This painting by Lauretta Louise Fox Fiske depicts Quantrill's Raid on Lawrence. Most of William Quantrill's raids were for plunder, but the raid on Lawrence, according to the Rev. Richard Cordley, was deliberately for slaughter. Emporia author Max McCoy recently published "I, Quantrill," a novel told through the guerrilla's point of view.
Audio Clips
Author Max McCoy talks about the book "I, Quantrill"
Past Event
Book discussion and signing: Max McCoy, author of "I, Quantrill"
- When: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 7 p.m.
- Where: Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vermont St., Lawrence
- More on this event....
"You'll want to know about Lawrence, of course. Everybody does. If they don't ask outright, they will make some oblique reference in hopes of sparking a conversation or perhaps an argument."
These are the opening lines of "I, Quantrill," a novel told through the eyes of William Clarke Quantrill, a Confederate guerrilla warrior best known for his 1863 attack on Lawrence.
The fictionalized story, as told by Emporia author Max McCoy, is an attempt to remind readers that Quantrill was, in fact, a man - and not the demon some have made him out to be.
"The challenge was how do you tell the story of this monster and make him sympathetic," McCoy says.
McCoy, who published the book earlier this summer, will be in Lawrence tonight to discuss his novel. The appearance, at 7 p.m. at the Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt., is part of events of Civil War on the Western Frontier.
Given his somewhat sympathetic views toward Quantrill, McCoy expects there might be some vigorous debate in Lawrence.
"Sometimes I run into that when I do book signings," he says. "The Civil War has never really died in this area - you see that every time there are Kansas and Missouri sports, with that rivalry. People have long memories."
McCoy grew up in Baxter Springs in southeastern Kansas, the site of another 1863 massacre by Quantrill.
"Kids are fascinated by monsters," McCoy says. "Quantrill was a monster."
A former journalist, McCoy now teaches English at Emporia State University. He's wondered for years how to write a novel narrated by Quantrill.
Finally, after months of reading books on Quantrill and letters and poems written by him, McCoy was able to pen "I, Quantrill" ($5.99, Penguin Group).
The book is told by Quantrill on his deathbed - he died in 1865 in Kentucky after being shot by Union supporters.
McCoy says Quantrill was a bad man - no doubt about it. But he says people - and especially those in Kansas - forget that he had a human side.
For instance, McCoy thinks Quantrill's strained relationship with his mother helped lead him to his life of violence. And he says claims in earlier books, especially "Quantrill and the Border Wars" by William Connelley, that Quantrill was a coward certainly aren't true - in fact, McCoy says there are several accounts of his bravery in battle.
"I think he could have gone either way," McCoy says. "History is told by the winners, but I'm not trying to justify what he did. I'm just making him human."
Even in the novel, though, Quantrill is an unreliable narrator, sometimes exaggerating and lying to make his case.
'Wrong side'
Though the book opens with the guerrilla talking about his sacking of Lawrence, it's hardly the focus of the 244 pages.
Still viewed as a hero among some Confederate sympathizers, Quantrill is sometimes compared with John Brown, an abolitionist leader who also used violence to help his cause.
Quantrill and his band of bushwhackers skirmished often with pro-Union forces and militias, but his legacy remains most associated with the burning of Lawrence.
"The Lawrence raid certainly eclipsed anything else that he did, and it is the event that made him a household name," McCoy says. "I think the attention is certainly justified. I don't think it was the kind of notoriety that he would have sought."
Jonathan Earle, a Civil War historian and author at Kansas University, says he hasn't read "I, Quantrill." But he's intrigued.
"It's a great topic for this type of a psychological novel," says Earle, an associate professor of history. "We know so little about him."
While Earle thinks Quantrill's life probably is more complicated than many in Lawrence have been led to believe, he says one thing is for sure: Quantrill's overall reputation is "unrehabilitatable."
