History According to a Kansan-a Passage from the 2nd Kansas Vol. History.

Hits: 7454

The following account is from the regimental history of the Second Kansas Volunteer Infantry as published in the Adjutant Generals Report, Vol. 2, pp. 93-97.

"The regiment served during the fall and winter of 1861 and 1862 in Western Missouri, during which time it participated in many severe actions. The first engagement in which the regiment was represented was fought November 11, 1861, by companies A, B. and H, under [the] command of Lt. Colonel D. [Dan] R. Anthony, with a rebel force outnumbering his, four to one, commanded by the notorious Colonel Up. [Upton] Hayes.
 
The rebels were driven from their camp, but occupied a strong position just beyond, amongst rocks and trees, on the hills along the Little Blue River. After a desperate fight and being unable to dislodge the enemy from his naturally strong position, Colonel Anthony caused their camp to be destroyed. Having captured all the horses of the rebel command, Colonel Anthony with his force retired from the field. In this engagement the three companies lost nine men killed and 32 wounded."

The truth of the matter is that Lt. Col Anthony had three companies, each company would have consisted of around 80 troopers and four officers. Quantrill fought along side Hays in this skirmish. Hays had 22 men and Quantrill had 11 men.
 
On Sunday November 10, 1861 the guerrillas attacked the Jay-hawkers four miles south of Independence. The enemy broke in confusion after the first volley. Five Federals fell during the initial fire, and seven more were killed during the chase. Thirty-two Federals were wounded. They fell back on Independence where they plundered the town.  (1)

Now, if Quantrill really outnumbered the Federals four to one, they would had to have had around 960 guerrillas in the saddle. At this time it was public knowledge that Quantrill only had a handful of men in his command. With such reporting as this, is it any wonder that people are skeptical about facts concerning the border war?

This is the same Adjutant Generals Report that claimed that not one Jay-hawker was killed south of Boggy Depot on their two invasions of Texas, which they claimed never happened, contrary to the Official Records of the Rebellion.
 
© Paul Petersen quantrillsguerrillas.com

Editor's Note:

Shortly after the end of the American Civil War, pro-union journalist and author of "Uncle Tom At Home and etc." (1853), Francis Colburn Adams wrote; The future historians of the late war will have [a] very difficult task to perform, sifting the truth from falsehood as it appears in official records.

Similar to the oft-repeated axiom that truth is the first casualty of war, Adams' observation succinctly summarizes the ultimate underlying battle that occurs after every war: the battle to win the hearts and minds of the people via the use of propaganda. Although it is easy to justify the flag waving and saber rattling when your side is victorious, it is prudent to remember there are two sides to every conflict.

"The military mission is to fight, and to win, whatever conflict may present itself--preferably on the battlefield but certainly in public opinion and the history books." (2)

In many cases the success of military objectives depends on secrecy and deception, as heavily as it does on strategy, tactics, firepower and manpower. So I certainly understand how this injustice occurred. However if this country is going to fully recover from the wounds this terrible conflict inflicted, it is time for both sides to come clean about the truth.
 
Perhaps author Anup Shah author of "Propaganda and the Media Mainstream Media," said it best: "At times of war, and during the build up to war, messages of extremities and hate, combined with emotions of honor and righteousness interplay to provide powerful propaganda for a cause. Those who promote a negative image of the "enemy" may often reinforce it with rhetoric about the righteousness of themselves; the attempt is to muster up support and nurture the belief that what is to be done is in the positive and beneficial interest of everyone. Often, the principles used to demonize the other side in a conflict, is not used to judge [one's] self, leading to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy." (3)
 
In my view, the modern-day historian must be a skeptic if not a cynic, with one of his aims being to seek, find, and share his concept of the truth. Fortunately we have been able to find only a handful of individuals who share this view who are dedicated to help counteract the 140 years of propaganda and disinformation which is still occurring. That is why we established this website.

Besides the numerous and blatantly obvious attempts to discredit all things Confederate, with the Missouri Partisans being the focal point of the campaign of abuse, there are other far more subtle and dangerous propagandist hard at work each and every day. Today far more damage is done by self proclaimed defenders of the cause, who often double as "authorities and/or subject matter experts," residing on many of the Civil War related websites. I call them "Jay-hawkers in Gray."

