Started By
Message
re: August 1863, MIssouri History - Updated
Posted on 8/14/13 at 4:45 pm to bayou2003
Posted on 8/14/13 at 4:45 pm to bayou2003
I hate kansas. Love the SEC. Love the diversity of our great state.
That all being said I'm very proud that Missouri ended up on the right side of history and the moral compass of that age by staying in the Union. If that makes me a Yankee, so be it. I'll embrace that.
There has been a definite attempt to try and romanticize the Confederacy and what they stood for and behind over the years since the end of the Civil War. The union was in the right morally,legally and was acting in the best interests and for the good of this country.
Now, like Semo pointed out, there were a lot of variables at play in the conflict between kansas and Missouri during that time period that transcended many of the reasonings behind the conflict in the East. You will never catch me celebrating what the south stood for during that time period, especially not to try and "fit in" with an collegiate athletic conference almost 150 years later.
That all being said I'm very proud that Missouri ended up on the right side of history and the moral compass of that age by staying in the Union. If that makes me a Yankee, so be it. I'll embrace that.
There has been a definite attempt to try and romanticize the Confederacy and what they stood for and behind over the years since the end of the Civil War. The union was in the right morally,legally and was acting in the best interests and for the good of this country.
Now, like Semo pointed out, there were a lot of variables at play in the conflict between kansas and Missouri during that time period that transcended many of the reasonings behind the conflict in the East. You will never catch me celebrating what the south stood for during that time period, especially not to try and "fit in" with an collegiate athletic conference almost 150 years later.
2
Posted on 8/14/13 at 4:49 pm to notsince98
I think the Black Raiders would be awesome!!! But then we'd be called racists. 
I won't defend the actions of Quantrill and his men. They were not what you'd call honorable men. But they didn't kill women. And I can still understand their feelings without condoning their actions.
But the raid on Lawrence? Given some of the things done to Missourians, I'd call the raid, if not the killing of citizens, justified.
I won't defend the actions of Quantrill and his men. They were not what you'd call honorable men. But they didn't kill women. And I can still understand their feelings without condoning their actions.
But the raid on Lawrence? Given some of the things done to Missourians, I'd call the raid, if not the killing of citizens, justified.
Posted on 8/14/13 at 4:58 pm to kilo
Well said, Kilo. I also think the Union was right on the slavery issue. But not necessarily on states rights. I also believe slavery would have died out on its own pretty rapidly with the industrial revolution - it simply wasn't sustainable. But regardless, keeping anyone in bondage and unpaid servitude is morally wrong.
I've always found it ironic that the people who were all about "Freeing" the slaves still didn't want these displaced free people in their neighborhoods. They wanted them "free" to be somewhere else. From that standpoint, I think kansans are hypocrites. Free these thousands of people but give them no other rights, or education, or a way to live. Reconstruction was as horrible a time period as the war itself.
I realize that my "history" lesson was Missouri=slanted. But that's a deliberate counterpoint to traditional "history" that paints Missourians as the bad guys and kansans as the innocent victims. We all know that wasn't the case.
I've always found it ironic that the people who were all about "Freeing" the slaves still didn't want these displaced free people in their neighborhoods. They wanted them "free" to be somewhere else. From that standpoint, I think kansans are hypocrites. Free these thousands of people but give them no other rights, or education, or a way to live. Reconstruction was as horrible a time period as the war itself.
I realize that my "history" lesson was Missouri=slanted. But that's a deliberate counterpoint to traditional "history" that paints Missourians as the bad guys and kansans as the innocent victims. We all know that wasn't the case.
Posted on 8/14/13 at 6:23 pm to notsince98
quote:
And those people from Missouri were called Bushwackers or Raiders. That would be mostly true observations of those folks. But imagine their reaction if Mizzou became the Mizzou Bushwackers or Black Raiders? That would be awesome.
I had no idea the Jayhawkers did bad things. Weird how history works depending on who is telling it. In Kansas the Jayhawkers were heroes, good guys, brave men, etc. Maybe they brainwashed us in middle school/high school, that's why Kansans are proud of that nickname.
I heard someone from Missouri mentioning "redlegs" or some shite like that and what it meant.