"William Clarke Quantrill is not a savory character," Earle says. "Not only was he on the wrong side - the side that wanted to preserve slavery - he turned up the violence a notch. ... But I'm sure it's a complicated story. He thought he was doing the right thing, as most people do."
McCoy's other books include thrillers and westerns, and his novel "Hellfire Canyon" won a Spur Award, a top honor for western writing.
But he's hoping for a lively conversation about Civil War history when he comes to Lawrence tonight. He knows some people here still feel passionately about the Kansas-Missouri Border War history.
"I get caught up a little in that, too," he says. "It's fun to talk to people on the border because they know the history."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Bad man, yes. Flawed, opportunistic, self-serving, driven to succeed and be somebody at any cost, a natural physically couragous leader. A monster? Doubtful - compared to some of his followers who split from him, such as Anderson, Clement, and Todd.Nor would I agree with the idea that he "turned up violence a notch", given that the guerillas were a reactionary product of numerous small terroristic actions taken by state militia troops (and later federal troops). A lot of the image of Quantrill and the border war was set by who had all the ink.
whatupdown (anonymous) says…
That pigs grave should be a public toilet, so I guess Jeffery Dahlmer just had an eating disorder.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Connelly's work is still the most reliable authority, and this publicity-seeker's 15 minutes of fame isn't going to change that. I'll tell you one thing: If this guy had been born a lot earlier and had shown up in Lawrence to promote a book like this even as late as the 1940's, he'd have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. "Humanizing" William Clarke Quantrill, indeed. I sincerely wish that this English teacher had known what it was like to have suffered through the raid. Every male over approximately 14 was gunned down in cold blood, and the chances that he could have survived it would have been slim to none. There was very little difference between Quantrill's wanton inhumanity and, by way of only one example, the Nazis' destruction of the former Czechoslovakian city of Lidice in 1942, which entailed the wanton murder of almost the exact number of men and boys. I happen to be out of town right now, but were I in Lawrence I would without a doubt show up at this guy's love-fest and make him wish that he'd stayed in Emporia for the day. As it is, when I return I will put it on my list to reread the copy of Connelly that has been in my family since it was published, so as never to forget the real William Clarke Quantrill and what happened in my forebears' beloved city on August 21, 1863.
Phogfan86 (anonymous) says…
If you grew up in Emporia with that smell hanging over your head all the time, you'd be a little brain damaged, too.
aeroscout17 (anonymous) says…
War sucks. Quantrill murdered non-combatants; that has nothing to do with war. He was a criminal, and I would challenge anyone to explain to me otherwise. I'm not saying that he was the only criminal in the border war, just that I haven't found any justification for his raid. Anyone want to provide evidence to the contrary?
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
John Brown was a treasonous religious murdering wacko, yet we are constantly called upon to speculate on his human qualities -- was he mad? in what sense did his failures in most other aspects of his life inform his later life -- and so on. And yet we are opposed to doing the same thing with Quantrill because ...?
Thinking_Out_Loud (anonymous) says…
Wasn't much difference between what Quantrill did raiding Lawrence and what James Lane did in raiding Osceola, MO. There was enough villainy on both sides of this conflict to go around.
jmadison (anonymous) says…
In view of this guy's book, let's get rid of the Phoenix Rising from the Lawrence city seal.
salad (anonymous) says…
Another excellent bit of historical research on this subject is James Leslies' "The Devil Knows How to Ride". Includes lots of interesting photos about the places these things happened, and probably half the book is about Quantrill. The whole thing about what happened to Quantrills remains after his death is really interesting too.This book is not to be confused with the novel (fiction) "Woe to live on" which was made into a movie by Ang Lee "Ride with the Devil". Both of which are good in their own right.
Phogfan86 (anonymous) says…
"Wasn't much difference between what Quantrill did raiding Lawrence and what James Lane did in raiding Osceola, MO."Except that was, well, Missouri. That's enough justification right there. Slavers.
