The proof is in the picture - or is it?

SWMODave

Sergeant Major
Thread Medic
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Location
Southwest Missouri
upload_2017-9-17_14-0-10.jpeg


The Kansas City Star ran a story for the 150th anniversary of the Baxter Springs Massacre and it is archived on their Civil War 150 site (article and more on guerilla warfare here). The lead shows a photo of James Blunt and his troop of musicians. Shocking photo when you think these men and boys will die at the hand of Quantrill's Raiders.

But wait. Edgar Allen Poe once said "Believe only half of what you see....". While researching the details of the Baxter Springs massacre, I stumbled across a link on Google and learned all may not be as it is presented. According to research by a much smaller Kansas newspaper, this photo was taken a year 'after' the massacre in the small town of Paola.

Their article and evidence (here) Still a neat photo from a historical perspective. And there was a massacre at Baxter Springs - that part is true.

 
Last edited:
Very interesting! I am not questioning your sincerity when I say that we would all like to see a link to the smaller paper claiming this photo was made in Paola. Frankly, I don't doubt anything done by a newspaper--then or now.

The link you requested is in my original post - see "evidence here". I added some parenthesis to make it more evident.
 
Last edited:
The link was not very evident in my browser, but once I knew where to look for it I was able to find it. It's an interesting article and it shows how readily a photo can be incorrectly attributed and then picked up by other publishers and repeated and repeated. In my earlier post, I said I don't doubt anything done by a newspaper. I was being a cynic. More accurately, I should have said "I doubt most things I see in newspapers and other self proclaimed news sources."
 
I'm probably going to poke a hornet's nest when I post this, but I wonder why this is termed a "massacre" and not a "fight"? Q's men attacked a fort. They also managed to ambush an inbound caravan before it got to the fort. Yes, they ran down and killed numerous Federal men after those men had expended their weapons. However, those same Federal men were under orders to give Q. and his men the same treatment if the tables had been turned. I don't see Blunt as a hero at all, because he abandoned his men on the field and fled for his life. Lucky for him that he did so, or he probably wouldn't have lived to pose in Paola the next year--but that is not the action of a heroic leader.

I am aware of one pure murder that occurred that day. I'm not suggesting it's the only one. I'm just saying it's the only pure murder I know of: Riley Crawford hit what he thought was a dead Federal with the flat of a sword and yelled "Get up, you d____d Yankee!" No one was more surprised than Riley when the man stood up. He had been playing dead very successfully until that moment. Young Crawford quickly regained his composure and shot the man to death. Okay....that was murder. But, as I said, the Federals were all under orders to do the same to Riley Crawford or any other bushwhacker who fell into their hands.

This was a terrible war in Missouri and Kansas, but I don't think this was a massacre. I think this was another one of those cases where Federal troops with single shot, front loading rifles were a poor match for bushwhackers with multiple six shot revolvers. It is not their fault that they were poorly equipped for the task at hand, and it cost them dearly.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably going to poke a hornet's nest when I post this, but I wonder why this is termed a "massacre" and not a "fight"? Q's men attacked a fort. They also managed to ambush an inbound caravan before it got to the fort. Yes, they ran down and killed numerous Federal men after those men had expended their weapons. However, those same Federal men were under orders to give Q. and his men the same treatment if the tables had been turned. I don't see Blunt as a hero at all, because he abandoned his men on the field and fled for his life. Lucky for him that he did so, or he probably wouldn't have lived to pose in Paola the next year--but that is not the action of a heroic leader.

I am aware of one pure murder that occurred that day. I'm not suggesting it's the only one. I'm just saying it's the only pure murder I know of: Riley Crawford hit what he thought was a dead Federal with the flat of a sword and yelled "Get up, you d____d Yankee!" No one was more surprised than Riley when the man stood up. He had been playing dead very successfully until that moment. Young Crawford quickly regained his composure and shot the man to death. Okay....that was murder. But, as I said, the Federals were all under orders to do the same to Riley Crawford or any other bushwhacker who fell into their hands.

This was a terrible war in Missouri and Kansas, but I don't think this was a massacre. I think this was another one of those cases where Federal troops with single shot, front loading rifles were a poor match for bushwhackers with multiple six shot revolvers. It is not their fault that they were poorly equipped for the task at hand, and it cost them dearly.
I think the phrase massacre is often overused but is appropriate for this occasion.
Webster's dictionary defines it as, "an act of complete destruction."
When viewed from the standpoint of the soldiers firing only 2 or 3 shots per minute if they were lucky and what a disadvantage they faced, they were indeed massacred.
 
