Discussion Union vs CSA Guerrilla

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,277
Location
mo
18868
Terrell seems to have been more duplicitous than I realized. In any event, he got his "Quantrill" assignment carried through. Makes me wonder how much time he spent looking over his shoulder for Frank James afterwards.
Not more then three years because in 1868 he dies in Louisville after suffering for months from wounds from a shoot out with a posse
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
2,249
Location
Boonville, MO
In regards to the first entry no documentation that the Union Army under Lane just shot all males on sight. A comment on the article does state that 150 civilians were killed by Union troops but no sources cited.......
Leftyhunter
The woman did site her source: her great grandmother passed this story to her granddaughter who passed it to her. She made that quite plain.
 

Borderruffian

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
4,544
Location
Livingston Tn
It would be much more creditable if there multiple accounts i.e. the Lawrence Massacre.
Leftyhunter
The Lawrence Raid was one incident in the war, it is not the entire war or even the pinnacle of the war in KS/MO it was one large incident in a war scape of many smaller incidents of killing, pillage, arson,and theft committed by both sides . Missouri and Kansas were different you can not hold only one side accountable for their acts and absolve the other of their acts because you agree with them through modern eyes.

Lawrence was a Raid, a successful Raid not a massacre, which denotes no survivors , there were survivors correct? Massacre as was used then and now is a a hot button word to inflame reaction .
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,805
Location
los angeles ca
The Lawrence Raid was one incident in the war, it is not the entire war or even the pinnacle of the war in KS/MO it was one large incident in a war scape of many smaller incidents of killing, pillage, arson,and theft committed by both sides . Missouri and Kansas were different you can not hold only one side accountable for their acts and absolve the other of their acts because you agree with them through modern eyes.

Lawrence was a Raid, a successful Raid not a massacre, which denotes no survivors , there were survivors correct? Massacre as was used then and now is a a hot button word to inflame reaction .
A massacre does not nean every single person targeted has to be killled. The intent and actual results matter. Deliberately killing unarmed boys and men is a massacre. Show me a msinstream dictionary that that defines a massacre has every sibgke person targeted must die.
Leftyhunter
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,371
Collection: School of Advanced Military Studies Monographs
Title:
Guerrilla war in "Little Dixie": understanding conflict escalation in Missouri during the American Civil War.
Author:
Holstead, David T.
Branch/Country:
United States Army

Abstract: The
state of Missouri never seceded from the United States, yet the state witnessed more violence and bloodshed than almost any other state in the Union. The violence in Missouri looked little like the larger war. It devolved from conventional operations for territorial control to criminality motivated by personal grievances. The conflict deteriorated quickly; in sixteen short months the war in Missouri was completely disconnected from the larger Confederate movement, leaving United States soldiers behind to impose law and order to pacify a tense populous. Tactically, these troops often failed, enforcing ill-conceived policies with ill-disciplined actions. Strategically, however, any threat of Missouri joining the rebellion had dissipated by late 1862. This study examines this escalation of violence in a region of Missouri known as "Little Dixie" the agricultural nexus of the state and the area in which many believed to most resemble the south. These notions were false; these preconceived notions influenced the conduct of Union soldiers and contributed to the brutal conditions of the state. By understanding the social conditions in Little Dixie on the eve of war, the political strategy of both national and state leaders toward Missouri, and the military actions taken by both sides in 1861 and 1862, this conflux of events and their connection to the deteriorating conditions becomes evident. For students of irregular war, this study demonstrates the potential consequence of misalignment between military and political policy, the dangers inherent in holding preconceived bias about any indigenous population, and the understanding that well-intended actions will have unintended consequences. These dynamics can counter-intuitively cause an occupation force to become a source of instability in itself.

Publisher :
Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date: Original
2014-05-22
Date: Digital
2014-05-22
Release statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository: Combined Arms Research Library
Library:
Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created:
2016-02-29
18983

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,805
Location
los angeles ca
Collection: School of Advanced Military Studies Monographs
Title:
Guerrilla war in "Little Dixie": understanding conflict escalation in Missouri during the American Civil War.
Author:
Holstead, David T.
Branch/Country:
United States Army

Abstract: The
state of Missouri never seceded from the United States, yet the state witnessed more violence and bloodshed than almost any other state in the Union. The violence in Missouri looked little like the larger war. It devolved from conventional operations for territorial control to criminality motivated by personal grievances. The conflict deteriorated quickly; in sixteen short months the war in Missouri was completely disconnected from the larger Confederate movement, leaving United States soldiers behind to impose law and order to pacify a tense populous. Tactically, these troops often failed, enforcing ill-conceived policies with ill-disciplined actions. Strategically, however, any threat of Missouri joining the rebellion had dissipated by late 1862. This study examines this escalation of violence in a region of Missouri known as "Little Dixie" the agricultural nexus of the state and the area in which many believed to most resemble the south. These notions were false; these preconceived notions influenced the conduct of Union soldiers and contributed to the brutal conditions of the state. By understanding the social conditions in Little Dixie on the eve of war, the political strategy of both national and state leaders toward Missouri, and the military actions taken by both sides in 1861 and 1862, this conflux of events and their connection to the deteriorating conditions becomes evident. For students of irregular war, this study demonstrates the potential consequence of misalignment between military and political policy, the dangers inherent in holding preconceived bias about any indigenous population, and the understanding that well-intended actions will have unintended consequences. These dynamics can counter-intuitively cause an occupation force to become a source of instability in itself.

