Union vs CSA Guerrilla

[BillO]

That horse has been flogged to death on other threads. In essence the cause of the conventional Civil War led to the guerrilla aspect of it. For the Unionists the cause of the guerrilla war was because of the Confederates need for manpower by mid 1862 due to loss' from mostly disease and combat related. For the Confederates it was a practical means of resistance against Union troops who occupied Confederate territory. Guerrilla war was used effectively by both sides to tie down the others troops and hinder logistical communication. Guerrilla war was not a substitute for conventional war in that ultimate victory can only be achieved in many wars by conventional troops seizing and occupying territory.
Has far has the Confederates being "self-governing" we have had previous threads dealing with just how free and fair was the vote in the Southern states for secession, If you want to debate that subject you can post a thread on the politics and secession forum. My point is that the guerrilla war was a war over slavery only on a much smaller scale.
The purpose of this thread is outlined in my first post.
Leftyhunter

Perhaps we should explain to the People's Democratic Republic of Viet Nam how waging Guerilla war can't win.

 

[leftyhunter]

Late to the party here, but has anyone heard of Capt. Nathaniel Marks or Captain Sid Cook of Cook's Guerrillas, a group of rebels who were led by Sid and Dave Cook? They terrorized eastern Kentucky during the war. I came across these names in my research for Union Kentucky soldiers. Bailey Low was reported to have deserted his unit and joined up with them and was eventually killed in some sort of altercation (still trying to find more info). Just not overly familiar with them.

" Se

Perhaps we should explain to the People's Democratic Republic of Viet Nam how waging Guerilla war can't win.

If you would like you can ask the moderators perhaps in the Campfire Forum for permission to create a new thread titled something to the effect " Similarities and differences between Civil War Insurgency vs other worldwide Insurgencies?".
This thread would not be appropriate for that discussion.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Late also. So what in blazes happened in Missouri and Kansas? 18th Virginia's been going through first hand accounts from civilians. It sounds like a whole, different war was occurring out there, both sides and really evenly- while military battles raged east, civilians were victims sure, but sounds like some were not shy about joining groups? Sorry if it's too broad a question. When I try to look up answers all you get are the well known guerillas, and those would be Confederate. What you read is a really bloody, out of control war over territory- one as savage as the other. Having no background other than all the legend, it was shocking reading.

Annie,
I've just been reading through this long-legged thread again late this afternoon, and the irony of your question really caught my attention. "What in blazes happened?", you asked. A simple, smart-mouthed but accurate answer would be: "Blazes happened."

Of course, by that, I refer to all the towns and houses on both sides of the border that were burned. There were many. This is not meant to side track Leftyhunter's thread, but is a direct answer to your question. Osceola and Nevada, Missouri were burned out as thoroughly as was Lawrence, Kansas. I have no idea how many individual farms were destroyed in either state. Three and one-half counties in Missouri will forever be known as "The Burnt District". They were burned out by order of federal Gen. Ewing (acting as Jim Lane's puppet. That crazy order ruined loyal unionist and southern-leaning families alike. These stories are so bizarre and horrible that it's simply a case of the truth being stranger than fiction. You can't make this stuff up! You don't need to make it up because it really happened. My question after reading your very sincere and honest question is: How could anyone here be unaware of the war in Missouri and Kansas? But it's not your fault. There is way too much information out there for anyone to absorb, and most of it focuses east of the Mississippi.

However, returning to Leftyhunter's original intent for this thread: I concede that guerrilla warfare occurred to one degree or another all over the country. I think it left particular marks in Missouri that have not totally healed to this day, because for all but a few months of the war's timeline, guerrilla war was the only war the citizens of Missouri and Kansas experienced.

 

[Rebforever]

" Se

If you would like you can ask the moderators perhaps in the Campfire Forum for permission to create a new thread titled something to the effect " Similarities and differences between Civil War Insurgency vs other worldwide Insurgencies?".
This thread would not be appropriate for that discussion.
Leftyhunter

Ease up. Lefty. You led him into it.

