Hate Week: Day Two (Open Thread)

by Bill C. on Nov 19, 2007 8:43 AM CST in News

UPDATE: Be sure to read ZouDave's comment below.

I figured now was a good time to introduce history lessons into the story. Here is a great (and lengthy) write-up about Bleeding Kansas and the Missouri Civil War. It article manages to prove two things:

a) While many (but not all) of the Missourians involved in the war were on the horrifically wrong side of history, neither side's hands were clean; and

b) Missourians have always been prone to battle each other. As a quick perusal of message boards has always shown, the only people Missourians hate more than non-Missourians are fellow Missourians. Good times.

[W]hen doing an internet search, you will get a very different story when searching for "Bleeding Kansas" than you will get if you search on "Missouri Civil War." Many of the books that are available are no different. Though most lean toward the Kansas side of the conflict due to its anti-slavery sentiment, Missouri cannot be ignored in its contribution to history and its heavy losses during the Civil War. Officially, a Union State, Missouri was internally divided between its pro-slavery sentiments and its obligation as a Union State. Never officially entering the Civil War, Missouri fought its own internal battles between the Federal Officers and its own State Forces.
Even when we visit the historical sites of Kansas and Missouri, we get a different impression in the "telling." Kansas sites will focus on the great battle of Mine Creek, where the Union Forces won the skirmish against the Confederates at immense odds; the Lawrence Massacre by Quantrill's Raiders, or, upon John Brown, the fanatic abolitionist, and his actions to defeat the Missouri Bushwhackers.
In Missouri we heard the stories of the burning of Osceola by Lane's Kansas Brigade, the attack upon the Missouri building that killed many innocent women and children, and the forcible evacuation of Kansas City area counties that displaced many Missourians and turned the area into a desolate "No Mans Land."
The "war" between Kansas and Missouri began almost immediately when Kansas was opened for settlement in 1854, seven years before the Civil War officially began. No doubt, both sides were ugly -- it was a "war" between people that had strong opposing sentiments and lifestyles at stake.

Who says sports blogs can't teach you something? As you read all the way through this, you learn a lot about some of the heroes that kept Missouri a Union state, too, which is nice and reassuring. However, along with the heroes, the Union had its share of villains too (as tends to happen during war).

And as you read this, you can start to see where this changed from "abolition vs slavery" to "Kansas vs Missouri".

Click 'Full Story' for more.

You really need to read it all, but here's an extended excerpt.

Yet another skirmish between Missouri State and Federal forces occurred at the Battle of Booneville on June 17th, 1861, when Captain Lyon was intent upon putting down Jacksons’ State Guard. As the guard retreated towards Boonville, Lyon embarked on steamboats, transported his men to below Boonville, marched to the town, and engaged the enemy. In a short fight, Lyon dispersed the Confederates, and occupied Boonville. This early victory established Union control of the Missouri River and helped douse attempts to place Missouri in the Confederacy.
In the summer of 1861, Kansas Senator James H. Lane returned to his home state to command what was called "Lane's Brigade."
Supposedly composed of Kansas infantry and cavalry, the force was more akin to a ruthless band of Jayhawkers wearing United States uniforms. His antics, as he rampaged through Missouri, would earn him the nickname of the "Grim Chieftain" for the death and destruction he brought on the people of Missouri.
In September of 1861 Lane’s Brigade descended on the town of Osceola, Missouri. When Lane's troops found a cache of Confederate military supplies in the town, Lane decided to wipe Osceola from the map.
First, Osceola was stripped of all of its valuable goods which were loaded into wagons taken from the townspeople. Then, nine citizens were given a farcical trial and shot. Finally, Lane's men brought their frenzy of pillaging and murder to a close by burning the entire town. The settlement suffered more than $1,000,000 worth of damage including that belonging to pro-Union citizens.
In 1862, Quantrill began his infamous raiding career in western Missouri and then across the border into Kansas by plundering the towns of Olathe, Spring Hill and Shawnee. His raids gained the attention of other desperados. By 1863, Quantrill recruited others who joined his company including "Bloody" Bill Anderson and Frank and Jesse James.
...
In an effort to destroy the guerrillas' base of support, Union troops began to arrest Kansas City area women in July, 1863, who were were providing support for the bushwhackers or suspected of gathering information on the partisans' behalf. Of particular interest to the Federal Troops were the known relatives of the Border Ruffians, including family members of "Bloody Bill" Anderson and the Younger Brothers. Detaining them in several buildings throughout the Kansas City area, women and children were detained until they could be transported out of the area and tried. Overcrowded and invested with rats and vermin of all kinds, the women and children housed in these buildings suffered inexplicably.
One such dilapidated three story building in downtown Kansas City was in very poor condition, with a weak foundation and plaster constantly falling from the walls and ceilings. Though signs that it was unstable were taken note of, such as large cracks in the walls and ceilings, and large amounts of mortar dust on the floor, the signs were ignored. On August 13, 1863, the building collapsed killing 5 women and injuring dozens of others.
Among the killed and injured in the collapse were women who were close relatives of prominent Confederate guerrillas. Those killed in the collapse, included Josephine Anderson, sister of "Bloody Bill Anderson", Susan Crawford Vandever and Armenia Crawford Selvey, Cole Younger's cousins, Charity McCorkle Kerr, wife to Quantrillian member Nathan Kerr, and a woman named Mrs. Wilson. Many others were injured and scarred. Caroline Younger, sister to Cole and James Younger, would die two years later as a result of her injuries. Another Anderson sister was crippled for life, when both of her legs were broken in the incident.
When news of the collapse reached the families of the dead and injured, they went wild. Soon crowds began to gather around the ruins as the dead and wounded were carried off, shouting "Murder!" at the Union forces. Just four days later on August 18, 1863, General Ewing issued General Order Number 10, which "officially" stated that any person - man, woman or child, who was directly involved with aiding a band of guerrillas would be jailed.
Later, Quantrill and his men would claim that the building was deliberately weakened, giving them ammunition for the infamous attack on Lawrence that was about to come.
Lawrence was a town long hated by Quantrill and his men. Home of the demagogic antislavery Senator, Jim Lane, it was also a stronghold of the Red Legs, Union guerrillas who had sacked much of western Missouri. An attack on this citadel of abolition would bring revenge for any wrongs, real or imagined, that the Southerners had suffered.
Early on the morning of August 21, 1863, Quantrill, along with his murderous force of about 400, descended on the still sleeping town of Lawrence. Incensed by the free-state headquarters town, Quantrill set out on his revenge against the Jayhawker community. In this carefully orchestrated early morning raid he and his band, in four terrible hours, turned the town into a bloody and blazing inferno unparallel in its brutality.

