison led raiding parties as surely as I know that Border Ruffians from Missouri led raiding parties, too.

To me, this is not about keeping score--although lots of bad actors and hot headed young men on both sides sure seemed to be keeping score back then!

I'll say it again: Lots of guys on both sides were bad. I include Lane, Jennison, Quantrill, Anderson, Clements and others in their number. I always have. Murder, theft and property destruction are BAD. Anyone who does these things is BAD. Civilians got victimized by lots of bad guys on both sides. That's BAD. That's my opinion. See what I mean? PEOPLE WHO DID THESE THINGS WERE BAD!

You'll find lots of examples in my posts here and on other threads where I rationalize why some of the Missouri boys went to the bush in the first place, but you won't find a single case where I attempted to pose one wrong justifying another. A few others have posted to that effect in the past, but I never have. You'll find examples in my posts where I report that some actions were taken in revenge of other actions, but you will NEVER find me condoning revenge as a valid excuse. I haven't done that.

 

[Scotsman]

Hi, Scotsman. Actually, I don't think Lane's actions were a lot different than Quantrill's. Lane might have been motivated by what HE saw as a morally superior stance, but he led raiding gangs that murdered, robbed and burned. When he finished with Osceola, Missouri, there were only about 200 residents and two buildings left in the town. He led raids against farms, too, during which property and stock were stolen and buildings were torched. These are the kinds of actions that earned him a spot on Quantrill's death list. McCorkle says there were four pianos found in Lane's Lawrence house, at least two of which were recognized by the raiders as having come from their friends' houses (that probably accounts for the scene in RIDE WITH THE DEVIL where we see the raiders driving back towards Missouri with a piano in a wagon). I think those are perfectly reasonable example of "bad". There were lots of bad actors on both sides of the MO-KAN border--and a lot of innocents caught in between them, too.

Were Lane's actions significantly different than Sherman's three years later?

 

[Scotsman]

I'll say it again: Lots of guys on both sides were bad. I include Lane, Jennison, Quantrill, Anderson, Clements and others in their number. I always have. Murder, theft and property destruction are BAD. Anyone who does these things is BAD. Civilians got victimized by lots of bad guys on both sides. That's BAD. That's my opinion. See what I mean? PEOPLE WHO DID THESE THINGS WERE BAD!

How do you define "murder" in war? I believe that some killings along the Kansas-Missouri border would fit almost any person's definition of "murder," but we also know that many killings were part of guerilla warfare among willing combatants. And, there are differences between criminal outliers of various armies committing true crimes and armies conducting widespread executions.

Next, theft and property destruction occur routinely in war. That does not justify all examples of it, but the mere taking of property, or destroying it, are not always considered "bad" during war. In fact, confiscation and the destruction of enemy property is a legitimate part of warfare. It is done to this day.

So how can you categorically say that anyone who destroys property, takes something, or "murders" someone is bad, without more carefully explaining how their actions violate the inherent and accepted actions of killing and destruction of warfare?

 

[Nathanb1]

Missourans killed in the raid on Osceola - 17

Kansans killed in 2nd sacking of Lawrence - 185

We're not going to play that game again, are we? "My killing, looting and burning is worse (or less--whatever) than your killing, looting and burning?" Sheesh. I just don't get this need to compare apples to apples. If it's your apple, it's a tragedy. Doesn't matter how thoroughly, what variety, or how many you had. Not particularly picking on you, but just everyone who falls into this trap.

Can't we just admit it was bad for everyone?

 

[18thVirginia]

18th, I've already told you I don't know the property damage and loss to theft in Missouri. Do you? It's not your fault if you don't. It's not my fault that I don't know, either. I don't think anyone knows. But I know that Lane and Jennison led raiding parties as surely as I know that Border Ruffians from Missouri led raiding parties, too.

To me, this is not about keeping score--although lots of bad actors and hot headed young men on both sides sure seemed to be keeping score back then!

I'll say it again: Lots of guys on both sides were bad. I include Lane, Jennison, Quantrill, Anderson, Clements and others in their number. I always have. Murder, theft and property destruction are BAD. Anyone who does these things is BAD. Civilians got victimized by lots of bad guys on both sides. That's BAD. That's my opinion. See what I mean? PEOPLE WHO DID THESE THINGS WERE BAD!