OnlyLawrenceRepublican (anonymous) says…
"I'll tell you one thing: If this guy had been born a lot earlier and had shown up in Lawrence to promote a book like this even as late as the 1940's, he'd have been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail." - that's consistent with my theory of "time devaluation of caring"Also, regarding "Earle says. 'Not only was he on the wrong side - the side that wanted to preserve slavery - he turned up the violence a notch.' Many Lawrence historians often misidentify Qunatrill as a pro-slavery advocate, but the fact is he came to Kansas with free-soil settlers, and many in his band of raiders had been free-soilers as well." Professor Earle (along with Steve Jansen of course), is THE authority on Lawrence history in my opinion.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I looked up one of the links Max1 provided and it says that Quantrill came to kansas in 1857, but it doesn't say what his party affiliation was. IN those times, many people came to Kansas to allow slavery, as well as keep it out of Kansas (and not necessarily because they were abolitionists). There isn't enough in the information provided by Max1 to determine which side Quantrill started on, but it's clear where he ended.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
And John Brown was saner than you think......but he was still a murderer. Religous, yes, a wacko......not necessarily....John Brown knew what was right, and the government and the citizens weren't doing enough, fast enough, for him and he took matters into his own hands. He made very costly mistakes, but you have to respect him for his beliefs.
geniusmannumber1 (anonymous) says…
"...but you have to respect him for his beliefs."Just because someone believes strongly in something doesn't make that something worthy of respect. If the government doesn't act quickly enough for us, it does not give us the right to attack them. If someone expresses different beliefs than us -- however odious -- it does not give us the right to murder them. I'm not saying John Brown wasn't, to some extent, a product of his times, nor am I interested in arbitrarily weighing his crimes against those of others of the period -- "What he did was bad, but it wasn't as bad as ...." All I'm saying is that there were many who shared his beliefs who did not do what he did. The ones who did not resort to violence when it was not absolutely necessary I can respect without qualification. John Brown -- not so much.
nobody1793 (anonymous) says…
According to an old Audie Murphy movie I saw, Quantrill was a jerk. End of story.And "Ride with the Devil" didn't have nearly enough Kung Fu.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
His beliefs - slavery was wrong and everyone was equal. That was it. I respect him for that. His murders were wrong, but at the same time, other attrocities were being committed. It doesnt' justify what he did, but you can see where he got the idea. You can't compare current times and beliefs with what people thought then. The government and the era was very different. The government was full of racism and bigotry. Brown didn't know if the government would ever do anything about it, and he decided to. Some of his methods were questionable, but his reasons were not. Lincoln would have been happy for slavery to die out on it's own, which it may have by the end of the 19th century. Slaveholding was abundent. In his puritan views, Brown saw no other way, and there was very influential men in the East which backed him financially. Some knew about the murders, some did not. And after Harper's Ferry, they all went about their business. You have other abolitionists, and then you have John Brown. You are comparing apples and oranges. He was one of the very few who lived as his believed - the grimke sisters were very much anti violence as was Theodore Weld. You have William Lloyd Garrison, who began to think violence was the answer. yes, there was many who didn't use violence, but many of them were thinking that John Brown was a hero for what he was doing, because they weren't able to do it. But his methods were radical. So yes, I respect him for his beliefs (as I said in the previous post. His beliefs........
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I used to think John Brown was a total wack job, and then I read about him. He wasn't nuts, far from it. But I don't think the State of kansas should be idolizing the man on the state house wall, either. He wasn't a citizen, never owned property in the state, didn't vote. But he wasn't nuts.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Have to disagree with you, cato. Connelly was as biased as they come, but he did report as well as anyone could in that time, in the immediate years after the war - especially given that his sources were mostly Kansans and his audience being the same. If anyone needs a object lesson in 'how to create a guerilla', a quick read of the history of the Younger family should clear that right up. All said, there were few saints on the border in those days.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
Luckily for Mr. McCoy, Salmon Rushdie is looking for a roomate.