I know some facts about Baxter Springs. One is that Blunt was well known for his treatment of guerrillas. I don't think it was a massacre at all, but one of those events that was triggered by another recent event. Order No. 11. This devastated the civilian population. The order sickened some federal officers who saw first hand the devastating results of the of order. The enforcement was given over to militia units that held many Missouri and Kansas Unionists. Their families had been the victims of the bushwhackers, and who no doubt had been living in fear for the last two years of the war. The soldiers went about the business with a terrible enthusiasm. They were joined by Redlegs and Kansas civilians, who saw opportunity in the looting and burning. Many angry young men were now riding with Quantrill. Quantrill's men were dressed in Federal uniforms who were making their way south to Texas for the winter. By mere chance Quantrill and his men found out about the Fort, named Blair, but also called Fort Baxter. It was a surprise attack, and the attack on Blunt and his escort was by chance as Quantrill did not know of Blunt's presence near the fort. The last fact of the action was that Blunt lost command of the District of the Frontier. The action was planned only in that an attack was planned on Fort Blair. The rest was by chance.
 
I'm probably going to poke a hornet's nest when I post this, but I wonder why this is termed a "massacre" and not a "fight"? Q's men attacked a fort. They also managed to ambush an inbound caravan before it got to the fort. Yes, they ran down and killed numerous Federal men after those men had expended their weapons. However, those same Federal men were under orders to give Q. and his men the same treatment if the tables had been turned. I don't see Blunt as a hero at all, because he abandoned his men on the field and fled for his life. Lucky for him that he did so, or he probably wouldn't have lived to pose in Paola the next year--but that is not the action of a heroic leader.

I am aware of one pure murder that occurred that day. I'm not suggesting it's the only one. I'm just saying it's the only pure murder I know of: Riley Crawford hit what he thought was a dead Federal with the flat of a sword and yelled "Get up, you d____d Yankee!" No one was more surprised than Riley when the man stood up. He had been playing dead very successfully until that moment. Young Crawford quickly regained his composure and shot the man to death. Okay....that was murder. But, as I said, the Federals were all under orders to do the same to Riley Crawford or any other bushwhacker who fell into their hands.

This was a terrible war in Missouri and Kansas, but I don't think this was a massacre. I think this was another one of those cases where Federal troops with single shot, front loading rifles were a poor match for bushwhackers with multiple six shot revolvers. It is not their fault that they were poorly equipped for the task at hand, and it cost them dearly.

Probably so they can use the term escaped in regards to Blunt, reckon abandons his men doesnt have the same ring to it........
 
I'm probably going to poke a hornet's nest when I post this, but I wonder why this is termed a "massacre" and not a "fight"?

The topic of this thread was actually about the honesty of the media. But since the question of whether this incident is merely a battle or a massacre, I will provide the following first person accounts. The readers can make up their own mind if it was a battle or not.

From the War of Rebellion Series 1 Volume 22 Part 1

"…The graves were, being dug and the dead being carried in for burial I arrived. It was a fearful sight; some 85 bodies, nearly all shot through the head, most of them shot from five to seven times each, horribly mangled, charred and blackened by fire. The wounded, who numbered 6 or 7, were all shot at least six times, and it is a remarkable fact that, with the exception of Bennet, of the Third Wisconsin Cavalry, all who were alive when they were brought in are in a fair way of final recovery……. coming in the direction they did, the general, of course, supposed it was Lieutenant Ponds cavalry, either on drill or coming out to receive them. For safety, however, he formed his little force in line of battle, and sent the wagons, with the band, clerks, orderlies, cooks, and other non-combatants, to the rear, and then rode about 50 paces to the front, accompanied by his staff, to reconnoiter and endeavor to ascertain to a certainty what the approaching force was. Whatever doubts he may have entertained were soon dispelled, for the front line, firing a volley and raising the guerrilla yell, charged forward at full speed. The general, turning in his saddle to order his body guard to advance and fire, saw, with shame and humiliation, the whole of it in disgraceful flight over the prairie. ……. They killed our men as fast as they caught them, sparing none. The members of the band were shot as they sat in the band-wagon, and it was then set on fire. They rifled all the trunks, boxes, & c., in the different wagons, and then set them on fire, with the bodies of the teamsters in them, and all others who happened to be in them when taken. The non-combatants were slaughtered as ruthlessly as the soldiers." …… Report of Lieut. Cot. Charles W. Blair, Fourteenth Kansas Cavalry