This post was edited on 8/14/13 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 8/14/13 at 6:47 pm to bayou2003
The Jayhawkers were irregular militia troops not affiliated with the Union army. They were basically the private militia of Sen. James Lane from kansas. They were supposedly formed to protect their citizens from the violent Missourians, but they mostly were raiders and criminals. They regularly invaded the border counties and stole livestock, goods, etc. They shot or hung people who resisted them, and burned the things they couldn't take - like homes. In no way were they heroes.
This is from Wikipedia...
The term became part of the lexicon of the Missouri-Kansas border in about 1858, during the Kansas territorial period. The term was used to describe militant bands nominally associated with the free-state cause. One early Kansas history contained this succinct characterization of the jayhawkers:[4]
Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the name --- whatever its origin may be -- of jayhawkers.
Another historian of the territorial period described the jayhawkers as bands of men that were willing to fight, kill, and rob for a variety of motives that included defense against pro-slavery "Border Ruffians", abolition, driving pro-slavery settlers from their claims of land, revenge, and/or plunder and personal profit.[5]
Some of the Jayhawker units wore distinguishing red leggings, and were known are the Redlegs. They tended to be more mercenary, just basic criminals.
Here's more from Wikipedia...
A newspaper reporter traveling through Kansas in 1863 provided definitions of jayhawker and associated terms:[17]
Jayhawkers, Red Legs, and Bushwhackers are everyday terms in Kansas and Western Missouri. A Jayhawker is a Unionist who professes to rob, burn out and murder only rebels in arms against the government. A Red Leg is a Jayhawker originally distinguished by the uniform of red leggings. A Red Leg, however, is regarded as more purely an indiscriminate thief and murderer than the Jayhawker or Bushwhacker. A Bushwhacker is a rebel Jayhawker, or a rebel who bands with others for the purpose of preying upon the lives and property of Union citizens. They are all lawless and indiscriminate in their iniquities.
And this...
The depredations of the jayhawkers contributed to the descent of the Missouri-Kansas border region into some of the most vicious guerrilla fighting of the Civil War. In the first year of the war, much of the movable wealth in western Missouri had been transferred to Kansas, and large swaths of western Missouri had been laid waste, by an assortment of Kansas jayhawkers ranging from outlaws and independent military bands to rogue federal troops such as Lane's Brigade and Jennison's Jayhawkers. In February 1862, the Union command instituted martial law due to "the crime of armed depradations or jay-hawking having reached a height dangerous to the peace and posterity to the whole State (Kansas) and seriously compromising the Union cause in the border counties of Missouri."[18] One expert on the jayhawkers stated that the Border War would have been bad enough given the fighting between secessionist and unionist Missourians, "but it was basically Kansas craving for revenge and Kansas craving for loot that set the tone of the war. Nowhere else, with the grim exception of the East Kentucky and East Tennessee mountains, did the Civil War degenerate so completely into a squalid, murderous, slugging match as it did in Kansas and Missouri."[19] The most infamous event in this war of raids and reprisals was Confederate leader William Quantrill's retaliatory attack on Lawrence, Kansas known as the Lawrence Massacre.[20] In response to Quantrill's raid, the Union command issued Order No. 11, the forced depopulation of specified Missouri border lands. Intended to eliminate sanctuary and sustenance for pro-Confederate guerrilla fighters, it was enforced by troops from Kansas, and provided an excuse for a final round of plundering, arson, and summary execution perpetrated against the civilian population of western Missouri.[21] In the words of one observer, "the Kansas-Missouri border was a disgrace even to barbarism."[22]
When kU fielded their first football team and named them the Jayhawkers, back in the 1890s, you can imagine how Missourians took that. And 125 years later, it hasn't gotten any better.
This is from Wikipedia...
The term became part of the lexicon of the Missouri-Kansas border in about 1858, during the Kansas territorial period. The term was used to describe militant bands nominally associated with the free-state cause. One early Kansas history contained this succinct characterization of the jayhawkers:[4]
Confederated at first for defense against pro-slavery outrages, but ultimately falling more or less completely into the vocation of robbers and assassins, they have received the name --- whatever its origin may be -- of jayhawkers.
Another historian of the territorial period described the jayhawkers as bands of men that were willing to fight, kill, and rob for a variety of motives that included defense against pro-slavery "Border Ruffians", abolition, driving pro-slavery settlers from their claims of land, revenge, and/or plunder and personal profit.[5]
Some of the Jayhawker units wore distinguishing red leggings, and were known are the Redlegs. They tended to be more mercenary, just basic criminals.
