"The Devil Knows How to Ride:
The True Story of William Clarke Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders"
This chat took place in the Civil War Home Chatroom on 9/19/05 and covered Chapters 4,5,& 6
9/19/2005 9:08 pm (et) ks:
”Abolitionist and Extreme Pro-Slavery Man”: The Morgan Walker Raid
We begin tonight with Quantrill (aka here as “Q”) going by the name of “Charley Hart”, still hanging around Lawrence and most often loitering with the rabble at the north ferry landing…many tales depicting Q’s cattle rustling as well as his betrayal of abolitionists, free blacks and escaped slaves. Thoughts on his evolution at this point? Thoughts on Leslie's style as well?
9/19/2005 9:09 pm (et) archieclement: I had a question about sites9/19/2005 9:09 pm (et) ks: Sites?
9/19/2005 9:10 pm (et) Basecat: As for Leslie's style...some of his explanations in the text of the book should have been included in the footnotes instead of the main body of the work.9/19/2005 9:10 pm (et) archieclement: is there anything left of Stewarts fort today?
9/19/2005 9:11 pm (et) Basecat: As for Quantrill, Hard not to be levelheaded when reading about his exploits, as he obviously was nothing more than a crook at this stage of his life.9/19/2005 9:11 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Thought it was interesting that Leslie attempts to seperate Quantrill from "the rabble" who are "using border strife as a cover for criminal activity." Leslie says Q associated with them but seems to think he was not part of the rabble
9/19/2005 9:11 pm (et) ks: Oh man, agreed there, Basecat. And I know that's unheard of for ME to complain about lack of footnotes in place.9/19/2005 9:11 pm (et) Basecat: Excuse be..Hard to be levelheaded.
9/19/2005 9:12 pm (et) Basecat: ks...To me, the asterisks were sidebar material...and better suited for the notes.9/19/2005 9:12 pm (et) ks: Leslie's portrayal of Q seems more and more biased and slanted to me, AHG. And the way he refers to unionists, jayhawkers, etc. "sneering". They SNEER in such a sinister fashion. Not the way he treats the Quantrill crowd.
9/19/2005 9:13 pm (et) ks: I don't know, arch. Sure haven't heard of anything if there is.9/19/2005 9:13 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Leslie's continual references to Connelley's work have me confused. Am I reading a bio of Quantrill or a rebuttal of the way Connelly's portrayal
9/19/2005 9:13 pm (et) archieclement: ok thanx, wondered if there was anything to visit or not9/19/2005 9:14 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I'll check on that archie, have a reference here
9/19/2005 9:14 pm (et) ks: Okay, I'll get Harry's thoughts posted as well since we're in the critical phase... ;)9/19/2005 9:14 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG..to me it is not a bio...Just a gathering of notes to sort out the myths. As for the Connelly stuff...He sure does reference that book quite a bit, and yet has told the sudience what he thinks of Connelly's work. That's confusing to me.
Harry: RE: "The Devil Knows How to Ride"...I'm having one heck of a time seeing Quantrill and his band as anything more than roving murderers. Nothing soldierly about them. Interesting to note that by the modern standards of the Geneva Convention, they would not qualify as combatants. And Leslie tries his best to portray him in something of a favorable light...in fact, bends over backwards in his acceptance of any testimony favorable to Quantrill, and discounting out of hand that which is unfavorable. From the standpoint of history, I think the book is not very good. It is a great read, though. I just get bugged by Leslie's tendency to identify civilians harassed by Federal authorities as "civilians", while those murdered by Quantrill and his like are "unionists" or "loyalists". I think Leslie got a little to close to his subject...at least, that's the impression I get through the first six chapters.
9/19/2005 9:15 pm (et) archieclement: I think he's just trying to be impartial by rebutting any of the biased works9/19/2005 9:16 pm (et) ks: I think he's failing at being impartial, arch. :)
9/19/2005 9:16 pm (et) archieclement: he also rebutts frank james in chapter 6, and is starting to rebutt Edwards9/19/2005 9:16 pm (et) Basecat: Harry makes a fine point, on his description of the book..It is a fine read, but yeah I too have noticed the "civilians" and "loyalists" in the book.
