The Death of Bill Anderson

Patrick, one account that I read said that the soldiers had removed some bricks and posts at the jail to make easier access to some "ladies" who had taken up residence next door. That struck me as probably a truth that no one really wanted to publicize much as it would have made the girls' deaths seem less like martyrs for the one side, and the Union soldiers to seem not only culpable but quite dishonorable for the other.
Hi, 18th. Yes, I've read that one, too. Whatever the reasons for knocking out the support posts and removing bricks and blocks, it's easy to see why the Q-men thought a conspiracy was afoot to murder their women folk.
 
I'm a newb to this. Did the order try to clear out the area of everyone?
Yes, it did. Those who were known to be loyal beyond a doubt were allowed to move to a garrisoned town or within a stated distance of a garrison. ALL people needed to "remove" within a short period of time. I believe it was ten days, two weeks--a short period like that. Then militias and jayhawkers went through. Grain was confiscated for horses. Anything in the fields was burned or trampled. Some hogs and cattle were, doubtless, herded back to Kansas. The rest were shot or driven off (guerrillas later had no trouble finding hogs to shoot for food). Horses were confiscated. Then valuable household goods were loaded on wagons and the houses and barns burned.
 
Samuel P. Cox-
View attachment 115661
View attachment 115662
"Memories: being a story of early times in Daviess County, Missouri," John F. Jordin, 1904
https://archive.org/stream/memoriesbeingsto00jord#page/n101/mode/2up
Thank you, MIke, for posting this excellent link! I encourage all of you to follow the link to a fine biography of Lt. Col. Cox, who succeeded in ending Anderson's career. Incidentally, I have been to the kill site. It is still pretty much as described. Just up a small hillside above the bottom land is a modern monument to Anderson. It seems somewhat bizarre to me, but there you have it--there are still some people who consider him a hero.
 
Yes, it did. Those who were known to be loyal beyond a doubt were allowed to move to a garrisoned town or within a stated distance of a garrison. ALL people needed to "remove" within a short period of time. I believe it was ten days, two weeks--a short period like that. Then militias and jayhawkers went through. Grain was confiscated for horses. Anything in the fields was burned or trampled. Some hogs and cattle were, doubtless, herded back to Kansas. The rest were shot or driven off (guerrillas later had no trouble finding hogs to shoot for food). Horses were confiscated. Then valuable household goods were loaded on wagons and the houses and barns burned.
Some of those garrisons/garrisoned towns were in the area though weren't they? Even so, they would be required to give up their own homes.
 
If Kansas troops post Lawrence massacre killed as many young boys as were killed at Lawrence please document it. As far as the burnt district something had to be done to protect the loyal people of Kansas. The U.S. would use the same technique of Ordet #11 in creating "free fire zones in Vietnam 100 years later.
What did the Missourian Confederates expect after the Lawrance massacre?
Leftyhunter
Lefty, the problem was that the order impacted loyal unionists as severely as Confederate sympathizers. It was indiscriminate.
 
Some of those garrisons/garrisoned towns were in the area though weren't they? Even so, they would be required to give up their own homes.
Hi, Chuck. Yes, there were garrisons and "safe zones" just outside some garrisoned towns in the counties. However, being in them did not protect the loyalists from having their property confiscated or ruined. The idea was to permanently vacate the counties. Thus, residents were given time to pack a wagon and move out. Many never saw their land again. Of those who did, most never saw their homes again.
 
Last edited:
So what Union Troops and Kansas quasi Union troops, was just turn around being fair play and necessary? While what Bushwhackers were out of line, buthchers who killed unoffending "babies" in Lawrence (incidentally the home of James Lane and HQ's of a good portion of Redleg units many part time Redlegs and purvayors of plunder from Missouri) never mind the Kansas depredations committed in Missouri, Osceola ring any bells,how about Dayton?

Comparing Order 11 to the RVN free fire zones 100 years later is jumping the shark in an attempt to give Ewing, Lane, Jennison and others some far seeing tactical genius status as the orginators of that oh so "important " COIN tactical manuel.Free Fire Zones exsisted for a reason as has been stated many of the "insurgents" effected by order 11 simply weren't and many were Unionists, but being Missourians that was enough to target them in the view of Lane and other "Union" crusanders from Sodom on the plains.
Quantrils men did indeed kill men and boys in cold blood and I have posted sources about that. If killing young boys in cold blood is justifiable certainly burning down home is not so bad. If one is going to criticize one side one should be fair and balanced.
I never said Lane et al are tactical geniuses. I have stayed many times that the Union COIN war in Missouri was not a text book example of perfection. On the other hand show me a COIN war that was.
A free fire zone is a free fire zone. That is what the Union did in Order #11 and that is what the U.S. did 100 years later in the RVN.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Lefty, the problem was that the order impacted loyal unionists as severely as Confederate sympathizers. It was indiscriminate.
COIN warfare is complex.Order #11 may or may not of been the correct response to the Lawrence Massacre. Clearly General Ewing had to show he would do something to prevent future terrorist actions.
Leftyhunter
 