You'll find lots of examples in my posts here and on other threads where I rationalize why some of the Missouri boys went to the bush in the first place, but you won't find a single case where I attempted to pose one wrong justifying another. A few others have posted to that effect in the past, but I never have. You'll find examples in my posts where I report that some actions were taken in revenge of other actions, but you will NEVER find me condoning revenge as a valid excuse. I haven't done that.

With all due respect, Patrick, I didn't direct any accusations of rationalizing the behavior of Quantrill or Anderson toward you. You walk a fine line of talking about these guys without aggrandizing them.

I have read the threads about the Missouri-Kansas border war, but it always seemed to be mostly about Missouri. So I started reading articles about the conflict and happened onto the list of property lost during the Bleeding Kansas period--it was detailed by a state commission in Kansas. I have looked for a list of similar stuff from Missouri, but so far have only found a lot of statements that the Kansans--pre-Civil War--raided Cass, Bates, Jackson, Vernon counties, but no real numbers, just general complaints about Kansans.

Apparently a lot of allegations that the Kansans had kidnapped their slaves, because otherwise the slaves wouldn't have gone with them to freedom. If I find more about details of the raids into Missouri, I'll post them.

 

[leftyhunter]

Would it not be fair to say that in COIN/insurgent/ guerrilla war what ever you want to call it thinks get murkey real fast? Some Union commanders such has Col.Ford 2nd Colo USV and Brig.Gen.Guitar MSM tried to impose standards of conduct on their men others such has Jennison and Lane not so much. Some CSA guerrillas such has Quantrill ,Hilderbrand and Anderson may not of been following the accepted rules of war has much has Porter( if that is the case). Irregular warfare just like conventional warfare is an ugly business and always has been so.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

With all due respect, Patrick, I didn't direct any accusations of rationalizing the behavior of Quantrill or Anderson toward you. You walk a fine line of talking about these guys without aggrandizing them.

I have read the threads about the Missouri-Kansas border war, but it always seemed to be mostly about Missouri. So I started reading articles about the conflict and happened onto the list of property lost during the Bleeding Kansas period--it was detailed by a state commission in Kansas. I have looked for a list of similar stuff from Missouri, but so far have only found a lot of statements that the Kansans--pre-Civil War--raided Cass, Bates, Jackson, Vernon counties, but no real numbers, just general complaints about Kansans.

Apparently a lot of allegations that the Kansans had kidnapped their slaves, because otherwise the slaves wouldn't have gone with them to freedom. If I find more about details of the raids into Missouri, I'll post them.

A good analysis of Union COIN policy is the chapter about the civil war in "A question of command Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq" Mark Moyar The Yale Library of Military History. I can't of course quote every word per the forums policy but he makes a strong argument that over all Union COIN officers where rather lax with discipline and often the troops received very poor pay and rations. In addition they where frustrated by the support the guerrillas received from the local population. The Union set itself up for widespread failure and therefore misdeeds by Union troops often provoked the growth in the ranks of CSA insurgents. The case of Cole Younger has cited by Patrick H is a good example.
On the other hand has pointed out many CSA guerrilla/insurgency leaders where not very respectful of the rules of war to put it mildly. On the other hand by the close of the CW most insurgency activity had come to a halt.
Gen.Halleck when he replaced Gen.Fremont tried his best and did succeed in removing lane and Jennison from Mo and wrote on how destructive they where to the Union cause. Unfortunately due to their political connections they could not be punished. With better leaders and better pay and food the Union COIN effort would have been more successful.
Their where some good Union COIN officers but never enough.
Leftyhunter

 

[18thVirginia]

Were either Lane or Jennison criminals after the Civil War?

Did they scalp people during the war?

Seems to me there's a fair distance between taking home pianos and disemboweling people.

 

[Lost Cause]

With all due respect, Patrick, I don't see threads where either Lane or Jennison are portrayed here as heroes. And in my Kansas high school history class, the teacher read from Bruce Catton about the scurrilous activities of the Jayhawkers during the Civil War, just so we'd understand there were two sides.