Publisher :
Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date: Original
2014-05-22
Date: Digital
2014-05-22
Release statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository: Combined Arms Research Library
Library:
Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created:
2016-02-29
18983

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Halstead mutated on page 1 that the U.S. Army troops not German Home Guards as he called them fired into a crowd of people just because they were insulted. Other sources which I have posted state that a drunken man fired into the soldiers as they were escorting their prisoners in St Louis. The man killed a U .S. Army officer and the mob threw stone seriously injuring other soldiers. The soldiers had no choice but to fire into the mob. Yes some bullets missed and hit women and children but that could not be helped. In 1861 there was not much in the way of non lethal riot control.
Leftyhunter
 

TnFed

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
931
A massacre does not nean every single person targeted has to be killled. The intent and actual results matter. Deliberately killing unarmed boys and men is a massacre. Show me a msinstream dictionary that that defines a massacre has every sibgke person targeted must die.
Leftyhunter
Lefty, I have often wondered how partisan/guerrilla fighters settled down after the war. Of my four unionist ancestors, my gg grandfather and one of his brothers was killed fighting Ex-Confderates after the war
The youngest brother became a Methodist Pastor and the oldest followed Kirk into the TN. State Guard to fight the KKK. Looks like three out of four couldn't get enough combat!
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,274
I have often wondered how partisan/guerrilla fighters settled down after the war. Of my four unionist ancestors, my gg grandfather and one of his brothers was killed fighting Ex-Confderates after the war
I am sorry to hear of the misfortune of your ancestors, but I can tell you that the Missouri guerrillas who survived the war lived out their lives as individually as you and I might have done. Some were career outlaws. Some were Sheriffs. Some were farmers. Some were small business men. They were individuals, and many of them lived WELL into the 20th century.
 

TnFed

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
931
My ancestor William Morrow, the minister, lived to be up in his eighties. His three brothers didn't make it out of their twenties. Like they say in church, you can shorten your days. I am amazed at the physical endurance of people back then. They just kept on keeping on.
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,274
My ancestor William Morrow, the minister, lived to be up in his eighties. His three brothers didn't make it out of their twenties. Like they say in church, you can shorten your days. I am amazed at the physical endurance of people back then. They just kept on keeping on.
Don't you sometimes wish you could go back through history to personally interview those ancestors? I often wish I could do that with my ancestors!
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,805
Location
los angeles ca
Lefty, I have often wondered how partisan/guerrilla fighters settled down after the war. Of my four unionist ancestors, my gg grandfather and one of his brothers was killed fighting Ex-Confderates after the war
The youngest brother became a Methodist Pastor and the oldest followed Kirk into the TN. State Guard to fight the KKK. Looks like three out of four couldn't get enough combat!
Certainly not a one size fits all scenario.
The James and Younger boys had some major issues in terms of obeying the law.
Archie Clement rubbed some folks the wrong way.
Newt Knight became a Deputy U.S. Marshal during Reconstruction in Mississippi.George Maddox bragged about shooting people during the Lawrence Massacre and was acquitted on all charges. By 1864 many Confederate Bushwhackers per T.J. Stiles were already leaving to emigrate to Montana.
Many if Quantrill' s gang after signing loyalty oaths became law-abiding citizens.Many had prosperous farms.
So no simple answer.
If I had to hazard a guess many guerrillas on both sides moved out West . I would not be surprised if some ex Confederate guerrillas immigrated to Brazil.
No one really kept count .
Leftyhunter
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,371
Collection: Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title:
United States Army counter partisan operations in northern Virginia during the American Civil War.
Author:
Taran, Nicholas
Branch/Country:
United States Army

Abstract: The
American Civil War was similar to other wars in America's history in that both sides employed irregular warfare during operations. Confederate partisan units utilized irregular warfare to interdict Union Army operations in northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley for the duration of the conflict. These partisan units were hybrid organizations that conducted independent raids, small skirmishes, and reconnaissance in support of the larger Confederate Army. Union Army operations to counter these partisan units achieved differing levels of success throughout the war. However, the Union Army developed and employed unique "counter partisan" organizations during 1864 with increased success. This thesis examines the 43d Virginia Cavalry and the 1st Virginia Partisan Rangers of the Confederate Army, and the Union Army's response to counter the irregular partisan units. The thesis adds specific emphasis on the Union Army's development and employment of hybrid "independent scout" organizations. Enhanced capabilities, specifically in the domains of leadership, personnel, training, and material, enabled these "independent scouts" to employ irregular warfare in countering Confederate partisan operations. Examination of these counter partisan units demonstrates the importance of understanding an adversary's capabilities, tactics, and other aspects of the operational environment.