Yes, it did. Those who were known to be loyal beyond a doubt were allowed to move to a garrisoned town or within a stated distance of a garrison. ALL people needed to "remove" within a short period of time. I believe it was ten days, two weeks--a short period like that. Then militias and jayhawkers went through. Grain was confiscated for horses. Anything in the fields was burned or trampled. Some hogs and cattle were, doubtless, herded back to Kansas. The rest were shot or driven off (guerrillas later had no trouble finding hogs to shoot for food). Horses were confiscated. Then valuable household goods were loaded on wagons and the houses and barns burned.
I incorrectly identified Missouri as the state with the most battles during the war. and i honestly what historian i got it from. not in a bad way.
 
Possibly true. Quite possibly. You have seen Leftyhunter's opinion. All I can tell you is that LOTS of people would have hung him if they could have actually arrested him and brought him to the gallows. That was not to be. He was killed in the same kind of ambush he used so successfully against small companies of militias and union soldiers.
Don't know if it was at Lee's behest or not, but Champ Ferguson was briefly held by CS authorities after Saltville. They eventually released him.
 
View attachment 113573 October 26th marks the 152nd anniversary of the death of William T. Anderson. His name is almost as famous as that of William Clarke Quantill, under whom he served until the spring of 1864. It might surprise many of you to learn that Anderson--not Quantrill--was the most hated guerrilla leader in Missouri during the recent unpleasantness. He died after having fallen for his own typical ruse: He got baited into an ambush very near present day Orrick, Missouri. Anderson charged the line (some say with reins in his teeth and a revolver in each hand). He was shot out of the saddle, taken to nearby Richmond, Missouri in Ray county, his corpse then dragged around the courthouse square, then dragged into a local photo studio for post-mortem portraits. Following that, his corpse might have been beheaded. I can't confirm that, but I have read allegations to that effect. He was finally buried in an unmarked grave in the local Mormon cemetery. It is said that, many years later, Cole Younger paid for a stone to mark Bill's grave. There is now an official Confederate military stone on his grave. Souvenir hunters have already been at work, chipping fragments off the stone.

Lots of opinions vary about Anderson. Quite a few still hold out for a hero status for him. I actually know a lady who refers to him as "Captain Anderson". Many more think he went crazy after his little sister died in the collapse of an improvised jail in Kansas City.

I personally believe it was Anderson and his company, rather than Quantrill, who had most of the blood on their hands for the Lawrence, Kansas raid and massacre. (But Quantrill was the raid leader, so he gets to shoulder the blame. I understand that part of it.)

Anderson went on to commit atrocities in Centralia, Missouri and in Rawlings Lane, Howard County, Missouri, and in other locales. He and his band INFAMOUSLY rode into my home town of Boonville, Missouri to meet Gen. Price during Price's invasion of October, 1864, and they had human scalps from the Centralia Massacre tied to their belts and their bridle reins. How cold-blooded is that? Anderson presented price with a boxed set of magnificent pistols (undoubtedly stolen) which temporarily dazzled Price. Then Price ordered him to attack the N. Missouri Railroad "as far East as practicable". I think Price just wanted to get Anderson out of his field of view. Price knew he was dealing with a whacko.

You have all heard of a few people who road with Anderson at one time or another: Frank James, Jesse James, Little Archie Clements, and many others whose names you could easily find with a google search.

A few years ago, I went hunting Captain Anderson's grave--not so much to honor him, but to view his grave as a curiosity and be sure that he was STILL dead.
Anderson proved the old biblical verse" thou shalt sow what thy reaps" to be true. After Anderson's men killed 12 prisoners from the Third MSM and three black teamsters a party from the 9th MSM captured six of Anderson's men. The 9th MSM troopers scalped 5 and let one live for reasons unknown.
Anderson was told by Quantrill not to attack Fayette ,Mo because the MSM would fight from fortified positions. Anderson didn't listen and lost 13 of his men plus thirty wounded for the loss of two men from the 9th MSM.
p.111-112 "Guerrilla Hunter in Civil War Missouri James Erwin The History Press.
Leftyhunter
 
Quantrils men did indeed kill men and boys in cold blood and I have posted sources about that. If killing young boys in cold blood is justifiable certainly burning down home is not so bad. If one is going to criticize one side one should be fair and balanced.
I never said Lane et al are tactical geniuses. I have stayed many times that the Union COIN war in Missouri was not a text book example of perfection. On the other hand show me a COIN war that was.
A free fire zone is a free fire zone. That is what the Union did in Order #11 and that is what the U.S. did 100 years later in the RVN.
Leftyhunter

