Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by dalek

I'm posting this journal because I've read far too much violent rhetoric on this site and seen far too many people making excuses for this sort of behavior. The Civil War was more than a conflict between the Union and Confederate armies, and militia groups were responsible for many of the worst atrocities. I fear that many people are far too eager to see a repeat of this brutal and ugly conflict.

History books tend to describe the Civil War through a series of battles between the Union and Confederate armies. Although those battles certainly happened, they ignore a large part of the violence that took place.

Today, the rivalry between the Missouri Tigers and Kansas Jayhawks is one of the most bitter in all of college sports. Until the mid-2000s, the rivalry was officially referred to as the Border War. Although many rivalries use the word "war" in their names, this rivalry is unique in that much of the tradition around the rivalry traces its history to an actual war. Both the Tigers and Jayhawks are named for Civil War militia groups. The University of Kansas campus in Lawrence includes Mount Oread, which is a large hill where one militia group organized before burning Lawrence to the ground. To this day, this event is unofficially referenced by many fans.

Missouri and Kentucky were somewhat unique during the Civil War in that their government officially remained loyal to the Union while illegitimate shadow legislatures voted to secede. Slavery was legal in Missouri, but it is misleading to suggest that the state was uniformly loyal to the Confederacy. In fact, Saint Louis was a Union stronghold, as well as many other cities around the state such as Columbia.

The Old Courthouse in Saint Louis is the site of two trials where Dred and Harriet Scott sued for their freedom from slavery. In the first trial, their request was denied. They requested a retrial where they were awarded their freedom from Irene Emerson. Following the second verdict, Emerson appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court which overturned the circuit court decision and sent Dred and Harriet Scott back into slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 1857 to deny freedom to Dred and Harriet Scott. This ruling also invalidated the Missouri Compromise, meaning that slave owners could continue to own slaves even after moving to states where slavery was illegal. Today, the Old Courthouse is maintained by the National Park Service and has exhibits about the Dred Scott case. I've visited the courtroom where Dred and Harriet Scott were initially awarded their freedom before higher courts ruled that they were the property of Emerson.

Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was between militia groups. Some of these militia groups were organized to fortify and defend cities while many others roamed through the states committing acts of violence. Militia groups that supported the Confederacy were known as Bushwhackers. There were also militia groups that organized in Kansas in support of the Union, and they were known as Jayhawkers. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for conducting brutal raids and engaging in lawlessness.

One well-known raid occurred in 1861 when James Lane organized a group of Jayhawkers to sack the town of Osceola in western Missouri. The town was burned to the ground, nine residents were court-martialed and executed, and 200 slaves were freed. Lane and his militia plundered from Osceola, stealing food and resources. The Jayhawkers were known for their brutality and were harshly criticized by Union commanders. In 1862, Union Major General Lorenzo Thomas wrote about Charles Jennison's group of Jayhawkers that they were "no better than a band of robbers; they cross the line, rob, steal, plunder, and burn whatever they can lay their hands upon. They disgrace the name and uniform of American soldiers and are driving good Union men into the ranks of the secession army."

One of the responses to Lane's raid was conducted by William Quantrill, a Bushwhacker who organized a group of raiders that included "Bloody Bill" Anderson to go into Kansas and attack the town of Lawrence. On a night in August 1863, a group of about 450 raiders organized near Mount Oread before entering Lawrence to burn it to the ground. Banks and stores were looted, 150 men and boys were killed, and the town was completely burned by the raiders. Prior to the raid, Quantrill compiled a list of people purported to be in Lawrence whom they planned to capture and execute, though some on the list such as James Lane successfully fled and avoided being put to death.

Jennison was also known for brutal raids in western Missouri, where his raiders devastated five counties. In many cases, all that was left from Jennison's attacks were stone chimneys known as Jennison monuments, where the houses had been burned to the ground and only the chimneys remained.

Many Bushwhackers not only conducted raids in Kansas but also against Union strongholds in Missouri. In September 1864, "Bloody Bill" Anderson and his group of Bushwhackers massacred the city of Centralia, which is located in central Missouri, about 15 miles northeast of Columbia. Anderson's band of raiders that attacked Centralia included Jesse James, who would go on to be a particularly famous outlaw. Concerned that Columbia would also be targeted by Bushwhackers, Congressman James Rollins organized a militia known as the Columbia Tigers in support of the Union to fortify the city and protect it against Bushwhacker raids. Anderson and his raiders never attacked Columbia, and the Tigers are often credited with discouraging Bushwhackers from raiding the city. As far as I can tell, history remembers the Tigers favorably, and unlike the other militia I've discussed, they were not associated with lawlessness and brutality.

Much of the conflict in Missouri and Kansas was not between the Union and Confederate armies, but between militia groups on both sides. Both the Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers were known for looting, arson, and mass murder. The conflict was much more complicated than Missouri being a slave state and fighting against Kansas, which was a free state. In fact, a significant portion of Missouri was loyal to the Union and faced many brutal raids by the same Bushwhacker militia groups that attacked Kansas.

Not all militia groups were associated with lawlessness, and some were organized by people protecting their homes and cities against raiders. However, many of these groups on both sides of the conflict were incredibly brutal and indiscriminately killed people. Although the Jayhawkers supported the Union, many of the atrocities they committed were just as horrible as the raiders conducted by Bushwhackers.

When modern militia groups stockpile weapons and prepare for combat, these are not necessarily idle threats. There is historical precedent in the Civil War of these militia groups looting, burning cities to the ground, and committing mass murder. Violent rhetoric is unacceptable, whether it's sarcastically calling for attacks on NRA leadership or wishing for the deaths of fifty million progressives. I have no problem with people using guns for self defense to protect themselves from being attacked by criminals. The problem is that there are many people and militia groups arming for war, and we should not treat this as an idle threat. If we're going to learn from history, we need to remember that the Civil War was incredibly brutal, and many of the worst atrocities were committed by militia groups using their political affiliation as an excuse to engage in lawlessness.

