William Quantrill's guerrillas/partisans

[archieclement]

The obsession with one side being bad, and one side being good, unfortunately makes these Trans Mississippi discussions ridiculous.

Indeed, don't know why you persist in it.

Again I have a fairly large library on the specific topic, and have studied down to county and local histories which living in the area makes possible. If your claiming works on the topic don't note the lawlessness of jayhawkers and some militia leading to the guerrilla response, as well as motivation for individuals joining, your simply wrong.

Certainly several others here, I know as well have rather extensive libraries on the subject as well. I have never denied both sides certainly did bad things. But that certainly should include noting kansas misdeeds and failures, especially if those actions lead to retailiation.

 

[Paul Gillette]

Indeed, don't why you persist in it.

Again I have a fairly large library on the specific topic, and have studied down to county and local histories which living in the area makes possible. If your claiming works on the topic don't note the lawlessness of jayhawkers and some militia leading to the guerrilla response, as well as motivation for individuals joining, your simply wrong.

Certainly several others here, I know as well have rather extensive libraries on the subject as well.

The works I've read all note the lawlessness of Missouri border ruffians during the Bleeding Kansas period of 1854-1860 as a prime motivation for Jayhawkers. No books in your collection mention this?

 

[Lost Cause]

This thread is about Quantrill and his group, correct?

Have any of these threads ever objectively looked at the Missouri guerrillas and what they did, or are these threads just exercises in blaming the other side? The posters who admire the missouri guerrillas seem very intent on shifting the blame to others.

There are quite a few threads have objectively looked at Missouri guerrillas and quite a few have demonized them without for-thought of the totality of circumstances; ie cause and effect. The actions along the border war, were primary revenge in orientation and viscous compared to conventional standards, yet hardly unique in the annals of warfare.

Lawrence being the epitome of the pro-Union rallying cry. Objectively speaking, however, when Lane made a fatal error (perhaps cowardice) in embedding himself in Lawrence among the civilian and military population without adequate defenses knowing his responsibility in using it as a staging area for his own aforementioned notorious actions and that of the people under his direction.

It has also been mentioned, the leaders of the Confederate guerrillas did not expect to survive and were mostly killed during the war. The Union leaders, on the contrary, were often placed in powerful positions, yet the numbers who died by their own hands is quite telling.

 

[archieclement]

The works I've read all note the lawlessness of Missouri border ruffians during the Bleeding Kansas period of 1854-1860 as a prime motivation for Jayhawkers. No books in your collection mention this?

Not really, at least in context that makes any real sense. Kansas statehood issue was settled by 1861, and in reality if one reads of Bleeding Kansas, it mostly was Kansans killing Kansans.

The only motivation to steal and loot in 1861 by Kansans, would been as any theives, personal gain.

During Bleeding Kansas when Missourians were actually there, read why. They often were deputized by US federal marshalls in direct response to the lawlessness of Kansans. They were the ones often actually supporting the United States and law.

 

[DanSBHawk]

There are quite a few threads have objectively looked at Missouri guerrillas and quite a few have demonized them without for-thought of the totality of circumstances; ie cause and effect. The actions along the border war, were primary revenge in orientation and viscous compared to conventional standards, yet hardly unique in the annals of warfare.

Lawrence being the epitome of the pro-Union rallying cry. Objectively speaking, however, when Lane made a fatal error (perhaps cowardice) in embedding himself in Lawrence among the civilian and military population without adequate defenses knowing his responsibility in using it as a staging area for his own aforementioned notorious actions and that of the people under his direction.

It has also been mentioned, the leaders of the Confederate guerrillas did not expect to survive and were mostly killed during the war. The Union leaders, on the contrary, were often placed in powerful positions, yet the numbers who died by their own hands is quite telling.

Okay well, I haven't seen any of those threads lately, that's for sure.

The rest of your post just deflects, like I already noted.

 

[Paul Gillette]

Not really, at least in context that makes any real sense. Kansas was settled by 1861, and in reality if one reads of Bleeding Kansas, it mostly was Kansans killing Kansans.

Lawrence was sacked by Missouri criminals in 1856, 5 years before the "official" war started. Here's Missouri Senator's David Rice Atchison's speech to the assembled Missouri mob-

"Gentlemen, Officers & Soldiers! This is the most glorious day of my life! This is the day I am a border ruffian! ... Spring like your bloodhounds at home upon that d--d accursed abolition hole; break through every thing that may oppose your never flinching courage! Yess, ruffians, draw your revolvers & bowie knives, & cool them in the heart's blood of all those d--d dogs, that dare defend that d--d breathing hole of hell."

I don't know what kind of books you're reading, but as soon as you claim one side had the moral high ground in the Kansas-Missouri conflict, you lose all credibility.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not really, at least in context that makes any real sense. Kansas statehood issue was settled by 1861, and in reality if one reads of Bleeding Kansas, it mostly was Kansans killing Kansans.