…... with these I returned to the brow of the hill in the direction of the first attack, and plainly saw the enemy engaged in sacking the wagons, and while there saw the band brutally murdered. At the time of the attack the band-wagon, containing 14 members of the brigade band, James O Neal, special artist for Frank Leslies pictorial newspaper, one young lad twelve years old (servant of the leader of the band), Henry Pellage, of Madison,Wis., and the driver, had undertaken to escape in a direction a little to the south of west, and made about half a mile. When one of the wheel~of the wagon ran off, and the wagon stopped on the brow of the hill in plain sight of where I stood. As the direction of the wagon was different from that in which most of the troops fled, it had not attracted such speedy attention, and the enemy had just got to it as I returned, giving me an opportunity to see every member of the band, Mr.ONeal, the boy, and the driver shot, and their bodies thrown in or under the wagon and it fired, so that when we went to them, all were more or less burned and the wagon~almost entirely consumed. The drummer-boy, a very interesting and intelligent lad, was shot and thrown under the wagon, and when the fire reached his clothes it must have brought returned consciousness, as he had crawled a distance of 30 yards, marking the course by bits of burning clothes and scorched grass, and was found dead with all his clothes burned off except the portion between his back and the ground as he lay upon his back. A number of the bodies were brutally mutilated and indecently treated…. Other dead, many of them brave and true men, were scattered and strewn over the ground for over a mile or two, most with balls through their heads, showing that they were killed after having surrendered, which the testimony of the wounded . …… Report of Major Benjamin S Henning,Third Wisconsin Cavalry

Report of Quantrill,
"I now formed 250 men of all the companies and ordered a charge. Up to this time not a shot had been fired, nor until we were within 60 yards of them, when they gave us a volley too high to hurt any one, and then fled in the wildest confusion on the prairie. We soon closed up on them, making fearful havoc on every side. We continued the chase about 4miles, when I called the men off, only leaving about 40 of them alive. On returning, we found they had left us 9 six-mule wagons, well loaded, 1 buggy (General Blunts); 1fine ambulance; 1fine brass band and wagon, fully rigged. Among the killed were General Blunt, Majors Curtis, Sinclair, and [B.S.] Henning, Captain Tufft [Tough], and 3 lieutenants of the staff, and about 80 privates of the escort. My loss here was 1 man killed (William Bledsoe) and 1 severely wounded (John Coger) ….. From this place to the Canadian River we caught about 150 Federal Indians and negroes in the Nation gathering ponies. We brought none of them through.”


‘Civil War Guerilla’ by James Simeon Whitesett page 39 chapter titled Baxter Springs Massacre
"The musicians and cavalry escort were not as fortunate. The bandwagon lost a wheel as the band members tried to make their escape. The guerrillas shot them all, even the twelve-year-old drummer boy. They piled the bodies on top of the wagon and set them a fire. The guerrillas ran down most of the cavalry and shot the soldiers when they tried to surrender. Eighty-five of the one hundred died, most by multiple gunshot wounds. Quantrill was beside himself with glee. He had done what Marmaduke and Shelby were unable to do. He had defeated and nearly captured General Blunt, the man responsible for the Union victories at Cane Hill, Prairie Grove and Van Buren – the man who had taken northwestern Arkansas from the Confederates." (it is interesting he titled this chapter as the Baxter Springs Massacre as his chapter on the Lawrence Massacre was simply titled Lawrence, Kansas)

Did the Baxter Springs Massacre ruin James G Blunt by driving him crazy? Literally! Link here

Old Thread on this topic

O'Neill and the Band: The Baxter Springs Massacre Part One / Part Two

250 men, according to Quantrill killed 81 of Blunt's men and wounded another 8 in a reported 15 minutes (not including the fort).

At the Battle of Wilson's Creek, 5400 Union soldiers slugged it out with approximately 10,000 Southern forces. After 6 hours Southern casualties ran about 12%, while Union casualties ran nearly 1 in 4.
 
"]The topic of this thread was actually about the honesty of the media. But since the question of whether this incident is merely a battle or a massacre, I will provide the following first person accounts. The readers can make up their own mind if it was a battle or not."

Yep multiple accounts of them forming a firing line and firing a volley.....that's a fight.....Then the commanding general turning tail and abandoning his men made it impossible to surrender as a unit....Never goes well when commanding officer doesn't step up and leaves it with some fleeing, some trying to fight, and others trying to surrender...As at Centralia may have been a foolish decision to try to fight, but same as there they consciously chose to try to give battle
 
By the time of the Baxter Springs battle (or fight...or massacre...as the reader wishes) it seems to me that the Army and the militias working the border district would have been well acquainted with Quantrill's reputation for hit and run ambushes, for excellent horses and horsemen, and for lots of repeat firepower. You would think the least the Federals could have done would be to issue each soldier a revolver, to help even out the odds in a fight.

