Bleeding Kansas..The war before the War

[Quantrill]

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. This would begin the fighting in Kansas which would spill over and affect Missouri also. This Bill changed the way a state would enter the Union. Before, it was based upon the 1820 Missouri Compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska Act said that now the people of the territories would vote to decide if they entered the Union as a free or slave state. Before, the congress and government decided how a state entered based upon the 36 degree 30' line, north of which slavery was prohibited.

The South was pleased and the North was furious. The Kansas-Nebraska Act literally did away with the Missouri Compromise, which some already believed was done away with by the Compromise of 1850 in allowing California to be entered in as a free state though much of it's territory was below the Missouri Compromise line. That benefited the North and gave them the edge in the balance of power between free and slave states. The South at that time didn't complain much because the land west didn't favor the use and need for slaves.

In reality, Kansas probably didn't favor the use and need for slaves either, but the balance of power became an issue if one was labeled a free or slave state. And, if one was a free state, the slave owner in the South couldn't bring his slaves with him to that state. Now that the people of the territory decided if the State was to be free or slave, immediately immigration societies were created in the North to send as many people as possible to Kansas to vote for a free State. The South, and especially Missouri, responded in like manner.

Thus the stage was set for the war before the War.

Quantrill

 

[odanny]

Didn’t Quantrill end up getting punked by Bloody Bill Anderson? Glad they all got what they deserved in the end, especially after their massacre of unarmed civilians.

 

[Quantrill]

Didn’t Quantrill end up getting punked by Bloody Bill Anderson? Glad they all got what they deserved in the end, especially after their massacre of unarmed civilians.

Well, among guerilla bands you will have a main leader , but then other leaders or Lieutenants below. Anderson was one and George Todd another, and others. A rift had been growing between them and Quantrill. Anderson separated with his men when Quantrill blamed him for the murder of a Confederate officer, I believe. And was going to turn him over to Confederate authorities. Instead, Anderson went with his men to the authorities and blamed Quantrill for the murder. Which resulted in a planned capture of Quantrill. But Quantrill and his men escaped.

George Todd held a grievance against Quantrill for a long time for not putting him as Second in Command. And overtime begin planning a takeover. They were playing cards and Todd was accused of cheating by Quantrill. Which he had been accused of doing before. But Todd was ready for what would occur next and pulled his gun first. Instead of fighting it out, Quantrill and the men still with him left Todd and his men.

This would be maybe 1863 or 1864. Some of those that had been with Quantrill from the start had been slowly leaving due to the savagery of some of the killings. And it was turning very savage.

Thus you now had several guerilla bands operating against yankees. Todd, and Anderson, and Quantrill, and probably others. All were ruthless, but Anderson exceeded them all I believe. And much of what Anderson did was naturally attributed to Quantrill.

The massacre of civilians is correct to a point. But some things need to be noted.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

History is fluid, as is often said. Nothing 'just' happens. Things have preceded an event or person that leads up to that. The bombing of Pearl Harbor didn't 'just' happen. The planes crashing into the twin towers didn't 'just' happen. And the ruthlessness of Quantrill and his men didn't 'just' happen. Things led up to it, creating it.

As the title of this thread indicates, 'Bleeding Kansas' was the war before the War Between The States. It began in 1854 and continued into the War Between The States, which started in 1861, bleeding over into Missouri. And what started it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act presented by Stephen Douglas, senator from Illinois.

Stephen Douglas preached 'popular sovereignty'. And he was instrumental in getting the Compromise of 1850 passed which allowed California to be admitted as a free State, and it also allowed Utah and New Mexico to determine for themselves whether or not they wanted to be a free or slave State. Thus the Compromise of 1850 ignored the Missouri Compromise of 1820 whereby the government prohibited slavery above the 36 degree 30' line. But when the Compromise of 1850 was being pushed through, no one was declaring that it did away with the Missouri Compromise of 1820. As far as the populace knew, the Missouri Compromise was still in affect and would always be.

But with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Douglas used the Compromise of 1850, which was based on 'popular sovereignty, as proof that the Missouri Compromise had been removed in 1850, in order now to pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act which was based on popular sovereignty.