Here's more from Wikipedia...
A newspaper reporter traveling through Kansas in 1863 provided definitions of jayhawker and associated terms:[17]
Jayhawkers, Red Legs, and Bushwhackers are everyday terms in Kansas and Western Missouri. A Jayhawker is a Unionist who professes to rob, burn out and murder only rebels in arms against the government. A Red Leg is a Jayhawker originally distinguished by the uniform of red leggings. A Red Leg, however, is regarded as more purely an indiscriminate thief and murderer than the Jayhawker or Bushwhacker. A Bushwhacker is a rebel Jayhawker, or a rebel who bands with others for the purpose of preying upon the lives and property of Union citizens. They are all lawless and indiscriminate in their iniquities.
And this...
The depredations of the jayhawkers contributed to the descent of the Missouri-Kansas border region into some of the most vicious guerrilla fighting of the Civil War. In the first year of the war, much of the movable wealth in western Missouri had been transferred to Kansas, and large swaths of western Missouri had been laid waste, by an assortment of Kansas jayhawkers ranging from outlaws and independent military bands to rogue federal troops such as Lane's Brigade and Jennison's Jayhawkers. In February 1862, the Union command instituted martial law due to "the crime of armed depradations or jay-hawking having reached a height dangerous to the peace and posterity to the whole State (Kansas) and seriously compromising the Union cause in the border counties of Missouri."[18] One expert on the jayhawkers stated that the Border War would have been bad enough given the fighting between secessionist and unionist Missourians, "but it was basically Kansas craving for revenge and Kansas craving for loot that set the tone of the war. Nowhere else, with the grim exception of the East Kentucky and East Tennessee mountains, did the Civil War degenerate so completely into a squalid, murderous, slugging match as it did in Kansas and Missouri."[19] The most infamous event in this war of raids and reprisals was Confederate leader William Quantrill's retaliatory attack on Lawrence, Kansas known as the Lawrence Massacre.[20] In response to Quantrill's raid, the Union command issued Order No. 11, the forced depopulation of specified Missouri border lands. Intended to eliminate sanctuary and sustenance for pro-Confederate guerrilla fighters, it was enforced by troops from Kansas, and provided an excuse for a final round of plundering, arson, and summary execution perpetrated against the civilian population of western Missouri.[21] In the words of one observer, "the Kansas-Missouri border was a disgrace even to barbarism."[22]
When kU fielded their first football team and named them the Jayhawkers, back in the 1890s, you can imagine how Missourians took that. And 125 years later, it hasn't gotten any better.
Posted on 8/14/13 at 6:55 pm to semotruman
quote:
The Jayhawkers were irregular militia troops not affiliated with the Union army. They were basically the private militia of Sen. James Lane from kansas. They were supposedly formed to protect their citizens from the violent Missourians, but they mostly were raiders and criminals. They regularly invaded the border counties and stole livestock, goods, etc. They shot or hung people who resisted them, and burned the things they couldn't take - like homes. In no way were they heroes.
quote:
Some of the Jayhawker units wore distinguishing red leggings, and were known are the Redlegs. They tended to be more mercenary, just basic criminals.
Here's more from Wikipedia...
A newspaper reporter traveling through Kansas in 1863 provided definitions of jayhawker and associated terms:[17]
Jayhawkers, Red Legs, and Bushwhackers are everyday terms in Kansas and Western Missouri. A Jayhawker is a Unionist who professes to rob, burn out and murder only rebels in arms against the government. A Red Leg is a Jayhawker originally distinguished by the uniform of red leggings. A Red Leg, however, is regarded as more purely an indiscriminate thief and murderer than the Jayhawker or Bushwhacker. A Bushwhacker is a rebel Jayhawker, or a rebel who bands with others for the purpose of preying upon the lives and property of Union citizens. They are all lawless and indiscriminate in their iniquities.
Wow very different from what we were taught. Crazy. Hell you'd think they were SAINTS protecting the slaves and great state of Kansas.
Posted on 8/14/13 at 7:02 pm to kilo
quote:
That all being said I'm very proud that Missouri ended up on the right side of history and the moral compass of that age by staying in the Union. If that makes me a Yankee, so be it. I'll embrace that.
There has been a definite attempt to try and romanticize the Confederacy and what they stood for and behind over the years since the end of the Civil War. The union was in the right morally,legally and was acting in the best interests and for the good of this country.