But they didn't, and the soldiers often paid the ultimate price.

I am partially responsible for sidetracking this thread and I apologize for that.
 
Not was blunt a coward, but he was wearing civilian clothes, not a uniform. This was why Major Curtis was killed. He wore his uniform and Quantrill's men thought he was Blunt, and they killed Curtis. Blunt being who he was ran away to safety. Leaving his men to be killed. His band was armed with pistols. A guerrilla came up to the band, asking for their surrender. One of them shot and killed him. This angered Todd and others. The band tried to surrendered after this waving handkerchiefs. Todd said you killed Bledsoe and he asked for your surrender. The band were all shot and killed. Not a massacre when people kill the people asking for the surrender. Blunt never gave guerrillas quarter so why would they give him any.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably going to poke a hornet's nest when I post this, but I wonder why this is termed a "massacre" and not a "fight"? Q's men attacked a fort. They also managed to ambush an inbound caravan before it got to the fort. Yes, they ran down and killed numerous Federal men after those men had expended their weapons. However, those same Federal men were under orders to give Q. and his men the same treatment if the tables had been turned. I don't see Blunt as a hero at all, because he abandoned his men on the field and fled for his life. Lucky for him that he did so, or he probably wouldn't have lived to pose in Paola the next year--but that is not the action of a heroic leader.

I am aware of one pure murder that occurred that day. I'm not suggesting it's the only one. I'm just saying it's the only pure murder I know of: Riley Crawford hit what he thought was a dead Federal with the flat of a sword and yelled "Get up, you d____d Yankee!" No one was more surprised than Riley when the man stood up. He had been playing dead very successfully until that moment. Young Crawford quickly regained his composure and shot the man to death. Okay....that was murder. But, as I said, the Federals were all under orders to do the same to Riley Crawford or any other bushwhacker who fell into their hands.

This was a terrible war in Missouri and Kansas, but I don't think this was a massacre. I think this was another one of those cases where Federal troops with single shot, front loading rifles were a poor match for bushwhackers with multiple six shot revolvers. It is not their fault that they were poorly equipped for the task at hand, and it cost them dearly.
Quantrill's men were unlawful combatants.
 
unlawful? In what way? Theres plenty of correspondence between Confederate authorities recognizing Quantrill by rank, so apparently that they were considered commissioned soldiers seems rather apparent.

If you mean by conduct, the parole they took at the end of the war expressly did not protect them from prosecution for civil crimes committed during the war, yet few ever were, only one was ever prosecuted for the lawrence raid and he was acquitted in 10 minutes.
 
Quantrill's men were unlawful combatants.
Unlawful combatants in a civil war? A "civil" war? Are you kidding all of us? C'mon, Pat. You're way too smart for this.

How were they unlawful in a civil war? By whose law? By the local Provost Marshal's declaration? By General Halleck's declaration that they should be treated as common criminals and that surrenders should not be accepted, and, further, that they should be summarily executed? Well.....no kidding. What else could be expected from the team that is opposing them?

Or is it simply that they rebelled? If that's the argument, then, sure, I will agree that they were unlawful according to SOMEONE'S piece of paper.

Well, heck, man, by that logic George Washington was an illegal combatant in his day, too.

By this logic, the entire Confederate army consisted of unlawful combatants.
 
Unlawful combatants in a civil war? A "civil" war? Are you kidding all of us? C'mon, Pat. You're way too smart for this.

How were they unlawful in a civil war? By whose law? By the local Provost Marshal's declaration? By General Halleck's declaration that they should be treated as common criminals and that surrenders should not be accepted, and, further, that they should be summarily executed? Well.....no kidding. What else could be expected from the team that is opposing them?

Or is it simply that they rebelled? If that's the argument, then, sure, I will agree that they were unlawful according to SOMEONE'S piece of paper.

Well, heck, man, by that logic George Washington was an illegal combatant in his day, too.
Wearing the uniforms of the enemy.
 
Wearing the uniforms of the enemy.
I agree that's where the Union blew it, If they had only executed prisoners wearing a federal uniform they probally could have curtailed the practice.......But when you make general orders saying they will be shot period if captured, whether in civilian, confederate, or union uniform, they might as well wear the federal one............
 
Back
Top