9/19/2005 9:16 pm (et) ks: But some bias I expected. What I didn't expect were so many recounted myths or at least stories that can't be verified. It does make for interesting reading anyway.9/19/2005 9:17 pm (et) Harry: enters the chatroom.
9/19/2005 9:17 pm (et) ks: Anyway, of chapter 4...Harry, you're here! :) I'll stop throwing your voice now.9/19/2005 9:17 pm (et) amhistoryguy: What disturbs me about Leslie's bias is his constant claims of being unbiased. I would be fine if he just admitted his bias
9/19/2005 9:18 pm (et) Harry: made it, ks...but can't claim to remember the other stuff I posted last night so, if you have it, fire away.9/19/2005 9:18 pm (et) archieclement: edwards just mainly glossed over anything before the war, so as we proceed from here, you'll see him rebutt Edwards more
9/19/2005 9:18 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I have to agree with eveyone, interesting read, but hard to take as "history."9/19/2005 9:19 pm (et) Harry: ahg...and I don't know if it's Leslie's blatant favoritism that is causing me to have no sympathy for Q and his men...
9/19/2005 9:19 pm (et) ks: Is it just me, or were any of the rest of you amazed that anyone trusted Q back in Lawrence? I kept reading thinking John Dean was a real putz to not know Q's true sympathies. Must have been one convincing actor, Q.9/19/2005 9:20 pm (et) Basecat: Not sure if you all have ever seen "Deadwood", but this reminds me of that show...No one trusted anyone, and everybody seemed to find it easy to be a traitor if it suited their own purpose...
9/19/2005 9:20 pm (et) Harry: ks...Q is like the character in BC..."a slosh of foam with no visible means of support." I think he must have been doing some other stuff that Leslie was either unable or unwilling to uncover.9/19/2005 9:20 pm (et) archieclement: LOL don't surpise me ks, Lawerence was full of theives and murderers
9/19/2005 9:20 pm (et) amhistoryguy: No, I don't mean his bias is creating a dislike of Q, actions do enough of that. The excuses for his behavior just take more credibility away from what he writes though, IMO9/19/2005 9:20 pm (et) Basecat: Harry..No sympathy here at all...
9/19/2005 9:21 pm (et) archieclement: Lane himself flip flopped on the issue9/19/2005 9:21 pm (et) Harry: Question for the group, if I may ask it...
9/19/2005 9:21 pm (et) ks: I hope the language was better, Basecat. I was amused to find mention in this chapter of universal gestures of vulgarity. Q stopping to thumb his nose with one hand, then the other, then lean forward in the saddle to pat his buttocks...9/19/2005 9:22 pm (et) Basecat: Arch, which is a very good point, and I would think that of all the things he robbed, he would have at least taken a comb along the way..;)
9/19/2005 9:22 pm (et) Basecat: Harry ask away.9/19/2005 9:22 pm (et) ks: Please do, harry.
9/19/2005 9:22 pm (et) Basecat: ks..A semi clean "Deadwood"moment..:)9/19/2005 9:23 pm (et) archieclement: must not have found a silver one to pilfer base:)
9/19/2005 9:23 pm (et) Harry: Given that Q was from Ohio, had no preferences one way or the other regarding slavery, spent time in Kansas and Missouri, neither of which formally seceded, and seemed motivated by money and violent adventure, do you guys (and gals) think that, if he had happened upon a gang of anti-slavery, pro-Union types on that fateful day, he would have been just as likely to have fallen in with them?9/19/2005 9:23 pm (et) Basecat: Arch..:)
9/19/2005 9:23 pm (et) Harry: Q the Redleg, perhaps?9/19/2005 9:23 pm (et) Babs: Base, I thought of Deadwood as well esp. when described galloping through town using foul language.
9/19/2005 9:23 pm (et) ks: I agree AHG. Q's easy enough to detest all on his own without Leslie's bias adding to the distaste.9/19/2005 9:24 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Good question Harry. IMO, only if they were bent on violence, murder and robbery.