Yeah I'm a classic embodiment of the Missouri "in-between/crossroads" nature of the state both during the Civil War era and, well, always. My dad's ancestors were classic Missouri Josey Wales types and I even had a great great great grandfather (I lose track of how many greats to put on there) who lived on top of a hill in western MO and served as a lookout to warn the town below when jayhawkers were riding in. My Mom's side of the family? German immigrants to the max, from Franklin County, as pro-Union as you would find anywhere in the country pretty much by default.
Truthfully, Missouri didn't end up on the "right" or "wrong" side of history any more or less than this country itself did. The internal strife and differing population was, is and has *always* been reflective of the melting pot of the U.S. as a whole and its the reason Missouri has *always* been a bellweather state for presidential elections and a good way to get the country's pulse as a whole. If left alone, Missouri was going to progress toward the same outcome in the Civil War with respect to slavery and all other moral issues that the country as a whole did. Nobody anywhere I think takes exception to that.
It's when one side with the moral high ground, be it real or perceived, goes all vigilante and becomes judge, jury and executioner on those that they alone deem wrong - and then happens to burn Osceola and steal crops and supplies while they're at it - that they lose me when it comes to "morality" discussions. You can't claim the moral high ground on anti-slavery reasons on one hand and then use that high ground to go on a non-legally sanctioned murdering and theft spree on the other. What example is that setting for the very people you say you're trying to liberate? What would the world have thought of MLK or Gandhi if they had said screw it, I'm morally justified so I'm taking things into my own hands and am gonna murder and steal for what's rightfully mine? That's why I dislike intensely the jayhawker and all it stands for.
As for the union being right morally - on the slavery issue yes everyone agrees. However there were economic motives in play there too, the issue of a manufacturing based versus agrarian society competing for their own financial well being. Just another reality of it. The morality thing becomes a lot harder to figure out when a place like Boston, Massachusetts, the epicenter of the abolitionist movement, later becomes the epicenter of violence and racist hate crimes during busing and integration attempts in the 1970s. The morality thing becomes a lot harder to figure out when in "free state" kansas it takes the U.S. Supreme Court shoving integration down their throats in the Brown v. Board decision for it to finally happen there.
As for legally right, some of it was and some wasn't. To this day the legal grounds upon which West Virginia was created as a state are shaky at best.
So me, while I don't trapse around whistling Dixie and hoisting the Confederate flag by any means, I also avoid taking pride in MO being Union or Yankee or any of that stuff either. The truth, like our great State of Missouri itself, is always somewhere in the middle. That's why I love being a Missourian. The more assholes you have yelling at you that you're not SEC country *and* that you're not Big Ten country, the more it means you are probably getting closer to the truth - that in fact there's no such thing as either, they're all just theoretical and cultural constructs that we each make up in our own minds. The truth tends to piss people off, and so does Missouri. And I love it.
This post was edited on 8/14/13 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 8/14/13 at 7:07 pm to Mizzou Fan in Da ATX
quote:
The truth tends to piss people off, and so does Missouri. And I love it.
Well said. Great post ATX.
This whole thread has been a great read.
Posted on 8/14/13 at 7:10 pm to Mizzou Fan in Da ATX
quote:
Yeah I'm a classic embodiment of the Missouri "in-between/crossroads" nature of the state both during the Civil War era and, well, always. My dad's ancestors were classic Missouri Josey Wales types and I even had a great great great grandfather (I lose track of how many greats to put on there) who lived on top of a hill in western MO and served as a lookout to warn the town below when jayhawkers were riding in. My Mom's side of the family? German immigrants to the max, from Franklin County, as pro-Union as you would find anywhere in the country pretty much by default.
That's a great example to why both the Union and Confederacy claimed Missouri. Funny when people call Missouri yankees but a star on the Confederate Flag represent Missouri.
Personally being taught history in Kansas it pisses me off when people call Missouri Yankees. Don't care if they didn't leave the Union. Then moving to Joplin learning the History of Southern Missouri, how the Governor fled to Neosho, seeing pics of the Confederate flag in front of the Jasper Co court house, etc .......Missourians are not yankees.
Like I told Porker face I don't care about the other parts of Missouri, Southern Missouri is not Yankee.
LINK
quote:
April 12, 1861. The Civil War began with an attack on Fort Sumter, South Carolina.