And this is why the North was so angry over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It clearly stated the Missouri Compromise was dead, and had been dead since 1850. They felt that they had been scammed. Lied to. And thus they rabidly now created those immigration societies to pour free soilers into Kansas to make Kansas a free state. They were not going to wait for the natural movement of peoples to take place in Kansas who would then vote on whether or not to be a free or slave state. They were angry and the population of Kansas would now be furthered in anger. Which made the South angry and prompted them to encourage the movement of their people into Kansas.

Kansas was being peopled by a bunch of anger and hate on both sides. The war that would take place there was now inevitable.

See (Ordeal Of The Union, Allan Nevins, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947, chapter 4, p. 122-159) for which much of this information comes and to obtain more as there is more there.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

One of these immigration societies was created by Eli Thayer. It was called, 'Eli Thayer's New England Emigrant Aide Company. And it's purpose was to raise money for any who wanted to settle in Kansas. He hated slavery and wanted to remove it. Edward E. Leslie in his book (The Devil Knows How To Ride, Da Capo Press, 1996) quotes Thayer:

"the way to do this was to go to the prairies of Kansas and show the superiority of the free labor civilization; to go with all our free labor trophies: churches and schools, printing-presses, steam-engines, and mills; and in a peaceful contest convince every poor [white] man from the South of the superiority of free labor." p. (7)

It's hard to imagine where he got the idea all would be 'peaceful' When such an issue created anger and hate in the political realm, there is no way it would be peaceful with the people. The hate and anger in the politicians' breast existed in the everyday people also. And many from Missouri would also go to Kansas to help the slavery cause.

In the first of Thayer's parties were two men who would have considerable affect in Kansas. Dr. Don Doy and Daniel Anthony. Doy planned to start an underground railroad there and send slaves to freedom. And Anthony would become Mayor of Leavenworth and publish an abolitionist newspaper. (Leslie, p. 8)

Again, 'peaceful' was not part of the Emigration society, no matter what they claimed. How can you be peaceful and be breaking the law. And it was this very thing that Missouri feared, because it would inevitably lead to stealing slaves from the Southern slaveholder and then sending them to freedom. And they didn't want that next door to them.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Remember, these are 'good citizens' that the Emigration Society is sending into Kansas. And just so happens these good slave hating citizens built a town not far from the Missouri border.

"The location had actually been chosen for them by an advance agent of Thayer's company, Dr. Charles Robinson, a physician and future first governor of the state. They named the town Lawrence after Amos A. Lawrence, the Boston financier who was the benefactor of the New England Emigrant Aide Company." (Edward E. Leslie, The Devil Knows How To Ride, Da Capo Press, 1998, p. 8)

So this town of Lawrence became the center of the Emigration Society's work. A booming new town of 'good people', good citizens from New England.

It became, "an abolitionist stronghold. Citizens formed gangs and raided nearby proslavery settlements, and Lawrence became a headquarters for jayhawkers--bands of disreputable guerillas who proclaimed their loyalty to the Union while pillaging and murdering." (Leslie, p. 8)

Gee, we are seeing Northern guerillas before Quantrill ever arrived. How about that? Can't beat that 'peaceful' Emigration Society from the North. Remember, these are just good citizens.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The Kansas-Nebraska Act did nothing for the South. It was pushed by a Yankee, Stephen Douglas. He was a Northern Democrat but still a Yankee. It was fueled by the 'popular sovereignty' belief. Which was a loser for the South from the beginning as the North had the greater population and the press could work them up into a frenzy where thousands upon thousands would flood Kansas to keep it out of Southernors hands. Which is what took place.

Most Southernors were not all that concerned over the Nebraska-Kansas question. But because they were democrats most of the Southern Democrats would support it. Yet some voted against it and warned that this was no good for the South. All it did was anger the North and motivated their hatred against the South.

But, once the South saw the North's reaction and sending so many to Kansas with nothing but guns, and Bibles, and printing presses, then they started sending their own men over to sway the vote also. Just as Lawrence was the capitol of abolitionist Yankees. Lecompton Kansas became the capitol for Southern pro-slavery men.