The only motivation to steal and loot in 1861 by Kansans, would been as any theives, personal gain.

During Bleeding Kansas when Missourians were actually there, read why. They often were deputized by US federal marshalls in direct response to the lawlessness of Kansans. They were the ones often actually supporting the United States and law.

Missourians good, Kansans bad. Blah blah blah.

 

[archieclement]

Lawrence was sacked by Missouri criminals in 1856, 5 years before the "official" war started. Here's Missouri Senator's David Rice Atchison's speech to the assembled Missouri mob-

"Gentlemen, Officers & Soldiers! This is the most glorious day of my life! This is the day I am a border ruffian! ... Spring like your bloodhounds at home upon that d--d accursed abolition hole; break through every thing that may oppose your never flinching courage! Yess, ruffians, draw your revolvers & bowie knives, & cool them in the heart's blood of all those d--d dogs, that dare defend that d--d breathing hole of hell."

I don't know what kind of books you're reading, but as soon as you claim one side had the moral high ground in the Kansas-Missouri conflict, you lose all credibility.

Indeed you have lost all credibility if you don't note the actual reason for the 1856 event.....

A Kansas sheriff was attempting to carry out arrests in Lawrence, and was shot then drove out of Lawrence by people in defiance to the law.

Then a US federal marshall rightfully concluded the people of Lawrence with the assassination attempt had interfered with the legal execution of warrants. That's why a large force had been raised, of both Kansans and Missourians.

It's indeed laughable when people wish to complain of one sidedness.....then turn around and not present the events why a posse had been raised in 1856 to go to Lawrence, or why it was chosen as target in 1863.........they omit the reasons why, because it doesn't fit their biased narrative, certainly not to be objective or credible........the actual whole story whether in 1856 or 1863 hinge on continued lawlessness by people of Lawrence.

Then after they blatantly omit the events leading to the events.....the seem to wish to attack anyone telling the rest of the story, which is actually required to present the whole story if being objective is remotely a concern.

 

[archieclement]

Missourians good, Kansans bad. Blah blah blah.

Certainly have never said anything of the kind. Certainly Kansas had some good citizens, as well provided some troops who gave good service.

However Lawrence's conduct or Jayhawkers weren't among them.

 

[Paul Gillette]

Indeed you have if you don't note the actual reason for the 1856 event.....

A Kansas sheriff was attempting to carry out arrests in Lawrence, and was shot then drove out of Lawrence by people in defiance to the law.

Then a US federal marshall rightfully concluded the people of Lawrence with the assassination attempt had interfered with the legal execution of warrants. That's why a large force had been raised, of both kansans and missourians.

It's indeed laughable when people wish to complain of one sidedness.....then turn around and not present the events why a posse had been raised in 1856, or why it was chosen as target in 1863.........they omit the reasons why, because it doesn't fit their biased narrative, certainly not to be objective or credible........the actual whole story whether in 1856 or 1863 hinge on continued lawlessness by people of Lawrence.

Then after they blatantly omit the events leading to the events.....the seem to wish to attack anyone telling the rest of the story.

Funny that Senator Atchison didn't mention any warrant…


The Missourians marching into Lawrence in 1856 carried banners that read "Southern Rights" and "Supremacy of the White Race" ( Monaghan ). What did those slogans have to do with an unserved warrant? Why were the newspaper offices destroyed? Why was the hotel declared a "fort", and burned down? Did the hotel wound the sheriff? The sacking of Lawrence in 1856 was a criminal/political action in the Border Wars, one of hundreds perpetuated by both sides.

 

[archieclement]

Funny that Senator Atchison didn't mention any warrant…


The Missourians marching into Lawrence in 1856 carried banners that read "Southern Rights" and "Supremacy of the White Race" ( Monaghan ). What did those slogans have to do with an unserved warrant? Why were the newspaper offices destroyed? Why was the hotel declared a "fort", and burned down? Did the hotel wound the sheriff? The sacking of Lawrence in 1856 was a criminal/political action in the Border Wars, one of hundreds perpetuated by both sides.

Funnier that you didn't mention which side actually represented the law, and in reality the event only happened because of the lawlessness by people of Lawrence. Odd oversight if not being "one sided"

 

[Paul Gillette]

Funnier that you didn't mention which side actually represented the law, and in reality the event only happened because of the lawlessness by people of Lawrence. Odd oversight if not being "one sided"

Lane's Brigade represented the law of the US government when they sacked Osceola in 1861. Doesn't make it right. But by your standards, that makes it OK.

 

[archieclement]

Lane's Brigade represented the law of the US government when they sacked Osceola in 1861. Doesn't make it right.