Baille (anonymous) says…
Sounds to me like this "Emporia professor" has taken a mature and sophisticated look at Quantrill. Monsters never think of themselves as monsters - unless they are in the movies. I am sure that Quantrill did not think his evil deeds were being committed by an evil person. As a fifth-generation Kansan, I will read the book. And I have no intention of going down to the library and giving this guy a hard time. That's just funny. Who does that?That said, has anyone read "Bleeding Kansas" by Prof. Etcheson?
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Not everyone going to Kansas was for anti slavery or for peace....And just because he wrote his mother - quantrill was telling the truth?????I haven't read "BLeeding Kansas" but I will be reading it shortly.....I bought it last week.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
He was a free soiler, but it didn't make him any money, and then the pro-slavery guys changed his mind....Stand up guy, he was....Who ever paid more....
Shardwurm (anonymous) says…
Wow...lots of emotion still.I agree that Leslie's work is probably the best out there.Using one of the diagrams in that book I located 'Fletcher's Farm' where a rear-guard action occured south of Lawrence and west of Baldwin when the raiders got caught in a corn field. The pursuing cavalry was deterred....but in any case it's a great work and I highly suggest it.Ask 'Bullet Hole Ellis' what he thought of Quantrill.http://books.google.com/books?id=rJNHtVsKH-gC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=bullet+hole+quantrill+forehead&source=web&ots=Z34EN4sHAO&sig=p8cZMuto20k7ZpytNseEOkEEPBg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA108,M1
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I don't know how the New England Emigrant Aid Society "paid" people to come out here, if company had investors(most of them) who wanted to make money.Not all people who were against slavery were for freedom for slaves. One of the reasons to keep Kansas a Free State was to keep slaves and free blacks out of Kansas. Don't know if I will read the book on Quantrill any time soon, but won't go to the library....
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Baille - what did you think of "Bleeding Kansas?"
Baille (anonymous) says…
Haven't read it yet. A couple of summers ago, I read "Civil War Kansas: Reaping the Whirlwind" by Albert Castel. It was a great introduction to the topic. "Bleeding Kansas" was on my list for this summer, but I haven't gotten to it. And now the summer is almost over.
querulousperson (anonymous) says…
i read "The Wildwood Boys" by James Carlos Blake a couple years ago. it's historical fiction from the point of view of one of Quantrill's main men. i don't know how accurate it is, but it's an entertaining book.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I haven't heard of that book, Baille, but I might look it up and put it on my list. But I have a long list. I just started "John Brown" by W.E.B. DuBois, but his style is older and a little harder for me. Since I have studied John Brown, I am trying to get as many different views as possible. i also just started Otto Scott's "The Secret Six" and don't think I will finish it, because it's badly written....But I didn't care for David Reynolds' John Brown book either....Okay, enough about books...because I could go on and on...
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Baille, you may claim to be a fifth-generation Kansan, but if you view a foolish exercise like this as "a mature and sophisticated look at Quantrill," then your education is deficient. I wonder whether any of your ancestors were victims of Quantrill's raid, or knew any of the families who were.
Baille (anonymous) says…
Is it, Cato? I find your opinion of me to be absolutely fascinating. Really. While you are wondering about my ancestors, I am wondering whether you think I really give a sh- er, care about what you think.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Read up on it, Baille. And stay away from charlatans and would-be historical revisionists.