Some terms good to know from (The Devil Knows How To Ride, Edward E. Leslie, Da Capo Press, 1998)

Border Ruffian--usually applied to a low class of Southern men viewed as riffraff and ballot stuffers. p. (10)

Jayhawker--a Unionist who claims to be serving the government by robbing, murdering, and burning out Rebels. p. (29)

Redleg--a Nothernor who is more a thief and murderer than the Jayhawker. p. (29)

Bushwhacker--a Rebel Jayhawker against the Yankees. p. (29)

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

So, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in 1854. In 1855, John Brown and his five sons make it to Kansas to start a 'guerilla war' against slave holders. Also, in 1855 a man named 'Jim Lane' comes to Kansas. Lane didn't give a shit about blacks but thought that freeing a bunch of slaves would help destroy the South. (The Devil Knows How To Ride, Edward E. Leslie, Da Capo Press, 1998, p. 11)

Jim Lane gained a reputation and came to be known as the 'Grim Chieftain Of Kansas'. He was a former Lt. Governor of Indiana and was a U.S. congressman who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He had political ties to high up officials. (Leslie, p. 11)

"Beginning in 1856, he led a series of brutal pillage-and-burn raids in eastern Kansas and western Missouri." (Leslie, p. 12) Now Missouri had been a state since 1821. So Lane is attacking a State in the United States.

Kansas was a territory but Missouri was a State of the Union. And what did the Union do? Nothing. Why? Because Missouri was a Southern slave holding state. And the U.S. government didn't really care if a Southern State was attacked. Just like they would not care when John Brown attacked the Southern State of Virginia. And worse, helped John Brown in his effort.

More proof of first shots fired starting the War Between the States, by the North.

Quantrill

 

[longly]

Accuracy Didn’t Quantrill end up getting punked by Bloody Bill Anderson? Glad they all got what they deserved in the end, especially after their massacre of unarmed civilians.

In fact, it was actually John Brown who first to escalate the violence at the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre Where he drugged five men out of their homes in the middle of night and slashed them to death with swords. When tensions keep rising like that, you have to expect those kinds of things. An insurgency is the worst kind of war, it’s really little more than murder carried out by both sides. Both pro‑slavery and anti‑slavery forces committed atrocities. But the North was just following the dictates of God who commanded him to act so they went to heaven when they died.

The U.S. government probably contributed to what happened with Anderson’s three sisters. They were held in a jail that was about to collapse, and officials tried to use that situation to pressure him into surrendering. When the jail did collapse and two of his sisters were killed, that’s when he snapped and earned the name “Bloody Bill” Anderson.

The irony is that Missouri was Southern in heritage, yet there were actually very few slaves in Missouri.

 

[Quantrill]

In fact, it was actually John Brown who first to escalate the violence at the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre Where he drugged five men out of their homes in the middle of night and slashed them to death with swords. When tensions keep rising like that, you have to expect those kinds of things. An insurgency is the worst kind of war, it’s really little more than murder carried out by both sides. Both pro‑slavery and anti‑slavery forces committed atrocities. But the North was just following the dictates of God who commanded him to act so they went to heaven when they died.

The U.S. government probably contributed to what happened with Anderson’s three sisters. They were held in a jail that was about to collapse, and officials tried to use that situation to pressure him into surrendering. When the jail did collapse and two of his sisters were killed, that’s when he snapped and earned the name “Bloody Bill” Anderson.

The irony is that Missouri was Southern in heritage, yet there were actually very few slaves in Missouri.

John Brown certainly escalated the violence in his murder of 5 men in Kansas. His anger and hatred was fueled by the recent destruction of the town of Lawrence by pro-slavery men. Lawrence was an abolitionist Yankee stronghold. A pro-slavery sheriff had been trying to serve warrants and arrest some anti-slavery men there but had been resisted and even shot in his efforts. As a result he would gather a large number of men and attack the town of Lawrence.

This was not the raid of Quantrill on Lawrence which would come later. Lawrence was a lightning rod for attacks as it was the center of the free-soiler abolitionists, as has already been said. In this raid there was much destruction and burning down of buildings etc. etc. But there was no loss of life. None were threatened. Just much property damage.