9/19/2005 9:24 pm (et) Basecat: Harry..Just from my reading this book, Q's interest was mostly in the color of money...and he would have joined any outfit if he thought he would prosper by being a member of it, IMHO.9/19/2005 9:25 pm (et) archieclement: I tend to think probably so, whichever one he join first, he probably would have ended up with the other one
9/19/2005 9:25 pm (et) ks: Not just a member...a leader IMO.9/19/2005 9:25 pm (et) Harry: Leslie went to great pains to explain why Cole Younger did what he did (though I don't buy all of the story...something doesn't fit). Seems he doesn't even try to explain Q.
9/19/2005 9:25 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Good point...Had to be the leader.9/19/2005 9:25 pm (et) archieclement: several accounts of that happening with others beside him
9/19/2005 9:26 pm (et) ks: Well, we're talking about him becoming a guerilla, so I might as well post the heading for the next chapter....9/19/2005 9:26 pm (et) Harry: Base...I agree, but Leslie doesn't point that out directly. Which I think makes his bias even more evident.
9/19/2005 9:26 pm (et) ks:
”Desperate Leader of the Most Desperate Demons”: Quantrill Becomes a Guerrilla
We pick up at the time immediately after the surrender of Ft. Sumter and Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the Southern Rebellion. Could we talk some about what happened then in Missouri? Lots of action with Jackson’s reply, Camp Jackson, etc.
9/19/2005 9:26 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Of course the Younger stories come from Younger's own book, no inclination to be self serving there.9/19/2005 9:27 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Natty loved the Union..:) Still love that story of the meeting he had in St. Louis, and how loud his spurs and saber rattled as he left the room..:)
9/19/2005 9:28 pm (et) ks: The happenings in MO certainly were certainly fertile ground for someone like WCQ to take root and grow in his guerrilla role.9/19/2005 9:28 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Thought it was a bit odd that Leslie states on page 97, that "George Searcy was a Confederate deserter," and he makes the point that Q was NOT a deserter because Price regularly sent men home. Searcy also served under Price
9/19/2005 9:28 pm (et) Harry: Do you mean "Nathan" Lyon? I could hear ks's head steaming as I read that in the book.9/19/2005 9:29 pm (et) archieclement: LOL am
9/19/2005 9:29 pm (et) Babs: How do you use timber to make buckshot? (page 87)9/19/2005 9:29 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG, and then Leslie rips him for not writing a better book that would have served historians better...Tend to think if Cole read that, he would would have shot Leslie..;)
9/19/2005 9:29 pm (et) Harry: I also find it very anoying that Leslie quote's Castel so much. He's a fine historian and all, but he's no "source".9/19/2005 9:29 pm (et) ks: I'm partial to his pointing and saying "...I would see YOU and YOU and YOU and every man, woman and child in the state dead and buried. This means WAR!"
9/19/2005 9:29 pm (et) archieclement: Price didn't regularly send men home9/19/2005 9:30 pm (et) Harry: "Nathan". Man, get the friggin NAME right.
9/19/2005 9:30 pm (et) ks: Nathaniel... :)9/19/2005 9:30 pm (et) Basecat: Arch..you would know better than me, did Price's army get that back that he sent them home because he could not supply them?
9/19/2005 9:30 pm (et) ks: No idea, Babs. I wondered that myself.9/19/2005 9:31 pm (et) Basecat: get that big...Sorry...
9/19/2005 9:31 pm (et) archieclement: after lexington and during the retreat from Westport he did9/19/2005 9:31 pm (et) amhistoryguy: In the intro Leslie makes a point, in two places, that "little is known about the inner workings of his (Q) mind." and that "we know little about his thought process, " and then in this chapter Leslie says, He (Q) thought of himself as a Confederate soldier fighting for the cause."
9/19/2005 9:31 pm (et) Babs: Seems like if you are in the army and then leave before your enlistment is up, you are a deserter unless the CSA had different rules.9/19/2005 9:31 pm (et) Basecat: Babs..Wondered about that as well...guess here chopped up pieces of timber.
9/19/2005 9:32 pm (et) archieclement: yes base9/19/2005 9:32 pm (et) Basecat: Just when did Q sign up in the Confederate Army?? No mention of that either..