June 11, 1861. Under Union pressure, Missouri's pro-Southern government fled Jefferson City and moved to Southwest Missouri. There Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson and the Missouri State Guard, commanded by General Sterling Price, planned to join forces with the Arkansas troops of Confederate General Ben McCulloch.
July 5, 1861. Moving north to meet Governor Jackson, Confederate troops from Arkansas captured a company of Union troops at Neosho. The page includes Goodspeed's account of these events.
September 2, 1861. Troops from the Third Louisiana Infantry were greeted by Confederate flags as they marched through Granby.
October 21-28, 1861. The Missouri General Assembly convened in the Masonic Hall at Neosho and, on October 28, passed an ordinance of secession taking Missouri out of the Union. This act had little practical meaning since the Union controlled Missouri for most of the war and established its own provisional government.
Fall, 1861. The Confederates sought to exploit the lead mines at Granby, planning to move south as much as 200,000 pounds of lead per month.
Fall, 1861. With the Confederates in control, many Union loyalists fled Southwest Missouri.
This post was edited on 8/14/13 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 8/18/13 at 2:29 pm to bayou2003
The next major event of August, 1863...
On August 18, 1863, Union General Ewing issued General Order #10. The order started out innocuously enough. It instructed the military to assist any free people who wished to relocate into Kansas by escorting them to ensure their safe passage.
But, it went much further. This order called for the arrest of all guerillas and any people who had helped them; they were to be taken in for prosecution. The families of all guerillas were to be removed from their homes and sent to Kansas City for transport into the deep South. They were to e allowed to take with them livestock, household goods and personal belongings. The written order prevented any soldier from burning or destroying any property, crops or livestock unless under direction from a superior. However, they were to destroy any blacksmith shops or stations, including blacksmith tools, unless they were part of a military outpost. Finally, the order stated that no one not a member of Union forces was to accompany solders on these missions to remove Confederate fighters and their families except guides.
Now, here's what actually happened. Ewing was encouraged to issue and execute this order by Senator Lane, the leader of the Jayhawkers. And Jayhawker troops, who were not actual Union troops, led these missions. The families and other supporters of the guerilla fighters, as well as those who had joined Confederate Army units, were pulled from their homes. Some were simply turned out with nowhere to go, others were taken to Kansas City to be sent south. Some were simply murdered. Their livestock was butchered, and their homes and crops burned. They were allowed a few personal items, if anything - no household goods to help them reestablish their lives elsewhere.
These acts further enraged Quantrill and his men, who were already reeling from what they perceived as a deliberate attack on the women who were killed or injured in the jail collapse. Among the guerillas were refugees from Oceola - the town burned by Lane's Jayhawkers in 1981. The stage was then set for the events that occurred a few days later.
_______________________________________________________________
On August 18, 1863, Union General Ewing issued General Order #10. The order started out innocuously enough. It instructed the military to assist any free people who wished to relocate into Kansas by escorting them to ensure their safe passage.
But, it went much further. This order called for the arrest of all guerillas and any people who had helped them; they were to be taken in for prosecution. The families of all guerillas were to be removed from their homes and sent to Kansas City for transport into the deep South. They were to e allowed to take with them livestock, household goods and personal belongings. The written order prevented any soldier from burning or destroying any property, crops or livestock unless under direction from a superior. However, they were to destroy any blacksmith shops or stations, including blacksmith tools, unless they were part of a military outpost. Finally, the order stated that no one not a member of Union forces was to accompany solders on these missions to remove Confederate fighters and their families except guides.
Now, here's what actually happened. Ewing was encouraged to issue and execute this order by Senator Lane, the leader of the Jayhawkers. And Jayhawker troops, who were not actual Union troops, led these missions. The families and other supporters of the guerilla fighters, as well as those who had joined Confederate Army units, were pulled from their homes. Some were simply turned out with nowhere to go, others were taken to Kansas City to be sent south. Some were simply murdered. Their livestock was butchered, and their homes and crops burned. They were allowed a few personal items, if anything - no household goods to help them reestablish their lives elsewhere.
These acts further enraged Quantrill and his men, who were already reeling from what they perceived as a deliberate attack on the women who were killed or injured in the jail collapse. Among the guerillas were refugees from Oceola - the town burned by Lane's Jayhawkers in 1981. The stage was then set for the events that occurred a few days later.
_______________________________________________________________
This post was edited on 8/18/13 at 2:30 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News