sandrat (anonymous) says…
I was hoping that someone might suggest a good source of information on Pelathe (sp?), the Native American tracker who road horseback from the KC area to Lawrence in a failed attempt to warn the town. I've always been intrigued by the story and would love to know more.I think there was an article about him in the LJWorld, but I can't find it. This is an interesting tidbit, though:http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1912/p/pelathe.html
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
"How many raids originated from Lawrence into Missouri during the Quantrill days? How many residents of Lawrence and the surronding area were terrorists who pillaged just as Quantrill did?"During the first raid, the people of Lawrence practiced peaceful resistance. They didn't fight back when they were arrested and even helped the sheriff carry out the warrants. "Lawrence, Kansas got what it had coming to it when Quantrill gave it out."The whole point of either of the Lawrence raids was to get rid of the free state people. Nothing else. To say that any town on either side of the border deserved to be destroyed and have the blood of it's citizens in the streets is the sign of a cruel and immature mind."Heck, the vast majority of people who "settled" Lawrence were PAID to come here::their "vote" purchased by the wealthy on the east coast of the USA when they paid these dumb vagrants to come here in the first place!"As compared to those in Missouri that rigged the voting for the state government by coming to Kansas and voting by the barrel of the gun or the point of the bowie knife? The Missourians that came to vote for a pro-slavery legislature went back to Missouri afterwards. Those that came from the east coast to live here, stayed here.People can mention all of the books they want to on here. For me, there is only one book that gives a good account of what was happening in Kansas around the time of Quantrill's first raid and thereafter: The Englishman In Kansas. Read that if you want to know what the conditions on the ground were at the time.
chapdaddy (anonymous) says…
Muck Fizzou.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Wondering what you read about Brown, because I don't think he was crazy. He had a purpose in life and he pursued it fanatically, and he had beliefs way ahead of his time, but he knew exactly what he needed to do to accomplish his goal. He made some mistakes along the way, but with his ideals, and beliefs, he wasn't crazy. Maybe others thought he was a little off the rocker because he pursued abolition like he did, but he was entirely in his faculties. Harper's Ferry may have not been the smartest idea, and he made some critical mistakes in judgement, but he knew exactly what he was doing. Abolition was his lifelong passion.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
haven't heard too much about pelathe. since you are on skyways etc., check the book section. There are lots of books online and one might have something about him. If I remember to look later, I will check and see if I can find anything. Also look around territorialkansasonline.com. There could be something. You could also contact the Kansas State Historial society. They might know of some information.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Baille,Castel also wrote a book about Quantrill. Have you read it yet? According to the reviews on it, it was good. James McPherson wrote glowingly about it....good enough for me...
Faka (anonymous) says…
Humanizing and sympathizing with the bad guy. For the regular commentors on ljworld, this sounds right up their alley! Don't forget to blame the victims! If they didn't want their town burned down, they never should have built it in the first place.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
But because you have to read more than one thing about a subject to learn, and to gain knowledge, I will probably also read "I, Quantrill."
Faka (anonymous) says…
P.S. Of course all criminals have a human side, but why seek to understand it? To justify it? I don't think we should seek to justify the murder of innocent people. Why should we humanize murderers? Were they the embodiment of desirable human characteristics? If they show remorse and regret for what they did, I can humanize that. I can relate to that. I don't want to relate to a murderer, and I don't want to know what they were thinking or what led them to it. People deal with really heavy stuff every day and never resort to murder.
Baille (anonymous) says…
To justify it? No. How about to prevent it? Address it? Learn about it?"I don't want to relate to a murderer, and I don't want to know what they were thinking or what led them to it."Well, then I guess we are all lucky you did not choose to pursue the social sciences.
sandrat (anonymous) says…
mom_of_three:Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be sure to check it out.I have often thought that Lawrence should name a park after Pelathe, specifically the Riverfront Park in North Lawrence that extends east from North 2nd Street. He did come from the east, along the north bank of the river. I'm unsure of his exact route, which is why I want to do more research.He seems to be the only person who attempted to warn the town, and yet he is a footnote in the history books, at best. I think it would be appropriate to have a statue of him looking over the water towards Lawrence -- perhaps near Stan Herd's Sunflower on the levee, or in the garden at the Train Depot. Of course, I doubt the city has the money for anything like that right now.In an ideal world, we could also have a statue of his dying horse out near the boat ramp at 8th and Oak Street. I'm sure that his horse didn't die at that exact spot, but it would be a great way to teach some history.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
So far as "Kansas" literature goes, I've been reading the Wizard of Oz...pop the DVD, enable subtitles... crank the Pink Floyd....