 

[leftyhunter]

Annie,
I've just been reading through this long-legged thread again late this afternoon, and the irony of your question really caught my attention. "What in blazes happened?", you asked. A simple, smart-mouthed but accurate answer would be: "Blazes happened."

Of course, by that, I refer to all the towns and houses on both sides of the border that were burned. There were many. This is not meant to side track Leftyhunter's thread, but is a direct answer to your question. Osceola and Nevada, Missouri were burned out as thoroughly as was Lawrence, Kansas. I have no idea how many individual farms were destroyed in either state. Three and one-half counties in Missouri will forever be known as "The Burnt District". They were burned out by order of federal Gen. Ewing (acting as Jim Lane's puppet. That crazy order ruined loyal unionist and southern-leaning families alike. These stories are so bizarre and horrible that it's simply a case of the truth being stranger than fiction. You can't make this stuff up! You don't need to make it up because it really happened. My question after reading your very sincere and honest question is: How could anyone here be unaware of the war in Missouri and Kansas? But it's not your fault. There is way too much information out there for anyone to absorb, and most of it focuses east of the Mississippi.

However, returning to Leftyhunter's original intent for this thread: I concede that guerrilla warfare occurred to one degree or another all over the country. I think it left particular marks in Missouri that have not totally healed to this day, because for all but a few months of the war's timeline, guerrilla war was the only war the citizens of Missouri and Kansas experienced.

If the moderators do allow a thread that compares counterinsurgency in the Civil War vs foreign counterinsurgencies one could very well argue Ewing was simply following the standard counterinsurgency playbook.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Annie,
I've just been reading through this long-legged thread again late this afternoon, and the irony of your question really caught my attention. "What in blazes happened?", you asked. A simple, smart-mouthed but accurate answer would be: "Blazes happened."

Of course, by that, I refer to all the towns and houses on both sides of the border that were burned. There were many. This is not meant to side track Leftyhunter's thread, but is a direct answer to your question. Osceola and Nevada, Missouri were burned out as thoroughly as was Lawrence, Kansas. I have no idea how many individual farms were destroyed in either state. Three and one-half counties in Missouri will forever be known as "The Burnt District". They were burned out by order of federal Gen. Ewing (acting as Jim Lane's puppet. That crazy order ruined loyal unionist and southern-leaning families alike. These stories are so bizarre and horrible that it's simply a case of the truth being stranger than fiction. You can't make this stuff up! You don't need to make it up because it really happened. My question after reading your very sincere and honest question is: How could anyone here be unaware of the war in Missouri and Kansas? But it's not your fault. There is way too much information out there for anyone to absorb, and most of it focuses east of the Mississippi.

However, returning to Leftyhunter's original intent for this thread: I concede that guerrilla warfare occurred to one degree or another all over the country. I think it left particular marks in Missouri that have not totally healed to this day, because for all but a few months of the war's timeline, guerrilla war was the only war the citizens of Missouri and Kansas experienced.

Col.Lazear of the MSM has an interesting take on Order #11 that most likely many other Unionists in Mo agreed with. Of course the caveat is that scientific political poling would not occur until George Gallup introduced it to the 1944 Presidential election.
"There is hundreds of people leaving their homes from this country and god knows what is to become of them. It is heart sickening to see what I have seen since I have been back here. A desolated country and women %children some of them almost naked. Some on foot and some on old wagons. Oh god. What a sight in this once peaceable and happy country.'
(Coming down from Kansas City on the boat) I saw the secesh women and children and the few men fleeing from the wrath to come. ...The boat was crowded full of them and god knows where they are all going for I don't nor do I care so we can get rid of them in Missouri for I think if we get rid of the women and Bushwackers that it will not be hard to get rid of them. A great many think this was a very unjust and cruel order of General Ewings but I think it was one of the best orders that had been issued and I think it will have a great effect.. And if we can't get the Bushwackers out of here soon this region will be much the same way. I intend to send all the families of Bushwackers out of this and Johnson County just as fast as I can give notice to leave."

