Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


William Clarke Quantrill - Other People of the Civil War - The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Mar 5th, 2007 05:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Guerilla war is the worst kind of bloodletting. No one can absolutely identify an enemy. Authority would likely be on one side or the other. Vigilantes and assassination squads. I don't know that anyone has ever come up with the "proper" response. Throughout history, the response to partisan violence has been to take it out on the civilian. No one gets away, innocent or guilty.

And Missouri wasn't the only theater for partisan violence. Western NC, Northern AL, Eastern TN and KY, all lived with the same kind of horror.

The hopelessness of such internicene murder is a human condition. It's all over the world today, and will likely be with us well into the future.

Ole



 Posted: Mon Mar 5th, 2007 02:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC Duncan wrote: And the University of Kansas mascot is the "Jayhawk" - by definition a bird, but by tradition a reference to "Jayhawkers".  I've often wondered why the NCAA has not demanded KU change their mascot and symbols

Good thinking!

It is primarily Missouri Tigers fans (named after the local Confederate militia unit after all) that find KU so repulsive ;)

Of course,  'Hoosiers', 'Sooners', 'Longhorns' and, especially, 'Cowboys' have their detractors as well...

 

HankC



 Posted: Mon Mar 5th, 2007 03:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It is more than obvious why the U of Mo don't call themselves Pukes. Or why the fighting Illini are not Suckers. Hawkeyes and Buckeyes and Badgers, Gophers, Cornhuskers, Jayhawkers, Jackrabbits and Wolverines work quite well, but Pukes and Suckers? I don't think so.

:shock:Ole



 Posted: Tue Mar 6th, 2007 06:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
younglobo
Member


Joined: Wed Aug 9th, 2006
Location: Lexington, Missouri USA
Posts: 423
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Found these interesting quotes on the web thought it might pertain to the topic

 

--- President Harry S. Truman   "But Quantrill and his men were no more bandits than the men on the other side. I've been to reunions of Quantrill's men two or three times. All they were trying to do was protect the property on the Missouri side of the line..."

"...They tried to make my uncle Harrison into an informer, but he wouldn't do it. He was only a boy... They tried to hang him, time and again they tried it, 'stretching his neck', they called it, but he didn't say anything. I think he'd have died before he'd said anything. He's the one I'm named after, and I'm happy to say that there were people...around at the time who said I took after him."
--- President Harry S. Truman
Speaking about what the Kansas "Red Legs" did to his uncle, at age thirteen during the War Between The States.



"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him never let up in the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible manoeuvering you can hurl you own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail, and repeated victory will make it invincible."
--- Gen. T. J. "Stonewall" Jackson, CSA

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."
--- General Pat Cleburne, CSA



 Posted: Wed Mar 7th, 2007 01:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
Notch
Neutral Revisionist


Joined: Fri Mar 3rd, 2006
Location: Waynesville, Missouri USA
Posts: 14
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think William T Sherman summed things up quite well when he said,

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking".

Ambrose Bierce even believed that while others were writing about war in a romantic fashion, war was not romantic, as Bierce eperienced firsthand, and that it was brutal, cruel, as far from romantic as you can get.  So to believe in this romanticized version of Civil War soldiers in battle is most likely NOT how it occured. I believe that Quantrill and his men, and those like them, were doing exactly what they thought they needed to to preserve their way of life: right or wrong...

Sure, there are plenty of instances where it is documented that it did, but raiders, jayhawkers, bushwhackers, state militias, home guards were facts of the war and were as big a deciding factor as the generals at Shiloh, Antietam or Gettysburg.

Quantrill and his men were products of their time, right or wrong, no different that Stonewall Jackson, John Moseby, William T. Sherman, Nathan Bedford Forrest or even Grant & Lee. All these men made choices that not only affected their entire lives, but those that came afterwards.



 Posted: Wed Mar 7th, 2007 02:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I read a book Black Flag: Guerrilla Warfare on the Western Border, 1861-1865: A Riveting Account of a Bloody Chapter in Civil War History
by
Thomas Goodrich   It  pointed out how bad things were on both sides.  It ws so interesting as it used journals entries to tell  most of the stories.  Each side was really bad . 



 Posted: Wed Mar 7th, 2007 06:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

no different that Stonewall Jackson, John Moseby, William T. Sherman, Nathan Bedford Forrest or even Grant & Lee.

Must object to the inclusion of Quantrill in this company. The closest remotely comparable to Quantrill's activities was Moseby, and he would slap my jaws for that if he were here. Moseby fought for the Confederacy -- not for plunder or personal gain or vengeance. Quantrill's victims tended to be civilians, the more helpless, the better. He was a beast turned loose in a time when beasts were common. No one today would know who he was if it weren't for the James', Youngers and Daltons.

Ole



 Posted: Wed Mar 14th, 2007 06:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Oh we'd know him today for Lawrence without the James and Youngers



 Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 01:35 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
missourianconfederate
Member


Joined: Fri Mar 2nd, 2007
Location: Kansas City Metro, Missouri USA
Posts: 45
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Yes I in a way do agree his was a ruffian.. But still theres so many opinons about him being so bad...plus he married a 14 year old from Blue Springs,MO Which I currently live at...

But Quantril was many things depending from where you from....but on my moms side a family member rode with Quantril and in his journal the only reason why like 30-60% of the raiders where out for revenge for Ocealoa, MO.. And I do agree Bleeding Kansas was a major cause to the start of the war..

But for him to attack Lawrance he had to have motive...which theres several posibilites...

I am interested in y'alls opinon...

 

Its always the Victor that tells the story not the loser...

And yes I am split 50/50 He was a Hero...and a Tyrant...

Depending on the situation.

MissourianRebel



 Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 03:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
David White
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 909
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The Lawrence raid was pretty straight forward, it was revenge for the collapse of the jail in Kansas City the week before that killed and injured  the female relatives of many of the Confederate guerillas, including two sisters of "Bloody" Bill Anderson (one was killed, the other maimed).  From then on as Goodrich has written it was "War to the Knife."



 Posted: Thu Mar 15th, 2007 05:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
64thNYDrummer
Member
 

Joined: Fri Feb 9th, 2007
Location: Healdsburg, California USA
Posts: 48
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"It is known that for a time he made his living as a gambler"

You seem to imply that there is something wrong with making a living as a gambler.It Is considerably more difficult to make a living as a gambler than school teaching, personaly I have never met a gambler I distrusted, but have encounterd many school teachers I distrusted.

As I recall the last time you defamed gamblers you compared them unfavorably to judges which I thought was even more egregious.

Dennis Conklin



 Current time is 07:25 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2   
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1775 seconds (13% database + 87% PHP). 29 queries executed.