Neither John Brown and his men or Jim Lane were present in Lawrence at that time. John Brown was in Kansas but not in Lawrence. And the men of Lawrence fled when this attack began, so there was no resistance. When Brown heard of this, his insanity kicked in and he begin his plotting of murder in a gruesome manner to make a statement. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

But, it really wasn't eye for eye/tooth for tooth, because no one in Lawrence was killed. So Brown definitely raised the stakes. All of this was before the War Between The States started. Brown murdered the 5 men in May of 1856.

Bill Anderson's sisters, four I believe, were murdered in 1863, as well as other young girls related to Quantrill's men. The war was two years old by then. It was still murder. And it certainly pushed Anderson over the edge. A lot of Yankees died as a result of that...and many not too pleasantly.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. The South was pleased and the North was furious. The Kansas-Nebraska Act literally did away with the Missouri Compromise. . . ..

Actually, many Northerners supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act was sponsored by a prominent Northern politician, Senator Stephen Douglas, and was popular among many Northern Democrats and pro-Southern or neutral Whigs.

The act spelled the doom of slavery in the territories. It quickly became clear that no territory would enter the Union as a slave state. Although initially all the territories were technically open for settlement by slaveholders, only a literal handful of slaveholders moved to the territories, precisely because they soon realized that slavery had no future in the territories thanks to the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

This is one big reason that the Republicans' refusal to compromise on slavery in the territories was so misguided and senseless. Agreeing to a restoration and extension of the Missouri Compromise line of 36-30, as desired by Southern leaders, would have been a harmless and meaningless compromise, a compromise that would have done nothing to improve slavery's chances of extending westward. It would have been an uneventful, token compromise.

Southern leaders were being stubborn and unreasonable in insisting on the "right" of slaveholders to take their "property" into all the territories, even the territories that outlawed slavery. The 11 Southern states had approximately 750,000 square miles of space, which was ample room for 3.5 million slaves, even for 5.0 million slaves.

 

[Quantrill]

Actually, many Northerners supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act was sponsored by a prominent Northern politician, Senator Stephen Douglas, and was popular among many Northern Democrats and pro-Southern or neutral Whigs.

The act spelled the doom of slavery in the territories. It quickly became clear that no territory would enter the Union as a slave state. Although initially all the territories were technically open for settlement by slaveholders, only a literal handful of slaveholders moved to the territories, precisely because they soon realized that slavery had no future in the territories thanks to the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

This is one big reason that the Republicans' refusal to compromise on slavery in the territories was so misguided and senseless. Agreeing to a restoration and extension of the Missouri Compromise line of 36-30, as desired by Southern leaders, would have been a harmless and meaningless compromise, a compromise that would have done nothing to improve slavery's chances of extending westward. It would have been an uneventful, token compromise.

Southern leaders were being stubborn and unreasonable in insisting on the "right" of slaveholders to take their "property" into all the territories, even the territories that outlawed slavery. The 11 Southern states had approximately 750,000 square miles of space, which was ample room for 3.5 million slaves, even for 5.0 million slaves.

Your combining my statements together as one as one, in post #(1) is deceptive. In between those statements was information given and after the statements information was given, as to why, which you ignore. Just as you ignore posts (#4) and (7) also.

The reaction of the North was based upon their belief that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was still in effect. That Compromise divided the free states from the slave states with the 36 degree 30' latitude line. But Douglas used the 1850 Compromise as proof that the Missouri Compromise was removed by the 1850 Compromise with the admission of New Mexico and Utah. A Compromise he had helped push through. But when pushing it through, he never made the argument that the Missouri Compromise was done away with. And all were still under the impression it was still in effect. See post #(7).

The quotes given come from: (Ordeal Of The Union, Allan Nevins, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947)

"For thirty-three years the Missouri Compromise had truly been enshrined in Northern hearts. Did he not realize that any sudden attempt to overthrow it would raise the greatest storm of the generation? Of course he did...." p. (107)

"Beyond doubt he partly underestimated the force of Northern indignation, and partly despised it whatever its intensity." p. (107)

"When indignation welled up like the ocean lashed by a hurricane he was amazed." p. (108)

"And when the measure was presented, added Blair, its object weas first veiled, then half-unveiled, and when at last fully disclosed was justified by the assertion that the Compromise of 1850 had done what nobody who debated it has said it would do!" p. (109)

"The immediate danger, as it seemed to Chase, Sumner, and other freesoilers, was that the bill would be hurried through Congress without proper debate and before public sentiment could be aroused." p. (111)

And so Chase Sumner and freesoilers said: "We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old Word and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves..." p. (112)

This was crucial to understand the reaction of the Northern people to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. And you ignored it completely.