9/19/2005 9:33 pm (et) archieclement: during the seige of lexington, his army almost doubled, but most were ill equipped9/19/2005 9:34 pm (et) Harry: Babs...this was not SOP for CSA army units, but was common for partisans like Mosby.
9/19/2005 9:34 pm (et) ks: Leslie seems to pretty freely interpret when he thinks Q9/19/2005 9:34 pm (et) archieclement: thats why we'll see in a little bit in the book
9/19/2005 9:34 pm (et) ks: ...Q's done something due to boredom.9/19/2005 9:35 pm (et) Basecat: Arch...and the classic line by Colonel Mulligan, when asked by Price why the firing had ceased, he replied "General, I hardly know, unless you have surrendered"..:)
9/19/2005 9:35 pm (et) archieclement: in the summer of 1862 Price sends commisioned officers back to recruit9/19/2005 9:35 pm (et) Harry: Which makes the argument that these partisans were soldiers pretty hard to swallow. Today, if you wage war without any identifying clothing etc...and you disband regularly, you are called a terrorist and are not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention.,.. in fact are specifically excluded.
9/19/2005 9:36 pm (et) Harry: Archie...and that was SOP for both sides throughout the war.9/19/2005 9:36 pm (et) Babs: I thought the story of "bullet hole" Ellis. I now have a vision of that bullet resting in the museum near (It's all his fault) Sickles' leg.
9/19/2005 9:37 pm (et) Harry: I first heard Goodrich tell that story, and he did a good job of it.9/19/2005 9:37 pm (et) archieclement: not here Harry
9/19/2005 9:37 pm (et) ks: Thought it was interesting in this chapter that Leslie points out the tactics Q learned while riding with Joel Mayes (half breed who became chief of his tribe and later captain of a Cherokee CSA unit)...that would serve him well as a guerrilla chieftain.9/19/2005 9:38 pm (et) Harry: Archie...not common to have officers go home to recruit?
9/19/2005 9:38 pm (et) Basecat: ks..Plus the fact how he learned to adapt after getting trapped along the way. Amazes me he got away as many times as he did.9/19/2005 9:38 pm (et) archieclement: summer of 1862, is the only time groups were sent for the sole purpose of recruiting
9/19/2005 9:38 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Quantrill certainly had the ability to adapt tactics to his purpose9/19/2005 9:38 pm (et) Babs: and to think that Q started out as a "detective for the Deleware" whatever the heck that means.
9/19/2005 9:38 pm (et) Harry: Groups? I thought you said officers were sent back. My bad, then.9/19/2005 9:39 pm (et) ks: We're jumping all over chapter - wise tonight. :) Kind of hard to not do so though with this read, or these chapters anyway.
9/19/2005 9:39 pm (et) Harry: Babs, I think he SAID he was a detective.9/19/2005 9:39 pm (et) archieclement: groups of officers were sent
9/19/2005 9:39 pm (et) Babs: You mean Q would lie!?!?!??9/19/2005 9:39 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Reality and what Quantrill said were two different things, he claimed to be a detective.
9/19/2005 9:39 pm (et) archieclement: to each prewar district of the state guard9/19/2005 9:40 pm (et) ks: Right. He claimed to be a detective for the Delaware. But I've no idea why the Delaware needed a detective anyway.
9/19/2005 9:40 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG. Reasons why he started using alibis have yet to be fully discussed...and am talking even before he became a guerilla.9/19/2005 9:40 pm (et) Harry: Columbo, Monk, and Quantrill? Hard to picture...
9/19/2005 9:40 pm (et) Babs: I'm so disillusioned9/19/2005 9:41 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Probably no way to check on his claim, so it sounded good
9/19/2005 9:41 pm (et) ks: Now something I did appreciate Leslie doing in this chapter was listing reasons why Missourians fought.9/19/2005 9:41 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Good point, why did he use alias' ?
9/19/2005 9:41 pm (et) Harry: Base...yeah, there are a whole lot of "for some reasons" and "Inexplicablies" in Leslie's text that I think are not too difficult to figure out.9/19/2005 9:42 pm (et) Basecat: ks..and in that instance, he got it right...Had no idea that the majority of the folks in the state did not wish to secede.