I haven't defended either Lane or Jennison and I don't see many threads here about them, but I've certainly read enough threads here about how really interesting the bloodlust of Quantrill and Anderson was. And seems like a lot of rationalizing of their psychopathic killing.

Here are the amounts of property destroyed in Bleeding Kansas:

Total: $450,001.70 that includes 78 buildings burned, 368 horses killed, and $37,349.61 worth of crops lost.

Is there a comparable figure for losses in Missouri prior to 1861?

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

 

[Lost Cause]

Were either Lane or Jennison criminals after the Civil War?

Did they scalp people during the war?

Seems to me there's a fair distance between taking home pianos and disemboweling people.

Well, Lane committed suicide for financial irregularities in 1866. Was his role in Osceola a factor? Concerning Jennison,was court-martialed for plunder. Prior to that he was responsible for the murder of pro slavery secessionists.

 

[CSA Today]

"Two years later, when William Quantrill attacked Lawrence, Kansas in what has become known as the Lawrence Massacre, Confederate guerillas could be heard shouting, "Remember Osceola!" Though Lane was in residence in Lawrence at the time, he was able to escape the attack by racing through a cornfield in his nightshirt."
[Another "Shirt tail Skedaddle".]

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/mo-osceola2.html

 

[Poor Private]

Getting back to the OP, "Black Flag: Guerrilla Warfare on the Western Border, 1861-1865" IMO is a good and objective read on that particular theater of operations.

One of my favorite books in my library, a small book but interesting. Along that same vane is another book I have on Missouri. "Confederate Military History of Missouri" By John C. Moore published by eBooksOnDisk.com in 2004. A whooping 175 pages. LLAP.

 

[Scotsman]

Well, Lane committed suicide for financial irregularities in 1866. Was his role in Osceola a factor? Concerning Jennison,was court-martialed for plunder. Prior to that he was responsible for the murder of pro slavery secessionists.

Lane's suicide was about more than accusations of financial irregularities. But why would his role in the sacking of Osceola have been a factor?

 

[18thVirginia]

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

Pardon me, but is there something in the rules of the forum that gives you the right to criticize my writing style because you disagree with what I've said in a thread? I like Patrick H and like his posts and was trying to communicate that, as he and I have communicated well in the past. And it was fairly innocuous post, I thought.

I have probably picked up "With all due respect...." from my lawyer husband. But, are you insisting that I should try to curb my use of the phrase because it displeases southern partisans?

 

[Lost Cause]

Pardon me, but is there something in the rules of the forum that gives you the right to criticize my writing style because you disagree with what I've said in a thread? I like Patrick H and like his posts and was trying to communicate that, as he and I have communicated well in the past. And it was fairly innocuous post, I thought.

I have probably picked up "With all due respect...." from my husband who was a prosecutor and a judge--areas where the usage is a common form of address. But, are you insisting that I should try to curb my use of the phrase because it displeases southern partisans?

No criticism intended. You are incorrect, however, to label me a Southern partisan on this matter. Both sides had their ruthless tendencies. Some are less known than others.

 

[Allie]

Pardon me, but is there something in the rules of the forum that gives you the right to criticize my writing style because you disagree with what I've said in a thread? I like Patrick H and like his posts and was trying to communicate that, as he and I have communicated well in the past. And it was fairly innocuous post, I thought.

I have probably picked up "With all due respect...." from my husband who was a prosecutor and a judge--areas where the usage is a common form of address. But, are you insisting that I should try to curb my use of the phrase because it displeases southern partisans?

I believe Lost Cause was expressing a widely held observation, not one personal to you.

With all due respect, this phrase displeases anyone familiar with flame wars on the internet. Along with "no offense, but..." it's frequently an indicator that the second half of the sentence will be neither respectful nor inoffensive. It may actually mean, as you meant it to, that a post is friendly and not to be taken as an attack, but more times than not it means the opposite, so it puts a lot of people's backs up. I've learned that when I feel the urge to say this coming on, it's probably a good idea to instead modify my statement into one which doesn't need a disclaimer.

 

[Lost Cause]

Lane's suicide was about more than accusations of financial irregularities. But why would his role in the sacking of Osceola have been a factor?

