William Quantrill: Murderer or Soldier?
Sunday November 8, 2009
The controversy swirls around William Clarke Quantrill. Some people would consider him a patriot of the South, doing his part again Northern tyranny. Others would consider him to be a lawless butcher that took advantage of the disarray brought about by the Civil War to assuage his need for brutality and cruelty. Which was he? Read this article to get a historical look at this controversial man.
Comments
Classic quandry set up by winners writing the history books. Had the South won the war, there’d be no question, Quantrill is a hero, General Sherman is Satan incarnate. Since the North won…….
Quantrill was a product of his times. he was probably less cruel and murderous than the average Kansas Redleg or “Jayhawker”,and definately less of a fanatic than Lane or Jennison. The raid on Lawrence was a just retaliation for the many incursions by the Kansans, and no more violent than the examples left by anti-slavery parties. One cannot judge him without also judging the forces that help draw out his anger and vengeance.
Where is the modern Quantrill. We need his ferocity, determination, and tactical capabilities to protect our southern borders from the invading hordes of the Civil War II.
Quantrill was clearly a murdering opportunist. Slaughtering 150 noncombatants is despicable and cowardly, regardless of the era in which he lived. Sure, he wasn’t the only one who committed such atrocities (both sides did), but you don’t justify unconscienable behavior by providing other examples of immoral actions. Honorable soldiers such as Lee and Grant never slaughtered innocents. Quantrill was nothing more than a common criminal who murdered, terrorized and looted indiscriminately.
War is War. Think of all the unarmed civilians (german and japanese) we killed with bombs in WW11. He was a warrior doing what he could to hasten the end. I have no problem with that
How can anyone in their right mind consider
Quantrill a hero. He was nothing but a murdering thief. No cammander in his right mind
would sanction what he and his men did. Comparing him to William T Sherman was an insult
to Sherman. What Sherman did was an act of war,
meant to break the backbone of the South. As far as I know the man never killed, robbed or
did anything else. Sherman was a carreer army
man. Quantrill was an opportunist who took
advantage of the Civil War to rob murder and
loot. Sherman led a path of destruction throughout the South But it was in time of
war and then you do what you must do to defeat
the enemy. Repeating Quantrill was nothing
short of a robber and murderer
Saying Sherman was a career Army man means nothing. The south had the constitutional right to succeed from the union,so really who was the in the wrong. The union federals were the first to show occupation and aggression. Men like Quantrill,and those that rode with him like the James Gang, Bloody Bill Anderson and such, had every right to protect themselves from these hordes. Many of their family was slaughtered at the hand of agents that worked for the railroads and federal banks. You saying Sherman never killed anyone is not a fact. They slaughtered many innocents including women and children, not to mention burning everything in their path(kind of makes me think of Waco, Gordon Kahl,and such). In my eyes and what I have studied these were fearless Christian men doing what most didn’t have the guts or spine to do. May God rest his soul.
The raiders on both sides of the war were nothing more then murderers and thieves using the conflict to their advantage. I don’t remember any incidents where Sherman ordered “no quarter” and lined up an 150 men, including boys and old men, and execute them. There is no excuse for that. No matter how you try to paint it, he was a murderer, just not the only one.
there is no action too extreme when defending ones home. & if sherman had been defending his, he would be a hero too
quantrell was obviously a man in search of power, when he found that there was no opportunity for such with the free staters he went where he could pursue his wants. my family has lived in missouri since 1850 and were at ground zero for alot of the attrocities. they were abused by both union and confederate. they also had family members on both sides of the conflict. was quantrell a zelot? yes, but if john brown would have had his way i think he would have made quantrell look like a cheerleader.
How does ones geographical location figure in with the comments? There are several “black and white” comments on Quantrill…does family background affect viewpoint?
I just researched Bloody Bill Anderson who was with Quantrille at Lawrence, Ks. May I suggest you see what the Union did to their womenfolk just before that. It does throw a diff light on the subject
Quantrill was a product of his times. He was definately no worse than the murderous jayhawkers or redlegs led by Jim Lane, Doc Jennison, or Kansas trash like them. In fact, had these terrorists stayed out of Missouri, it is probable that Quantrill, being pro-Southern, would have stayed with General Sterling Price’s Confederate troops and played a cavalry role. The Lawrence raid was a just retribution for the hundreds of Missourians murdered by the Kansans, giving them a bitter taste of their own medicine.
Yes, Quantrill was both a Confederate and a Missouri Patriot, defending his homeland against a ruthless and cowardly invader, and his memory should be preserved as that of a man who did what he had to in defense of his state.
Count to 2; no need to be caught on the horns of a dilemma. He was both hero and villian, both soldier and criminal, but seemingly not both brutal and kind, and his improving his income seems more a motivation than earning an honest living as a school teacher or teamster. That certain Union soldiers did similar things does not justify the horrendous actions of either the Union or the Confederacy. Think of Chivington at Sand Creek hero of Glorieta Pass and anti Indian villian as an example. It is one reason attempts have been made to institutute more humane war agreements. Rationalizing such inhumane actions as typical of their time or our time does not excuse them and only strengthens them. Tit for tat only increases tat and tit. We don’t always have to choose sides but can recognize degree of evil.
Rationalizing evil is obviously evil. Slavery is evil and had it not existed there might not have been a Civil War and more killed than in all other American wars combined. There are degrees of cause and motivation and the South’s decision to continue slavery should be considered an evil despite so many thinking it was necessary to their “way of live”. An irony? False dicotomy is not helpful.
And thinking those in Missouri fought for their state seems to ignore that Missouri remained in the Union as did Kentucky where the “hero” ended his patriotism. There were many southern “Unionists” as well, estimated 120, 000 in the Union army; not as many northern “rebels” who fought for the South. So considering C’s unionist upbringing, he was atypical? Possible indication he was motivated more by loot than support of slavery? Today tea partiers of somewhat various persuasions present themselves as representing the “American people” but obviously represent only some of the people. They are not specifically clear about their oppositions. Perhaps sweeping generalized declarations involing either/or mentality? Such mentality might seem brave rather than stubborn and foolish? Much war exists because of unwillingness to compromise?