Quantrill

 

[mikegriffith1]

Your combining my statements together as one as one, in post #(1) is deceptive. In between those statements was information given and after the statements information was given, as to why, which you ignore. Just as you ignore posts (#4) and (7) also.

The reaction of the North was based upon their belief that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was still in effect. That Compromise divided the free states from the slave states with the 36 degree 30' latitude line. But Douglas used the 1850 Compromise as proof that the Missouri Compromise was removed by the 1850 Compromise with the admission of New Mexico and Utah. A Compromise he had helped push through. But when pushing it through, he never made the argument that the Missouri Compromise was done away with. And all were still under the impression it was still in effect. See post #(7).

The quotes given come from: (Ordeal Of The Union, Allan Nevins, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947)

"For thirty-three years the Missouri Compromise had truly been enshrined in Northern hearts. Did he not realize that any sudden attempt to overthrow it would raise the greatest storm of the generation? Of course he did...." p. (107)

"Beyond doubt he partly underestimated the force of Northern indignation, and partly despised it whatever its intensity." p. (107)

"When indignation welled up like the ocean lashed by a hurricane he was amazed." p. (108)

"And when the measure was presented, added Blair, its object weas first veiled, then half-unveiled, and when at last fully disclosed was justified by the assertion that the Compromise of 1850 had done what nobody who debated it has said it would do!" p. (109)

"The immediate danger, as it seemed to Chase, Sumner, and other freesoilers, was that the bill would be hurried through Congress without proper debate and before public sentiment could be aroused." p. (111)

And so Chase Sumner and freesoilers said: "We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old Word and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves..." p. (112)

This was crucial to understand the reaction of the Northern people to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. And you ignored it completely.

Quantrill

No, you are mistaken. Of course the likes of Sumner opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act! Sumner was a rabid Free Soiler and then a Radical Republican, but most Northerners welcomed it. Perhaps that's why it passed the Senate 37-14. Sixteen of the Yes votes were Northern Democrats.

You need to get over your warped view of the North and of Northerners. You keep assuming that all Northerners were Radical Republicans, when in fact the substantial majority were not.

 

[Quantrill]

No, you are mistaken. Of course the likes of Sumner opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act! Sumner was a rabid Free Soiler and then a Radical Republican, but most Northerners welcomed it. Perhaps that's why it passed the Senate 37-14. Sixteen of the Yes votes were Northern Democrats.

You need to get over your warped view of the North and of Northerners. You keep assuming that all Northerners were Radical Republicans, when in fact the substantial majority were not.

From (Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Open Court Publishing Co., 1998).

"Douglas accordingly submitted a bill to organize the Kansas and Nebraska territories. The Missouri Compromise had long outlawed slavery there...." p. (106)

"So, Douglas's bill applied the principle of popular sovereignty to these territories and explicitly repealed the Missouri Compromise line." p. (106)

"President Pierce made the Kansas-Nebraska bill a test of party loyalty, and enough northern Democrats fell in line to gain its passage through Congress. But a storm of angry protest blew across the free states." p. (106)

"Salmon P. Chase...denounced the act in a widely printed circular, 'The Appeal of the Independent Democrats', as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from Old World and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism....Under the Missouri Compromise, this vast territory had been exempt from these terrible evils...." p. (106-107)

"Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, later remarked that the Kansas-Nebraska Act created more abolitionists in two months than William Lloyd Garrison had in twenty years. Anti-Nebraska political organizations spontaneously emerged all over the North. Eventually picking the label 'Republican Party'...." p. (107)

"When the 1854 congressional elections returned to office only seven of the fifty-four northern Democrats who had voted for Douglas's act, the overwhelming Democratic control of the House was overthrown. It was one of the most astonishing political turnabouts in American history." p. (107)

The anger of the North over the Kansas-Nebraska bill ruptured the Democratic party and helped create the Republican party.

Quantrill