No they didn't represent the law, they didn't even effectively represent the military, as they were supposed to hound Price to aid Lexington..........

Kansas sheriff's and federal marshalls would certainly represent the law in 1856.

 

[Paul Gillette]

No they didn't represent the law, the didn't even effectively represent the military, as they were supposed to hound Price to aid Lexington..........

Kansas sheriff's and federal marshalls would certainly represent the law in 1856.

Lane absolutely represented the law, ordered by his commanding general, Fremont, to make a "demonstration along the Kansas Missouri border with his Jayhawkers". Lane was criticized for the excesses but certainly never faced any legal retribution.

Union Generals and U.S. senators would certainly represent the law in 1861.

 

[archieclement]

Obviously not when breaking the law. Why I said it was the biggest tragedy, was when those who were indeed supposed to represent law and order, instead were corrupt and breaking it.

But again in 1856 which you raised, legally elected sheriff's, US appointed Federal Marshall's, and the President and Congress of the US represented US law.

Certainly not mobs in Lawrence who supported extra legal governments ordered arrested, or who shot law enforcement, or interfered with execution of US law, or organized thieving expeditions for gain.

 

[Paul Gillette]

Obviously not when breaking the law. Why I said it was the biggest tragedy, was when those who were indeed supposed to represent law and order, instead were corrupt and breaking it.

But again in 1856 which you raised, legally elected sheriff's, US appointed Federal Marshall's, and the President and Congress of the US represented US law.

Certainly not mobs in Lawrence who supported extra legal governments ordered arrested, or who shot law enforcement, or interfered with execution of US law, or organized thieving expeditions for gain.

And the legally elected sheriffs and US appointed marshals weren't breaking the law when they destroyed and burned the businesses of Lawrence? That was legal? Which part of their warrant gave them the authority to do that?

 

[DanSBHawk]

After the war, Missourians chose to remember it as victims oppressed by outsiders, rather than admitting their own dysfunctional and criminal citizenry:

"Perhaps Truman's family story of stolen silver was true. Kansans did raid western Missouri, after all. But the tale reflects a final twist in the evolving memory of the border. Increasingly, Missourians recalled the Civil War as a struggle against outsiders. It was more comforting to put all the emphasis on rampaging jayhawkers and none on internal divisions. It was more uniting to depict a state that stood together against invasion. The myth became so deeply rooted that it would appear in scholarly histories well into the twentieth century."

The Border of Memory: The Divided Legacy of the Civil War | Civil War on the Western Border

If you look at any national map of the Civil War, you will see no contrast between Kansas and Missouri. Both are shaded alike as Union states. Were we to map the memory of the war, on the other hand, the border between them would be bright and stark. Kansas would still be Northern. But much of...

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

 

[archieclement]

And the legally elected sheriffs and US appointed marshals weren't breaking the law when they destroyed and burned the businesses of Lawrence? That was legal? Which part of their warrant gave them the authority to do that?

One would have to go into specifics of the conditions and events to leading to why to determine if were actually excesses or justified.

But let's suppose "x" event by a posse was actually an excess.....how does that change that they were there responding to criminal events by the people of Lawrence? Or absolve the people of Lawrence of the initial crimes? It doesn't.

See the same today when people complain of police behavior.......it doesn't somehow make the initial crime to draw the police response not a crime, or absolve resisting arrest if it made force necessary. The excess if a crime, such as police brutality or excessive force, is actually separate from the crime that instigated the events from the police.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

The works I've read all note the lawlessness of Missouri border ruffians during the Bleeding Kansas period of 1854-1860 as a prime motivation for Jayhawkers. No books in your collection mention this?

How well were these examples of "lawlessness" documented? We names, dates and locations cited? Were any such records of the same quality as those describing specific acts of jayhawker terrorism retained in the Missouri State archives?

 

[archieclement]

Deleted

What warrants were there for anyone at Osceola?

Indeed you prove your own point. A internet moniker has little to with ones view.

But I have related before the name came from reading of Union Major Bacon Montgomery who had set up his ambush, relating he had never seen more grit of Archie. Certainly I grew up watching westerns such as True Grit. If you must know why

So the name was chosen from the view of a Union Major, OMG....

No posing, anyone who is a law and order proponent isn't going to excuse shooting a sheriff attempting to carry out the law, or a city continuing to live off crime against others for years. Certainly haven't ever claimed raid on Lawrence was legal, but if accurately relating the event, why it was chosen and occured would be rather relevant. I have noted several times vigilantism is illegal. Which if was a shared view would make jayhawkers certainly as equally criminal to one raising vigilantism as a motive for them.

The only people who seem unwilling to note illegality is those who never acknowledge Kansas's. Which is bizarre when jayhawkers and Lawrence had rather extensive connections to crime, that all historians note.