9/19/2005 9:43 pm (et) Harry: I may sound harsher on Leslie than I mean to be...my two gripes are poor methodology and a distinct bias, but the book is still good.9/19/2005 9:43 pm (et) ks: But he does state that no motive more than revenge prompted those who went to the Quantrill side. bluelady...are you thinking of Barton and Para again? ;)
9/19/2005 9:43 pm (et) archieclement: that was the dilemma base9/19/2005 9:44 pm (et) Harry: Base...I found it interesting that many saw the St. Louis Germans as "foreigners". I don't think there were a whole boatload of native born Missourians about...
9/19/2005 9:44 pm (et) Basecat: Harry, as you said earlier, it is a good read, but find I have more questions after reading it.9/19/2005 9:44 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I don't know Harry, for a book to claim to be "The TRUE " story, I think we can expect good methodology.
9/19/2005 9:44 pm (et) Harry: KS...except of coourse for Quantrill himself. I find that a little hard to believe myself.9/19/2005 9:44 pm (et) archieclement: most didn't want to secede, but didn't want to fight our sister states either
9/19/2005 9:46 pm (et) Harry: I gotta try the spell check tool on this new Google toolbar. Anybody tried it yet?9/19/2005 9:46 pm (et) Basecat: Harry, Have no clue why Germans were called Dutch...same thing here in the east...
9/19/2005 9:46 pm (et) Harry: That's easy, Base. "Deutch" to dutch.9/19/2005 9:46 pm (et) archieclement: which is understandable when ones considers a lot of the rural areas were settled from Ky and Tenn.
9/19/2005 9:46 pm (et) Basecat: ks..and I tend to think those who joined up with Q wanted revenge, and were not adverse to sharing in the plunder as well.9/19/2005 9:47 pm (et) ks: Bingo!! That's it exactly for me, AHG. The title of the book being the "TRUE" story. I thought more along the lines of the collected myths, half truths and fabrications....
9/19/2005 9:47 pm (et) amhistoryguy: As a leader, how much responsibility should Q shoulder for the "cold blooded murder of civillians?"9/19/2005 9:47 pm (et) ks: Not I, Harry.
9/19/2005 9:47 pm (et) Harry: Base...I tend to believe that most were looking for plunder first.9/19/2005 9:49 pm (et) Harry: As they said in the Great Movie "Though I be lying, theiving, murderous Missouri scum..."
9/19/2005 9:49 pm (et) ks: As I read again I pictured Arnold Schofield (who was the Historian at Ft. Scott) as he addressed our group June 2003. He BOOMED as he related that the KS/MO story was one of R & R...REVENGE and RETRIBUTION!9/19/2005 9:49 pm (et) Harry: (Just kidding)
9/19/2005 9:49 pm (et) archieclement: which I thought was good that Leslie pointed out most Missourians weren't slaveholders, our ties to the south were more blood than idealogy9/19/2005 9:50 pm (et) ks: There were plenty of lying, thieving, murderous scum on both sides of the KS/MO line, Harry. :)
9/19/2005 9:50 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Agree with you...Any book that includes in the title, The True Story, makes me wonder if it was written by Marty McFly and the Doc.:)9/19/2005 9:50 pm (et) Harry: AHG...I should think he should shoulder a ton of it.
9/19/2005 9:50 pm (et) ks: For good measure, here comes the last chapter title and spiel.....9/19/2005 9:50 pm (et) ks:
”The Bullets Were Whizzing Thick and Fast Around Me”: Ambushes and Reprisals
Henry Halleck responds to Q’s hit and run tactics and cold-blooded murder of civilians with a proclamation that outlaws guerrillas and promise that “they will not, if captured, be treated as ordinary prisoners of war, but will be hung as robbers and murderers.” Thoughts on the “no-quarter” manner of fighting that resulted?
9/19/2005 9:51 pm (et) Basecat: Arch, Which I agree with, and the same can be said for the majority of those who fought for the Confederacy...9/19/2005 9:51 pm (et) Harry: Why does Jim Lane take so much crap for one bad picture?