Me thinks you try to fit the Civil War in Missouri into a nice luttle cookie cutter that many do, it simply was not ; never was and it can't be made to fit a little nicely wrapped box where one side is bad and one good and noble. The roots of the civil war especially in Western Missouri are rooted in the Border war of the 1850's and by the less than glowung reports about Missouri "slaveocrats" published by the eastern press that gave all those smart easterners a less than good view about the state and it's people. The war brought on military rule' often not wise rule and it devloved from there.

You keep acting like the Union, be it Volunteer, MSM, Home Guard , or Kansas qausi-volunteers never killed a man or boy not actively engaged in some sort of offensive action against the union. Thats simply not so, sorry, look at Jesse Janes beat within an inch of his life, his step father hung and becoming a mental invalid from it, Riley Crawfords father being hung, Cole and Jim Toungers father being murdered and robbed, Archie Clenets mothers house being burned, these were not isolated instances, they were Missouri just as Centralia and Concordia were Missouri, just as Bill Anderson was Missouri so was Col Penick and Col, Drapper Missouri is different and hard to keep straight .
 
Me thinks you try to fit the Civil War in Missouri into a nice luttle cookie cutter that many do, it simply was not ; never was and it can't be made to fit a little nicely wrapped box where one side is bad and one good and noble. The roots of the civil war especially in Western Missouri are rooted in the Border war of the 1850's and by the less than glowung reports about Missouri "slaveocrats" published by the eastern press that gave all those smart easterners a less than good view about the state and it's people. The war brought on military rule' often not wise rule and it devloved from there.

You keep acting like the Union, be it Volunteer, MSM, Home Guard , or Kansas qausi-volunteers never killed a man or boy not actively engaged in some sort of offensive action against the union. Thats simply not so, sorry, look at Jesse Janes beat within an inch of his life, his step father hung and becoming a mental invalid from it, Riley Crawfords father being hung, Cole and Jim Toungers father being murdered and robbed, Archie Clenets mothers house being burned, these were not isolated instances, they were Missouri just as Centralia and Concordia were Missouri, just as Bill Anderson was Missouri so was Col Penick and Col, Drapper Missouri is different and hard to keep straight .
I never said the COIN war in Missouri was not complex.I have stated many many times that Union troops did not conduct a model Counterinsurgency.
On the other hand Union forces are not recorded raiding a small town and trying to kill almost every man and boy over 13 and in fact even trying to kill eleven year old boys.
The slave owning or at least many slave owners sponsored Border Ruffians since 1856 and then latter supported Confederate guerrillas. The slave owning Missourians brought reprisals upon themselves and innocent people.
The good book says thou shalt sow what thy reaps. Slave owners used violence to keep their slaves in line. They used violence against non slave owning settlets in Kansas. They used violence against loyal Unionists in Missouri.
Yes Union troops should not of weakened the structures where they held female supporters of Confederate insurgents.That does not justify shooting down young boys who had nothing to do with the structures collapsing.
Union forces showed remarkable restraint in not killing young boys in Missouri.
Did Quantrill and his men expect an apology from the people of Kansas after the Lawrence Massacre? What did they think would happen after they murdered men and boys in cold blood?
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
I never said the COIN war in Missouri was not complex.I have stated many many times that Union troops did not conduct a model Counterinsurgency.
On the other hand Union forces are not recorded raiding a small town and trying to kill almost every man and boy over 13 and in fact even trying to kill eleven year old boys.
The slave owning or at least many slave owners sponsored Border Ruffians since 1856 and then latter supported Confederate guerrillas. The slave owning Missourians brought reprisals upon themselves and innocent people.
The good book says thou shalt sow what thy reaps. Slave owners used violence to keep their slaves in line. They used violence against non slave owning settlets in Kansas. They used violence against loyal Unionists in Missouri.
Yes Union troops should not of weakened the structures where they held female supporters of Confederate insurgents.That does not justify shooting down young boys who had nothing to do with the structures collapsing.
Union forces showed remarkable restraint in not killing young boys in Missouri.
Did Quantrill and his men expect ab apology from the people of Kansas after the Lawrence Massacre? What did they think would happen after they murdered men and boys in cold blood?
Leftyhunter

You still fail to grasp the war situation in Missouri. Missouri was just barely out of its frontier stage, being governed mostly by a military government i.e. martial law, civil rights had been suspended, as had civil government, travel within the state, as well as many business's a series of assesments, fines and confiscations as well as overzealous Federal troops and Kansas qausi troops raiding or depredating within the state that created many Bushwhackers and their supporters, many who did not own chattel.