So here's my question: how many women and children have died at the hands of the Duke-UNC rivalry? Michigan-Ohio State? USC-UCLA? How many rivalries celebrate the deaths in a T-shirt? That's what I thought. As I've already said multiple times, the nation has no idea what it's in for with this rivalry...

Tweet Comment 1 comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The Wrong Side

This is likely going to take me all day to type because of other things I have to do today, but I really want to get my thoughts on this out there because Lord knows I've spoken them numerous times but rarely have a record of my ramblings.

Though the 2 main contributors to this site are unquested and unwavering Mizzou fans, True Sons to the very core, I come from a different perspective on this issue because I am a native Missourian. Born and raised in Northwestern Missouri, my entire life I have been around this very subject. My family, basically in its entirety, hails from the Western half of Missouri. As with most things, this kind of background creates completely different experiences.

I really don't even know where to begin my rant, because it's just a giant collection of unorganized thoughts. I guess I'll start where this whole thing is going anyway: slavery.

My father's family came over from England in the late 18th century and settled in Kentucky. Around the time of the War of 1812, as far as we can tell, they moved to the Missouri territory that would later become Missouri thanks to the Missouri compromise. They moved to Northwestern Missouri, about 90 miles NE of what would become Kansas City. They were farmers and cobblers mostly, and very poor and very religious. Nowhere, from any recorded document we've ever seen, is there even a hint that my family could have ever afforded slaves. However, most of the early settlers of Western Missouri were Southern farmers who did own slaves. This was the way it was back then, and unfortunately people just simply didn't know better yet. Because of my family's Southern ties, I have to believe they didn't necessarily view slavery as the abomonation it's so obvious it is now. But, again, this is due strictly to ignorance and in now way reflects on them as people, and certainly it doesn't reflect on the descendents in any possible way. At least, it shouldn't.

My mother's family history is a little less clear, as we cannot pinpoint when exactly they came over from England and Germany but we do know that they settled in Osceola, MO, sometime in the early-to-mid 19th Century. We also know that as of their settlement in Osceola, there were no slaves in our family. In fact, by all indications (and especially since they are of mainly German descent) these were pro-Union people that had chosen to settle in Osceola to take advantage of the wide open farmland there. Osceola, MO, is most famously known for being sacked by Union Jayhawkers in 1861, in an event that destroyed the town basically beyond repair. The murdered, looted and pillaged the town to "force out any pro-Southern elements in the area." It was nothing but an excuse for the Jayhawkers to show what they were. According to Wikipedia on the subject: "According to reports many of the Kansans got so drunk that when it came time to leave they were unable to march and had to ride in wagons and carriages. They carried off with them a tremendous load of plunder, including as Lane's personal share a piano and a quantity of silk dresses."

My mother's family, luckily, survived the day and relocated to areas closer to Springfield, MO.

As for my father's family, they had tried (as most did) to remain uninvolved in the war. And for the most part, they were successful. However, because of the constant presence of Union Soldiers in the region (always sporting the red leggings of the Jayhawkers) most of my father's family fled and are believed to have settled in what would become Idaho many years later, but we've never been able to successfully link anyone from that region with our roots. We just know that as of 1862, all but one branch of our tree that had originally come from Kentucky was gone. We had no dog in this fight, and certainly never took up arms to defend slavery, but did take up arms when it became obvious that the kansas Federal troops were interested in invading a state that still officially belonged to the Union.