9/19/2005 9:51 pm (et) Basecat: ks...seems to me it was no quarter even before it was officially proclaimed by Halleck in his order.9/19/2005 9:51 pm (et) Harry: You know what bugged me the most about this chapter? Why did they have to chase the innkeeper at Aubry out into the fields and murder him?
9/19/2005 9:51 pm (et) ks: I don't know. And I love that picture, Harry. Found his hair pretty cool. :)9/19/2005 9:52 pm (et) Harry: Elaborate comb over on a windy day?
9/19/2005 9:52 pm (et) Harry: That's been bugging me since I read it, that innkeeper.9/19/2005 9:53 pm (et) Basecat: If it was windy, that photo would have been blurred...so thus, that was how his hair looked..;)
9/19/2005 9:53 pm (et) archieclement: I liked the guy sent to chase Q, never made contact, but netted 107 prisoners9/19/2005 9:53 pm (et) ks: Actually I'm biased, Harry. With ref to Lane's hair...I know a historian who "does" Lane at Fort Scott. I've said this in chat before, but the first time I saw him I was doing a Bleeding Kansas weekend. Kids and I were all dressed out and they came running to me telling me about this guy in the parking lot who was moussing his hair and had on a bear skin coat. I *knew* who had to be approaching. The guy was awesome.
9/19/2005 9:54 pm (et) Basecat: Harry...Just shows there was no mind or matter out there...two mobs just running around doing what they please...9/19/2005 9:54 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Halleck's no quarter policy was an excuse, for Q and for Leslie to point out that Quantrill now had reason to be a bloodthirsty bushwacker.
9/19/2005 9:55 pm (et) Harry: AHG...not that he wasn't BEFORE the policy...9/19/2005 9:55 pm (et) ks: Who pointed out in the book that a Guerilla's purpose is to KILL, not be killed? Don't recall if that was a quote of a bushwhacker or Leslie's thought.
9/19/2005 9:56 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Which is why I asked the question of his responsibility for murders before the policy.9/19/2005 9:56 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG, and look at what happened, majority of those caught were not killed on the spot either...taken back for trial etc..Not saying trials were fair, either, but Halleck's order was not really obeyed, IMHO.
9/19/2005 9:56 pm (et) archieclement: think thats kinda any soldiers goal9/19/2005 9:57 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I agree with you Harry, despite what Leslie claims, Q had his share of murders prior to the no quarter policy of Halleck
9/19/2005 9:57 pm (et) Harry: ks...that was a quite from Castel, I believe. And quite revealing...A partisan's function is to kill. Not to obtain objectives.9/19/2005 9:57 pm (et) ks: Thought so as well, archie.
9/19/2005 9:58 pm (et) archieclement: never heard any grop say their goal is to be killed, and not kill:)9/19/2005 9:58 pm (et) amhistoryguy: It was a free for all of violence, on both sides, but the notion that Q was somehow justified by Halleck's order is way off the mark, IMO
9/19/2005 9:58 pm (et) archieclement: oops group9/19/2005 9:59 pm (et) Harry: But the role of a partisan is simply to kill, which is quite different from the role of soldiers in armies.
9/19/2005 9:59 pm (et) archieclement: to kill is the objective harry9/19/2005 9:59 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG...and think he thought more of getting first blood under these "rules" than even thinking about the man he shot and killed.
9/19/2005 9:59 pm (et) Harry: Now, Mosby was a little different in that he went after trains etc..., and I assume at some point Quantrill is going to do this too. But I haven't seen much of that yet.9/19/2005 10:00 pm (et) archieclement: you could say the goal for a portion of the federal forces was the same
9/19/2005 10:00 pm (et) Babs: It's a wonder anyone ever got any mail.9/19/2005 10:00 pm (et) Harry: archie ...to defeat the enemy is the objective. To win the war is the objective. That sometimes (usually) requires killing, but it is not the ultimate objective.