The collapse of the jail was not on purpose they were expanding space in the building and removed a load bearing joist, but you could never convince Bush whackers of it, they always remained certain it was done on purpose .

As far as what did the raiders of Lawrence expect I'll ask you this.What did Lawrence expect, after being the cradle of RedLegs and Jay hawhers for years prior to the CW?

Nothing occurs in a vacuum if you ecept that it was tit or tat on both sides...and yes the vaunted preservers of the holy Union killed men and boys in Missouri who were unarmed. the boys you talk about, were not boys in the sense you are alluding too, how many :boys" of 13 14 15 or even 12 served in either army during the CW? How many could shoot?

Was Lawrence brutal? Certainly. Was it an unoffending bucolic village of peaceful inhabitants? I'm sure they had a few but they also had their fair share of SOB's .
 
Last edited:
Not quite the same as being hanged just inconvenienced.
Leftyhunter
Yeah, he had to wait for the end of the war for that. The orders from Gen. Thomas were that his men could take the oath, but he was to be brought to Nashville for trial. I'm not sure why the CS authorities let him go. His bio, written by a Vanderbilt professor ca WWII, didn't go into many details. I got the impression that with all the confusion going on in Richmond, Champ was almost able to walk away on his own. Classic hot potato.
 
You still fail to grasp the war situation in Missouri. Missouri was just barely out of its frontier stage, being governed mostly by a military government i.e. martial law, civil rights had been suspended, as had civil government, travel within the state, as well as many business's a series of assesments, fines and confiscations as well as overzealous Federal troops and Kansas qausi troops raiding or depredating within the state that created many Bushwhackers and their supporters, many who did not own chattel.

The collapse of the jail was not on purpose they were expanding space in the building and removed a load bearing joist, but you could never convince Bush whackers of it, they always remained certain it was done on purpose .

As far as what did the raiders of Lawrence expect I'll ask you this.What did Lawrence expect, after being the cradle of RedLegs and Jay hawhers for years prior to the CW?

Nothing occurs in a vacuum if you ecept that it was tit or tat on both sides...and yes the vaunted preservers of the holy Union killed men and boys in Missouri who were unarmed. the boys you talk about, were not boys in the sense you are alluding too, how many :boys" of 13 14 15 or even 12 served in either army during the CW? How many could shoot?

Was Lawrence brutal? Certainly. Was it an unoffending bucolic village of peaceful inhabitants? I'm sure they had a few but they also had their fair share of SOB's .
I have already stipulated that the Union COIN war in Missouri was not fought on a textbook perfect level. Yes armed teenagers fought on both sides. On the other hand as I have shown the Bushwackers did kill unarmed young boys including civilian boys .
We don't know what Anderson and Quantrill thought about possible repercussions from the raid. Logic dictates that after a brutal action such as Lawrence the Union especially the Kansas Union troops would seek out some kind of revenge.
Considering the brutality of the Lawrence Massacre the Union reprisals such has Order # 11 were comparatively mild. The Kansas troops did not shoot down every man and boy over 13 in the Burnt district. Missourians in the Burnt District would loose their homes but not their menfolk. Therefore they suffered less then the womenfolk of Lawrence.
Leftyhunter
 
You still fail to grasp the war situation in Missouri. Missouri was just barely out of its frontier stage, being governed mostly by a military government i.e. martial law, civil rights had been suspended, as had civil government, travel within the state, as well as many business's a series of assesments, fines and confiscations as well as overzealous Federal troops and Kansas qausi troops raiding or depredating within the state that created many Bushwhackers and their supporters, many who did not own chattel.

The collapse of the jail was not on purpose they were expanding space in the building and removed a load bearing joist, but you could never convince Bush whackers of it, they always remained certain it was done on purpose .

As far as what did the raiders of Lawrence expect I'll ask you this.What did Lawrence expect, after being the cradle of RedLegs and Jay hawhers for years prior to the CW?

Nothing occurs in a vacuum if you ecept that it was tit or tat on both sides...and yes the vaunted preservers of the holy Union killed men and boys in Missouri who were unarmed. the boys you talk about, were not boys in the sense you are alluding too, how many :boys" of 13 14 15 or even 12 served in either army during the CW? How many could shoot?

Was Lawrence brutal? Certainly. Was it an unoffending bucolic village of peaceful inhabitants? I'm sure they had a few but they also had their fair share of SOB's .

Do you have citations that indicate the boys killed in Lawrence were actually soldiers? It's been mentioned a few times, but in reading about the Lawrence Massacre, I haven't found that explanation.
 
Back
Top