"Guerrilla Hunters in Civil War Missouri " James Erwin The History Press p.95
Erwin also notes as the civilians were leaving the Burnt district Gen. Ewing ordered a sweep of the area and claimed his men killed eighty Bushwackers.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Col.Lazear of the MSM has an interesting take on Order #11 that most likely many other Unionists in Mo agreed with. Of course the caveat is that scientific political poling would not occur until George Gallup introduced it to the 1944 Presidential election.
"There is hundreds of people leaving their homes from this country and god knows what is to become of them. It is heart sickening to see what I have seen since I have been back here. A desolated country and women %children some of them almost naked. Some on foot and some on old wagons. Oh god. What a sight in this once peaceable and happy country.'
(Coming down from Kansas City on the boat) I saw the secesh women and children and the few men fleeing from the wrath to come. ...The boat was crowded full of them and god knows where they are all going for I don't nor do I care so we can get rid of them in Missouri for I think if we get rid of the women and Bushwackers that it will not be hard to get rid of them. A great many think this was a very unjust and cruel order of General Ewings but I think it was one of the best orders that had been issued and I think it will have a great effect.. And if we can't get the Bushwackers out of here soon this region will be much the same way. I intend to send all the families of Bushwackers out of this and Johnson County just as fast as I can give notice to leave."

"Guerrilla Hunters in Civil War Missouri " James Erwin The History Press p.95
Erwin also notes as the civilians were leaving the Burnt district Gen. Ewing ordered a sweep of the area and claimed his men killed eighty Bushwackers.
Leftyhunter

And these weren't all secesh families. Under General orders number 11, loyal unionist families had two weeks to move into a town where there was a garrison, where they could be "safe". Then, their properties were burned out, too. I couldn't tell you how many antebellum homes still stand in this three and one-half-county area, but I doubt more than a dozen or two dozen.
This outrage was leveled at General Ewing, but Senator Jim Lane bullied him into it. Lane was, in many respects, as evil an influence on the union militia side as Quantrill was on the Southern side.

 

[Patrick H]

One of the things unearthed in my reading that gob-smacked me more than any other factoid was this:

John Newman Edwards, who was arguably the most bombastic bushwhacker apologist of all time (and the newspaper editor who single handedly worked with Jesse James to build Jesse's post war persona) actually defended Ewing about General Orders Number 11. Edwards said Ewing was a fine officer who only did his duty. Edwards leveled his hatred and his indictment right between the eyes of Senator Jim Lane. The noted artist, George Caleb Bingham, was not so generous to Ewing. He vowed to destroy Ewing's political ambitions if he did not cease and desist from this order. Ewing cow-towed to Lane and burned out the district. Bingham painted "Martial Law--Order Number 11" and published thousands of prints of it. Ewing was thoroughly ruined, and in the minds of most people he continues to be ruined and morally bankrupt to this day. As for Lane: He soon killed himself. I am not persuaded it was over a personal moral crisis, although I obviously can't interview him to ask about it. I just think he was crazier than a sack of hair.

 

[leftyhunter]

And these weren't all secesh families. Under General orders number 11, loyal unionist families had two weeks to move into a town where there was a garrison, where they could be "safe". Then, their properties were burned out, too. I couldn't tell you how many antebellum homes still stand in this three and one-half-county area, but I doubt more than a dozen or two dozen.
This outrage was leveled at General Ewing, but Senator Jim Lane bullied him into it. Lane was, in many respects, as evil an influence on the union militia side as Quantrill was on the Southern side.

Did the Unionist families receive at least fair market value for their burnt homes? Plus of course money for temporary food and lodging?
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Did the Unionist families receive at least fair market value for their burnt homes? Plus of course money for temporary food and lodging?
Leftyhunter

I can't say from any certain knowledge, but I've never read of it. ...of course, there are MANY things I've never read about, so take that comment for what it's worth.