9/19/2005 10:00 pm (et) Basecat: Harry..thought of Mosby while reading this tonight as well...and he really did not get nasty in the eye for an eye nonsense until late in the war.9/19/2005 10:01 pm (et) Harry: I'm failing to see here that Quantrill had any grasp of or notion of his role in the overall objective of winning the war fro the CSA.
9/19/2005 10:01 pm (et) amhistoryguy: That may be what makes Q and his bunch, along with other bushwackers unique, killing and plundering came first.9/19/2005 10:02 pm (et) Basecat: Babs..:) Good point...am surprised they even tried to deliver it, and found it interesting that the one officer told his superiors that he was sending out secesh mail carriers to make sure it got thru.
9/19/2005 10:02 pm (et) archieclement: but when we're talking about Jayhawkers and Bushwhackers we are'nt talking of the armies9/19/2005 10:02 pm (et) Harry: AHG, and I think it is also what makes them something other than soldiers fighting a war.
9/19/2005 10:02 pm (et) ks: Harry, nor do I see that Q had any notion of his role in that way. He role was to extract revenge and kill.9/19/2005 10:03 pm (et) Harry: ks...what revenge was Q exacting?
9/19/2005 10:03 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Although Leslie claims, Q saw himself as a soldier dedicated to the Confederate cause.9/19/2005 10:03 pm (et) archieclement: they are hardly unique, Lanes jennison Montgomery were the same except operating under federal authority
9/19/2005 10:04 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG...which begs to be asked again..when did he sign up?? :)9/19/2005 10:04 pm (et) Harry: Archie, that's not a minor difference.
9/19/2005 10:05 pm (et) ks: How about the perception of the collapse of the...have I read ahead in mentioning the women who were killed in the prison collapse? Not recalling at the moment.9/19/2005 10:05 pm (et) archieclement: the perception was correct ks:)
9/19/2005 10:06 pm (et) Harry: ks...you're OK...but that doesn't explain Q's "revenge" excuse. He didn't have any peeps in the building.9/19/2005 10:06 pm (et) ks: I mean the collapse being no accident in the guerrillas minds. Was it, archie? I thought in the notes the Leslie said that wasn't correct except according to Goodrich...
9/19/2005 10:06 pm (et) Basecat: ks...No, that was included in the homework tonight...and can see why Cole Younger would feel as he did after that happened in KC. Does not explain why Q had a need for revenge though, unless he was doing so for his friends who lost loved ones there.9/19/2005 10:06 pm (et) archieclement: the building was weakened, the only question is what motive
9/19/2005 10:07 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Another source claims August 15, 1862, as the date of Quantrill's commission into the Confederate Army9/19/2005 10:07 pm (et) ks: Justified (in his mind anyway) more bloodshed though, didn't it?
9/19/2005 10:07 pm (et) Basecat: Thanks AMHG...9/19/2005 10:07 pm (et) Basecat: ks..Exactly...
9/19/2005 10:07 pm (et) ks: Don't some sources say the women themselves weakened it in an escape attempt?9/19/2005 10:07 pm (et) Harry: ks...come on, now. Are you trying to tell me Q needed justification? I;m not saying some of his men didn't, but him?
9/19/2005 10:08 pm (et) archieclement: not sure if it really influenced Q ks9/19/2005 10:08 pm (et) archieclement: never heard that ks, and have read several accounts
9/19/2005 10:08 pm (et) Basecat: Tend to think he used that event to his advantage though.9/19/2005 10:08 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Official Reports of the collapse claim that the undermining of the building was due to an escape tunnel being dug. The structure was also weakened by soldiers removing supports to create more room. combined, it created an accident.
9/19/2005 10:09 pm (et) Harry: Austin Powers would describe Q as the frew-its of e-vile.9/19/2005 10:09 pm (et) archieclement: most accounts have supports being removed to simply make more room for the guards
9/19/2005 10:09 pm (et) ks: No, I'm not telling you that, Harry. :) But I'm saying he could point to some events and "claim" justification. Sometimes doing so after the fact IMO.9/19/2005 10:10 pm (et) Harry: Maybe it was the same guys who weakend the levee's in NO?