Series:
Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Focus: Program
Military History
Publisher:
Fort Leavenworth, KS : US Army Command and General Staff College,
Date: Original
2016-06-10
Date: Digital
2016-06-10
Release statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository: Combined Arms Research Library
Library: Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created:
2016-08-30
19380

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

TnFed

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
931
Don't you sometimes wish you could go back through history to personally interview those ancestors? I often wish I could do that with my ancestors!
My dad was in the Pacific and my three uncles were in Europe during WW2 but never really talked much about it. Taciturn bunch.lol. My grandfather would talk about his time in the "banana wars" and his grandpa's service during the civil war. I wish I had recorded it so much.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,805
Location
los angeles ca
Has we know both sides actively used guerrilla warfare during the CW. There are differences how ever.
For the purpose of discussion a guerrilla does not wear a uniform or has was often the case in Mo wore captured enemy uniforms. Therefore cavalry raiders such has Morgan, Marmaduke and Shelpy do not count has guerrillas has long has they are in uniform.
Arguably the CSA had the most guerrillas vs the Union mostly in but by no means limited to Mo. I have not read any figure that gives a round number estimate of X amount of CSA guerrillas vs Y amount of Union troops and militia. Has a general rule it has been argued that it takes ten conventional troops to counter one guerrilla.
Based on the number of Union cavalry and a few Infantry regiments that where assigned to Mo (although often rotated out of Mo) plus the 10k men of the Mo State Militia (the only Union militia that was full time and paid for by the federal govt and fought mostly but not always in Mo) there where quite a few CSA guerrillas or has often referred to has"bushwackers".

Both sides used guerrillas to cooperate with conventional troops. For example Quantril provided an escort for recruiting commands in Mo and in AL Unionist guerrillas from time to time would fight alongside convention Union troops.
The Union could supply at least some guerrillas on a regular basis for example Gen. Dodge in Al could supply Unionist guerrillas and the US Navy supplied Unionist guerrillas in Fl and Ga and even sent an officer to form and lead the 2nd Fl cavalry USV.
Unionist guerrillas where arguably more successful in that by the late summer of 1864 they could sieze and hold areas of the CSA vs CSA guerrillas who could not.
Many guerrillas on both sides became guerrillas due to resentment of being drafted or conscripted by the other side.
Questions.
1. What side really had the most?
2. Which side more effectively supported their guerrillas?
2. Which sides guerrillas ultimately achieved the most good for their side?
Leftyhunter
@Paladin-6 ,
Enjoy
Leftyhunter
 

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,371
Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Guerrilla operations in the Civil War: assessing compound warfare during Price’s Raid.
Author; Davis, Dale E.

Abstract; One of the most significant areas of guerrilla warfare during the American Civil War occurred along the Missouri-Kansas border. Many of these guerrilla forces had been active during the Bleeding Kansas period and continued their activities into the Civil War supporting the Confederacy. The guerrillas attacked Federal forces and disrupted their lines of communications, raided settlements in Kansas, and attempted to support Confederate conventional forces operating in the area. In 1864, Major General Sterling Price led a raid into Missouri in a final attempt to bring the state into the Confederacy. This thesis explores the nature of guerrilla warfare in the Missouri-Kansas border area and explains how Price and the guerrillas failed to employ the elements of Compound Warfare to bring Missouri into the Confederacy.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : U.S. Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 2004-06-17
Date, Digital; 2004-06-17
Call number; ADA 428656
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2005-07-12
21225

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Attachments

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,274
Collection; Master of Military Art and Science Theses
Title; Guerrilla operations in the Civil War: assessing compound warfare during Price’s Raid.
Author; Davis, Dale E.

Abstract; One of the most significant areas of guerrilla warfare during the American Civil War occurred along the Missouri-Kansas border. Many of these guerrilla forces had been active during the Bleeding Kansas period and continued their activities into the Civil War supporting the Confederacy. The guerrillas attacked Federal forces and disrupted their lines of communications, raided settlements in Kansas, and attempted to support Confederate conventional forces operating in the area. In 1864, Major General Sterling Price led a raid into Missouri in a final attempt to bring the state into the Confederacy. This thesis explores the nature of guerrilla warfare in the Missouri-Kansas border area and explains how Price and the guerrillas failed to employ the elements of Compound Warfare to bring Missouri into the Confederacy.

Series; Command and General Staff College (CGSC) MMAS thesis
Publisher; Fort Leavenworth, KS : U.S. Army Command and General Staff College,
Date, Original; 2004-06-17
Date, Digital; 2004-06-17
Call number; ADA 428656
Release statement; Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)
Repository; Combined Arms Research Library
Library; Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library
Date created; 2005-07-12
21225

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
Thanks for posting this. I've downloaded and saved the PDF and I'm most of the way through it. It's not written in any excruciating detail, nor does it reveal any new information, but it's a real good overview, and it's an easy read. It collapses more than five years of conflict into about 30 or 45 minutes of reading, and it does a pretty good job of it. Take it in that spirit and it's not bad at all!
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top