Consistently these individuals take advantage of each and every opportunity to discredit any perspective that is not their own. They utilize every known debating technique, however they prefer subversive attacks such as "left-handed" compliments whenever possible. However don't be fooled, as they are more than willing to "attack the messenger" head-on if all else fails.
 
They present their opinion as Gospel truth, while offering little or no evidence to support their claims. Yet they are often the first to criticize others for the same oversight. Based solely upon the volume of responses they produce, apparently they believe many people enjoy hearing them wax prolific.
 
Often these misguided souls have a hidden agenda, which they will eventually reveal if you observe them long enough. Over the years I have encountered numerous members of various groups and websites who claim to be Pro-Confederate, only to later learn their kinfolk were among the "Secret Six" who secretly funded John Brown, or that they are related to Edwin Terrill, the hired Yankee outlaw who killed Quantrill.

When these injudicious individuals are able to surreptitiously obtain editorial control of a website, or at least establish a strong alliance with those in control, they complete their vicious cycle of censorship, doing their part to disseminate bogus information to future generations.

One of the greatest benefits of the Information Age is the ability to search the World Wide Web and find information in a nanosecond. One of its biggest shortcomings is that there is no guarantee the information you find will be correct. Even when you visit a "professional and or commercial" website, there is still a good chance the information provided will be incorrect.
 
There is a famous website that attempts to provide a free on-line encyclopedia service, that anyone can edit. In theory that is a great ideal. In reality, the end product is so flawed, that it is banned as a research source by virtually every institution of higher learning in this country. Any encyclopedia that is banned in schools is of dubious value, at best.
 
Or to put it quite simply the "expert" who wrote the article you must rely upon, may not have the knowledge to respond to your inquiry, but they are the person who has the time to respond to your inquiry.
 
To illustrate my point, please allow me to share an interaction from another unnamed Civil War related website.

Question: Are percussion caps used in a M1861 Springfield rifled musket interchangeable with the percussion caps used in a Colt Navy revolver? How interchangeable, in general, are percussion caps?

Answer: Caps don't have rifle and pistol size-- also later during the CW they had cartridge type weapons. Shotguns and lots of .22 rifles were used often. Check the dates of the 22 cal weapons when introduced...........Meanwhile the (Confederate) villains rode among their enemies shooting and killing.

There are so many things wrong with that answer, I hardly know where to begin.

My answer is: Percussion caps were made in numerous sizes for both long-arms as well as side-arms. The caps designed for muskets and rifles would might work on a few pistols, and the other way around. In most cases a musket or carbine cap is a much larger size than those used on most pistols and revolver. Most military long-arms used in battle were fitted with similar size cones.

Yes it is true than .22 caliber weapons were around during the Civil War, many were carried into battle but few were used. Infantryman found no use for them and often threw them away. Most officers perfered a larger caliber sidearm.  One of the most common complainant about the small caliber cartridge pistols is they had little stopping power, they were also prone to misfire in damp condtions. Yet since no weapons of this caliber were never issued to either army, most high school history books will tell correctly note they played less of a role in the outcome of the conflict than other cartridge weapons did.

The bottom line is the vast majority of weapons used by both sides did not utilze a cartridge. Yes weapons such as Henry Rifles, Spencer Carbine and Maynard Carbines and rifles were used by both sides, but in such small numbers they may slightly have influenced individual engagements but they virtually made no difference in the grand scheme of the conflict.

I base my opinon on information obtained from over forty years of researching the conflict, as well as collecting original artifacts and weapons. I obtained information from numerous sources including books such as "Civil War Guns", by William Edwards. My expertise was enhanced by practical knowledge obtained from Civil War re-enacting and live-firing black powder weapons as an infantryman and on horseback.

This is one example of how this website differs from most of the rest. When we present our position, we also include the documentation that supports it. Although you may not always agree with our position, you will know the background concerning where we got the data, and some of the reasons why we support it.
 
(1) Quantrill of Missouri Paul Petersen, Cumberland House Publishing  Page 456 #12 (2) Jane Kirtley. Enough is Enough, Media Studies Journal 10/15/ 2001 (3) Anup Shah: War, Propaganda and the Media Mainstream Media 03/31/2005.

© Patrick Marquis quantrillsguerrillas.com "Permission should be requested and agreed to before using this copyrighted essay and/or image." Here is an image of Lt. Col. Daniel R. Anthony.