9/19/2005 10:10 pm (et) Harry: Levees, I meant.9/19/2005 10:10 pm (et) ks: And it's another time that my not being up to snuff on current movies leaves me not understanding at all...frew-its of e-vile....fruits of evil?
9/19/2005 10:10 pm (et) amhistoryguy: That was Shermans bunch wasn't it?9/19/2005 10:10 pm (et) Harry: Base...think you're right. Think of the PR.
9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) Basecat: ks...BTW..Thought of the scene in RWTD, when Leslie was describing one of the escapes Q and his men made from one of the houses...kicking open a whole in the back of the house etc...9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) archieclement: the prison collapse I doubt affected Q much one way or the other, he just captilized on it
9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) Harry: ks..you got it.9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) archieclement: now Anderson on the other hand......
9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) Basecat: Arch...Yeah..that ticked him off..:)9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Agree with you there archie
9/19/2005 10:11 pm (et) Harry: And to maximize the PR effect, the whole "engineered collapse" angle is a good one from Q's standpoint.9/19/2005 10:12 pm (et) Harry: Maybe this is where Farrakan got the idea?
9/19/2005 10:12 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Interesting that one of the girls seriously injured, was not really a prisoner, but chose to stay with her sister.9/19/2005 10:12 pm (et) ks: Basecat, so did I (think of the escape scene in RWTD). :)
9/19/2005 10:13 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The women regularily were allowed to leave the building during the day.9/19/2005 10:13 pm (et) Babs: If another movie reference is allowed... Did anyone notice that in the first chapter of tonight's reading and woman was described as having "huge tracts of land"?
9/19/2005 10:13 pm (et) Basecat: ks..seeing as Lawrence will be up front and center next week..Knowing you have been there more than any of us in here, just how does the city commemorate it's role in CW History??9/19/2005 10:13 pm (et) archieclement: Btw I read one account, I think Castels, one of the girls was 14 and couldn't jump as the building went down due to the guards had shackled her to a ball and chain:(
9/19/2005 10:13 pm (et) Harry: "But father, I don't want all that, I just want to sing!"9/19/2005 10:14 pm (et) Babs: Harry, :^)
9/19/2005 10:14 pm (et) archieclement: think a 14 yr old girl could be controlled without a ball and chain9/19/2005 10:14 pm (et) Harry: Me and you, Babs.
9/19/2005 10:15 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Lawrence has a great walking tour and a fantastic little pamphlet with all the building damage listed along with a chronology of the event. Great publication9/19/2005 10:15 pm (et) Harry: archie...I can't tell you, I never tried it. Though the thought has occured to me over the course of 4 neice's lifetimes.
9/19/2005 10:16 pm (et) ks: I'd think so, archie. But anything we think about it is conjecture, isn't it?9/19/2005 10:16 pm (et) archieclement: I would love to tour Lawrence, do they have candlelight tours:)
9/19/2005 10:17 pm (et) Harry: That's pretty funny, archie!!!9/19/2005 10:17 pm (et) BaylorDan: enters the chatroom.
9/19/2005 10:17 pm (et) ks: arch, :)9/19/2005 10:18 pm (et) archieclement: you want to get the atmosphere right harry:)
9/19/2005 10:18 pm (et) Harry: Hey, is it too late to change my screen name to davidberkowitz?9/19/2005 10:19 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Are you hearing voices Harry?
9/19/2005 10:19 pm (et) Harry: Only the one's telling me to hunt you down...9/19/2005 10:20 pm (et) Babs: Are PM's authorized yet?
9/19/2005 10:20 pm (et) archieclement: LOL harry, my real name is Booth, have found CW chats easier picking someone more obscure:)9/19/2005 10:21 pm (et) ks: I think we can draw to a close, Babs. I've been trying to catch some comments I obviously missed earlier. :)
9/19/2005 10:22 pm (et) ks: Any comments left to be made about Q and/or these chapters?9/19/2005 10:24 pm (et) ks: It was difficult to even try to stick with chapters tonight. Have the feeling that next week it'll be one big examination of the massacre. Should be interesting. Again, chapter 7 - 9
RETURN TO INTRO PAGE
GO TO CHAT FOR CHAPTERS 7,8, & 9