Obviously my family trees survived or else I couldn't be here. But it's something I've always known, that both sides of my family were displaced and forever changed by the actions of Jayhawkers. What if my mother's family had not survived the Sacking of Osceola? What if the last member of my father's family had also decide to leave (giving the kansans exactly what they wanted)?

Slavery was and is a crime against humanity. Only truly ignorant people could ever say otherwise. Was it invented in Missouri? No. Hell, was it even invented in America? No. But it's something as Americans we will always have to answer for, because our forefathers made the mistake of not knowing better. So through no fault of our own, we today are seen the world over by other cultures as bad because our country once embraced slavery as a way of life.

So then on a smaller scale, Missourians have to answer for this as well because we happen to border a state that was "founded" to protect against slavery spreading and they fought in a war end slavery. At least, that's what kansans would have you believe.

Do kansans ever talk about the fact that the first Constitution that the kansas settlers ratified allowed slavery? The Lecompton Constitution won a head-to-head vote against the Topeka Constitution that basically boiled down to "Constitution with Slavery" and "Constitution without Slavery". "With Slavery" won, though the voting irregularties of the day do leave much to question. Nevertheless, the Lecompton Constitution was ratified and sent to the US Congress for approval and was backed by President Buchanan. This would have given the kansans what they had voted for, which was to enter the Union as a slave state. The US Congress denied the ratification, however, and moved to accept the Topeka Constitution in its place. This "Constitution without Slavery" was hardly that. What the Topeka Constitution guaranteed was that no MORE slaves could be imported into the state of kansas but the ones that were there would not be freed. This was later viewed as unenforcable, and 2 more constitutions would be proposed before finally getting one through US Congress that made kansas a free state. As would become a trademark of kansas, they fly under the guise of nobility when in reality they are as guilty, if not moreso, than those they attack.

Why is it that these free state people, who fought so nobly to give rights to the blacks, had to be forced by the US Sepreme Court in 1954 (not 1854, not 150 years, but a mere 50 years ago) to integrate schools? Where was this massive outcry for rights for blacks then? Brown vs. Board of Education is one of the landmark cases in American Political History and it's an example of kansas having to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing what is right. Much like the US Congress forcing them to try FOUR TIMES to get a constitution ratified that satisfied the need to have a state in Western expansion that was free.

I'm all over the place here, but this is one of the most passionate topics I know of. I will not apologize for being born in Missouri and will not apologize for Missouri being a state that allowed slavery. I had nothing to do with it, it happened 120+ years before I was even born, and the world knows the horrible truth that slavery is wrong. It was wrong in Egypt when the pyramids were built and it was wrong in the South in the cotton fields. I don't have to answer for that. And I certainly don't have to sit by and let someone call me a slaver and they're basing this solely on the state I was born in vs. the state they were born in, and more to the point the school I cheer for and the school they cheer for. Some people may say it as a joke, or just to get under my skin, well...it does a lot more than get under my skin. These people that sit behind a keyboard and call us slavers don't actually know the truth and the history. I do, because it IS my duty to know what my family had to go through simply to survive long enough for me to be here. I will expect the same of my children and grandchildren. We need to know where we came from, not only to be proud of our heritage but to make sure the mistakes of the past are not revisited.

So when these disgusting human beings that call themselves jayhawks call me a slaver, yes it absolutely gets my blood to a boil. Not because my family ever owned slaves, because we did not and never defended it, but because it reminds me of what they had to go through. My family, like most of the Missourians brought into this, wanted to be left alone. We did not want to be dictated to on how to live, we did not want to force our views on others. We wanted to live and let live. We wanted the right to do so. But these terrorist jayhawkers didn't and wouldn't let that happen. It was going to be there way or death. Nobody was going to get to make their own decisions, they were going to be forced at the end of a knife in to living by someone elses rules. They were going to be terrorized, under the flag of the United States of America, into accepting rules they clearly did not want. Did that mean slavery? Sometimes. But it also meant just having the freedom to decide for yourself like this country was always supposed to be about. So when Union troops invaded Missouri, which never officially seceded from the Union and still had a star on the flag, yes Missourians fought against them. What were they supposed to do? But because they fought against them, everyone says they were fighing for slavery. History is written by the victors, but I would not be proud of honoring people who viciously attacked the very people they were charged with defending. Talk about being on the wrong side.

Missouri sent 110,000 troops into the Union Army during the American Civil war, and 40,000 troops into the Confederate Army. And yet we're a Confederate State?

I may hate ku with the fire of 1000 suns, but it is NOTHING compared to the hatred I have for jayhawkers. kansans who play this card against me will be my enemy for life. Yes, that's overly dramatic. I don't care. I tend to take the terrorizing of my ancestors rather personally. This game on Saturday has nothing to do with the actions of people 150 years ago. This is about 2 football teams representing two rival schools. That rivalry may be built upon the history between the states, but this is just a football game on Saturday and everything should about the football game and nothing more.

But if someone from ku wants to make it about that then bring it on. If you want to provoke a response, you'll get one.

by ZouDave on Nov 19, 2007 2:25 PM CST reply actions