When people are stockpiling weapons, conducting paramilitary training, and promoting anti-government ideas, we would be fools to dismiss this as hyperbole. There is no place for violence or violent threats, serious or otherwise, in civilized society. I'm posting this because I'm very troubled by some of the awful comments and journals that have been posted here recently. I fear that many people are eager to repeat the atrocities of the Civil War, and none of us will benefit if that happens. This needs to stop.

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 20, @11:58AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 20, @11:58AM (#1307125) Journal

    No, we don't punish thought crime. We punish speech, but only in very limited circumstances. There has to be a specific threat of violence.

    Not for lack of trying. My take is that the main reason such fails in the long term is that we can't agree on what thoughts to criminalize.

    As I posted elsewhere in this journal, private paramilitary groups are illegal in every state.

    Reading your post [soylentnews.org] in question, that doesn't sound particularly illegal to me - only New York allegedly had laws on the books against paramilitary organizations. It's fairly easy to bypass such law by restricting one's activities so that they don't meet the threshold for the law. My bet is that's why no one is rounding up paramilitary militia these days.

    And I'm dubious of your legal interpretation anyway when you then spend so much time on "well-regulated militia" a throwaway phrase from the Second Amendment.

    When modern militia groups declare that they are accountable to the Constitution but not to civilian government, they are not acting in accord with the term "well-regulated militia" in the second amendment.

    The Second Amendment doesn't require anyone to act in accord with that term. The actual meaning there is is to make two legally nonbinding claims: an implicit one that well-regulated militia are a good thing, and having people legally able to own and use weapons ("keep and bear arms") would further that. That's it.

    We would be fools to wait until serious harm occurs before acting. It wasn't no secret in the 1850s that states in the South were preparing to secede and were arming for war. It wasn't necessary to wait until Fort Sumter to decide that there was a real problem.

    In the 1850s, serious harm was happening. There was no waiting for it. And what should the US have done? Preemptively start an unpopular war? All that deciding won't matter, if you don't have serious options available to deal with the problem.

    What's missed here is that Fort Sumter gave Lincoln political cover to declare war - any time in the previous few decades no such drastic course of action would have been justifiable. If instead the South had avoided military conflict until it had solid European support, then we might still be in a two country situation.

    Waiting serves a twofold purpose: first, it allows the other side a chance to avoid conflict, and second, it forces the other side to start the conflict. In particular, if both sides adopt a waiting strategy, then conflict doesn't happen at all.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21, @06:16PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 21, @06:16PM (#1307238)

    Ah yes, the "do nothing" approach to letting fascists consolidate power. Gave you a small benefit of a doubt before, but it becomes ever more clear you're shilling for rightwing fascism in the US. Otherwise you would not spend all your time defending the fascists, a pure libertarian would be raging against the current GOP but at best you offer demure critiques.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 21, @10:10PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 21, @10:10PM (#1307262) Journal

      Ah yes, the "do nothing" approach to letting fascists consolidate power. Gave you a small benefit of a doubt before, but it becomes ever more clear you're shilling for rightwing fascism in the US. Otherwise you would not spend all your time defending the fascists, a pure libertarian would be raging against the current GOP but at best you offer demure critiques.

      Let's review what I wrote:

      Waiting serves a twofold purpose: first, it allows the other side a chance to avoid conflict, and second, it forces the other side to start the conflict. In particular, if both sides adopt a waiting strategy, then conflict doesn't happen at all.

      There are two problems here. First, a misunderstanding of my strategy previously mentioned. Second, a peculiar lack of detail as to what "doing something" means.

      Waiting is not doing nothing. In the Civil War example, was Lincoln doing nothing? Were police "doing nothing" prior to the January 6 protest? For example, you can prepare a defense against a fascist attack. You can "show the flag", make the fascists aware that you are prepared for any conflict that should happen. (I presume here that fascists are an actual thing and not your imagination.)

      As to doing something about fascism, I remain underwhelmed by the approaches I see used. For example, I see two common strategies used: 1) retreating to an echo chamber and two minute hating fascists there, and 2) using the power of a corporate sponsor/ally to ban or obstruct speech which often turns out not to be fascist. I consider the former to fill the very definition of doing nothing and the latter to be more harmful than the fascists - consider this interesting example [judithcurry.com] from Judith Curry (notable climate skeptic):

      I signed up for twitter in 2009, but didn’t really “get it.” I didn’t use my account actively until about 2012. I mostly used twitter as a source of information and links to articles (this is where nearly all of the items for Week in Review came from). I tweeted the CE blog posts, and occasionally retweeted something. Over the years, my account attracted 30K followers. About 2 years ago, I noticed that my number of followers stalled and my account rarely received any notifications of people liking or retweeting or responding to my posts. Oh well.

      So around Nov 1, Elon Musk bought and took over twitter. A week later, my follower #s, likes and retweets started growing by leaps and bounds. BishopHill tweeted “First tweet from @curryja that I’ve spotted in ages.” So what happened? Seems like my twitter account was “shadow banned” so no one would see my tweets unless they really went looking. Shadow banning is not as severe as outright banning. Many physicians and epidemiologists were outright banned from twitter for questioning the “party line” on Covid. Tom Nelson (climate science) is now back on twitter after being banned. And what is going on in climate and Covid space is NOTHING compared to what has been going on in sex/gender space.

      Judith Curry happened to be on the wrong side of the climate change debate and was shadow banned for a year and a half. Not a fascist, but didn't stop Twitter from silencing her. Even worse, they didn't tell her. She had to find out this way.