Here's what I am pretty sure happened:

Lane was a Kansan, an abolitionist, a political megalomaniac and a zealot to the point of being insane. In his warped view, ANY Missourian was scum, because they lived in a slave holding state. Never mind that most Missourians didn't own slaves. Never mind that it was a legal institution (I'm not inferring that it was moral--of course it was not). Lane ordered Ewing to burn out the territory, under the excuse it would deprive the guerrillas of their support infrastructure. Lane didn't care who he burned out. I believe Ewing was, at first, reluctant. I believe he was about to bend to Bingham's persuasion. But Ewing had political ambitions and Lane was already well-fixed in that arena. Lane threatened to destroy Ewing politically. Bingham also threatened to destroy Ewing politically. Ewing couldn't win, no matter what. Bingham got the job done in terms of derailing Ewing.

Meanwhile, I don't believe the guerrillas suffered so much. Livestock had been driven off into the bush. It could not have been all that difficult to shoot a free roaming hog for dinner.

 

[leftyhunter]

I can't say from any certain knowledge, but I've never read of it. ...of course, there are MANY things I've never read about, so take that comment for what it's worth.

Here's what I am pretty sure happened:

Lane was a Kansan, an abolitionist, a political megalomaniac and a zealot to the point of being insane. In his warped view, ANY Missourian was scum, because they lived in a slave holding state. Never mind that most Missourians didn't own slaves. Never mind that it was a legal institution (I'm not inferring that it was moral--of course it was not). Lane ordered Ewing to burn out the territory, under the excuse it would deprive the guerrillas of their support infrastructure. Lane didn't care who he burned out. I believe Ewing was, at first, reluctant. I believe he was about to bend to Bingham's persuasion. But Ewing had political ambitions and Lane was already well-fixed in that arena. Lane threatened to destroy Ewing politically. Bingham also threatened to destroy Ewing politically. Ewing couldn't win, no matter what. Bingham got the job done in terms of derailing Ewing.

Meanwhile, I don't believe the guerrillas suffered so much. Livestock had been driven off into the bush. It could not have been all that difficult to shoot a free roaming hog for dinner.

Its hard to say if Order #11 would of worked because within a year or so all the families were allowed back to their homes. A free fire zone might of worked out but we will never know.
Here is General Schofield's Commander of the District of the Border thoughts on Order #11.
"The measure which has been adopted seems a very harsh one" he explained;"but.. I am satisfied it is wise and humane." It was not adopted hastily , as a consequence of the Lawrence Massacre . The subject has long been discussed between General Ewing and myself"
"Jesse James Last Rebel of the Civil War" T.J. Stiles www. vintagebooks.com p.96. On p.93 Gen.Ewing estimated that two thirds of the families in what was to become known as the Burnt District were related to the Bushwackers.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Lefty, it's not hard to say whether Order #11 would have worked. It didn't keep guerrillas from operating in the area. Most families that returned found chimney stacks where their homes had been. Unlike Vicksburg, which split the Confederacy or Sherman's march, which destroyed an enormous amount of war making infrastructure, Order number 11 mostly just punished people for living in the area. It did so without regard for their loyalty or disloyalty. It just threw fuel (literally and figurative) on a very volatile situation. As for Schofield, I think he was always clueless and foolish. I am very familiar with Stiles's book. I've had it since the month it appeared in my favorite book store.

 

[Borderruffian]

If the moderators do allow a thread that compares counterinsurgency in the Civil War vs foreign counterinsurgencies one could very well argue Ewing was simply following the standard counterinsurgency playbook.
Leftyhunter

Except at that time there was no "playbook" they were throwing stuff up to see if it would stick and very litle did. Halleck and the rest generally relied on Wellington's expierance and tactics in Spain.....they didn't work very well either.

 

[Borderruffian]

Did the Unionist families receive at least fair market value for their burnt homes? Plus of course money for temporary food and lodging?
Leftyhunter

We want to talk about levies on the persons considered "disloyal in many districts? They were leveyed to pay for raids and burning and Union men wounded, if you didn't have the cash you lost your property, so it could be auctioned for the procedes.