Guilt maybe, but that is speculation.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Hi, Scotsman. Actually, I don't think Lane's actions were a lot different than Quantrill's. Lane might have been motivated by what HE saw as a morally superior stance, but he led raiding gangs that murdered, robbed and burned. When he finished with Osceola, Missouri, there were only about 200 residents and two buildings left in the town. He led raids against farms, too, during which property and stock were stolen and buildings were torched. These are the kinds of actions that earned him a spot on Quantrill's death list. McCorkle says there were four pianos found in Lane's Lawrence house, at least two of which were recognized by the raiders as having come from their friends' houses (that probably accounts for the scene in RIDE WITH THE DEVIL where we see the raiders driving back towards Missouri with a piano in a wagon). I think those are perfectly reasonable example of "bad". There were lots of bad actors on both sides of the MO-KAN border--and a lot of innocents caught in between them, too.

Nice post! Thanks--and I like your word "actors" in your statement!

 

[Scotsman]

Guilt maybe, but that is speculation.

I don't think Lane ever expressed guilt for his actions during the war. His actions in Missouri were not significantly different than Sherman's operations in Georgia -- and I don't think Sherman felt any guilt after the war.

Lane's suicide was more likely a result of depression or bipolar disorder in the midst of political fallout during the Radical Republican dispute with Andrew Johnson.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

The thread is about Quantrill's raiders, so I think a look at this man is appropriate:

Coleman Younger is another of the Quantrill men who I find very interesting and somewhat difficult to understand. After his prison term in Minnesota, he wrote a short, interesting book titled WHAT MY LIFE HAS TAUGHT ME. I encourage all of you who are interested in the Missouri guerrillas to read it. It's a fast and entertaining read. It's available as a free e-book right here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24585/24585-h/24585-h.html

Cole was of a prosperous, respected unionist family and his father was the mayor of Harrisonville, Missouri. He makes no attempt to cover the fact that his father was a slave owner. He details a number of events very early in the war, including his initial service with Col. Upton Hays. He describes a number of events which eventually turn him to the guerrilla path, including the murder of his father and the burning of his mother's home. He gives good descriptions of life in the bush and of many Civil War events. I find all of these passages very easy to accept and compelling to read.

Things really get interesting when he describes his post-war life as an outlaw. You will all just have to decide whether you can accept the word of a convicted bank robber who has done his time, paid his debt to society and has "gone straight". I read a couple of passages in the latter part of the book and thought to myself: "He's not being truthful". But then I thought about it again and asked myself why he would need to lie after having paid for his crimes. I never came to a conclusion about some of his assertions, but they are fascinating to ponder.

Here's an example: We all know that Frank and Jesse James were the only two Northfield, Minnesota bank robbers who got away...correct? Cole Younger discussed this in his book and then floored me with his explanation. He said Frank and Jesse were never captured because they were never along on the raid in the first place! True? False? I don't know. I can imagine a scenario where another of the robbers might have announced himself as Frank or Jesse, to deliberately disguise his own identity. That seems plausible enough. I can easily imagine an eye witness telling the authorities: "The tall, lanky robber brandished his pistol and announced that he was Frank James". That's very plausible. But would the eye witness have been able to visually identify Frank James prior to the robbery? I doubt it. Remember this, too: When Cole wrote this book, Frank had long since come in and surrendered to the governor of Missouri. He had stood trial for murder and been acquitted. He had surrendered on the condition that he would not be extradited to Minnesota. Jesse was long since in his grave. All of that was ancient history by the time Cole published his book in 1903. So...why would Cole have felt the need to cover for Frank and Jesse? Cole and Frank were friends, but neither was at any particular risk any more, which complicates things when we search for answers, doesn't it?

This stuff is absolutely fascinating to ponder if you take everything you read on all sides with just a grain of salt...

For the 1st time, we're on my home turf...Minnesota.Two others escaped, one dying in Arizona years later, and one dying of fever...The poor Minnesotans, so loyal to the Union that they were among the very first to organize a regiment at the war's beginning, want to do SOMETHING to show their part...I saw a Re-enactment of the robbery many years ago in college--Northfield's St. Olaf college was our rival--Gustavus Adolphus in St. Peter. It actually was petty good...