 

[Borderruffian]

Lefty, it's not hard to say whether Order #11 would have worked. It didn't keep guerrillas from operating in the area. Most families that returned found chimney stacks where their homes had been. Unlike Vicksburg, which split the Confederacy or Sherman's march, which destroyed an enormous amount of war making infrastructure, Order number 11 mostly just punished people for living in the area. It did so without regard for their loyalty or disloyalty. It just threw fuel (literally and figurative) on a very volatile situation. As for Schofield, I think he was always clueless and foolish. I am very familiar with Stiles's book. I've had it since the month it appeared in my favorite book store.

And there it is. Most of the orders did not deter Partisan's from using their "stomping grounds" and going into central Missouri. In fact it may have even brought men and boys into the ranks. The punitive and execution orders emprisonmenta and levy orders actually galvanized people against the Union forces if not the cause, The Union had abig role in causing a large amount of their own problems.

 

[civilken]

I don't know about the amount but as for the gorillas my only solution to either side would be Catch Them and hang them most gorillas were nothing but killers and cowards who used the military for their own purpose.

 

[Patrick H]

And there it is. Most of the orders did not deter Partisan's from using their "stomping grounds" and going into central Missouri. In fact it may have even brought men and boys into the ranks. The punitive and execution orders emprisonmenta and levy orders actually galvanized people against the Union forces if not the cause, The Union had abig role in causing a large amount of their own problems.

Borderruffian, as you and I are both residents of central Missouri and, as we know many of those "burnt district" families had to move over here into our home counties, I think we should remind our readers of this: Order Number 11 was closely watched by the sons of many of those families. They saw their boyhood farms going up in flames. They saw their parents dispossessed. It threw fuel on a burning hatred. It strengthened their resolve to fight back. It did nothing worthwhile, but it left resentments which still exist today. Heck....I've never lived in the Burnt District, nor did my family, but I am still outraged about it!

 

[leftyhunter]

Except at that time there was no "playbook" they were throwing stuff up to see if it would stick and very litle did. Halleck and the rest generally relied on Wellington's expierance and tactics in Spain.....they didn't work very well either.

And yet by the end of the day which would be after Price retreated from Missouri in 1864 guerrilla warfare greatly diminished in Missouri
Therefore despite many errors the Union COIN forces could claim a victory of sorts over Confederate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Borderruffian, as you and I are both residents of central Missouri and, as we know many of those "burnt district" families had to move over here into our home counties, I think we should remind our readers of this: Order Number 11 was closely watched by the sons of many of those families. They saw their boyhood farms going up in flames. They saw their parents dispossessed. It threw fuel on a burning hatred. It strengthened their resolve to fight back. It did nothing worthwhile, but it left resentments which still exist today. Heck....I've never lived in the Burnt District, nor did my family, but I am still outraged about it!

You have just outlined the classic divide in counterinsurgency doctrine between "the hard school" vs the "soft school" of counterinsurgency.
The basic idea of the burnt district go's back to at least the Romans in 70AD who after years of Jewish insurgency in Roman Palestine decided to just expel all the Jews. The "soft school " is more modern post WW2 but Brig. General Oden Guitar of the MSM might fit that description.
Leftyhunter

 

[Borderruffian]

And yet by the end of the day which would be after Price retreated from Missouri in 1864 guerrilla warfare greatly diminished in Missouri
Therefore despite many errors the Union COIN forces could claim a victory of sorts over Confederate guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

Well the 64 raid was a last gasp, it didn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall,couple that with the fact that many bands were heading south to winter in Texas. Thrailkil , Anderson , George Todd were dead WCQ was preparing to scurry off to Ky and the bands were fragmenting for different mostly internal reasons. I don't believe the MSM had the leading role in bringing the Partisan bands to ground, nor although it played a bigger role did the dept.of Missouri or out state troops, the Partisans were their own worst enemy in terms of unit cohision especially in the late war.