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
and just think...Brown was responding to the murders of anti slavery people who went unpunished, such as Barbour.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
John Brown was ahead of his time, because, as I have said before, he thought everyone was equal. Very, very few people in that era thought blacks were equal to whites, and even fewer thought women were equal. Read about John Brown, and his thoughts on equality were almost unheard of, except for the Grimke sisters, and the women's abolitionist society. Murders in that time did not make someone crazy. There were murders going on before Brown arrived in Kansas, and there were murders after Brown left Kansas. During that period, a MIssiourian and pro slavery man was in charge of justice, so there basically wasn't any. The five men which were murdered by the Browns were pro slavery, and depending on which version you go with, they had threatened free state men and women, and/or were members of a court trying to prosecute free state party members. People were murdered in the area for less. It is said one of them had theatened to kill the Browns if they didn't leave the area. The murders took place after the first sacking of Lawrence in 1856, which angered John Brown, and was said to be retribution for that also. Also depending on which account you read and agree with, Brown never killed any of them personally, and denied it participating for years. Only after his death, did his sons admit Brown shot Doyle after Doyle was already dead. The murders weren't right, and although that was a different time, it didn't mean Brown was crazy. He was fanatical in his abolitionist views, but he wasn't crazy. Might have been a little crazy to think one man to evoke such a change in the country, but I don't think he was.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
You can't think about John Brown in modern terms. Yes, he particpated in a murder, but does that make what he did, his abolitionist views, any less admirable. NO. And the Pottawatomie massacre was not the only murders which had occured. It's not like Brown was the lone bad guy in the state of Kansas and Missouri. It doesn't excuse his criminal behavior, but he did have some admirable qualities.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
sandrat,I didn't find anything on Pelathe on territorialkansasonline.org, but you might find something on kancoll.org. I will look a little more, cause now you got me interested.
jd (anonymous) says…
Historical perspective is important as is seeing the perpetrators as fully human. If history has shown us anything, it's that humanity has never really changed in its ability to act good, bad and everything in between.We want to demonize people like Quantrill, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. because if they are 'monsters' it's easier to explain what they did. If we see them as fully human, then that opens the door to the dark corners of our own humanity and we'd just as soon not go there. We want to believe in our innate goodness. No one wants to admit that we all harbor the ability to do horrible things.
saoirseglen (anonymous) says…
Demonize Quantrill for his acts. Praise Brown for his acts. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Violence is only good when it is the violence one thinks needed to be used to advance one's beliefs, that seems to be pretty much the point being made.Defend Lawrence when it relates to being set fire to during the Civil War, but attack it in modern times because it is a liberal stronghold in a conservative state. Yes, that also makes a lot of sense. Lawrence was perfect during the Civil War and never did anything untoward that might have caused tensions to escalate then, but now its population can never do anything right in the minds of the rest of the state.I think Kansas needs some group therapy to deal with unresolved issues.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"I think Kansas needs some group therapy to deal with unresolved issues."Lol! Ya think?
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Quakers did not practice equality among the races. Women could not speak in meetings, and I have read Stephen Oates' book. You don't have to print it. I have probably read most books on John Brown which are of good substance. (and otto scott is NOT one of those). Please, just stop Max. You have your opinions on things and I have mine. I never demonized Quantrill, but I don't think Brown burned a whole town and killed hundreds of people. He killed settlers, who may not have owned slaves although they agreed with slavery and were from the south, but were against the Free State cause. The Brown's said those men made threats against their family and other settlers. Who knows if it is true, but there are many stories about why John Brown led his men to kill those settlers. But there were so many murders going around that you can't just point out those. Unpunished murders were common at that time. And I never said Brown should be not held responsible for Pottawatomie Creek. Max, you need to go back and read my posts. His views on equality were very rare. Even though Quakers hid runaway slaves on the underground railroad doesn't mean all Quakers believed in equality. There was abundant racism in the North, among all religions. One of the reasons the Grimke sisters didn't follow the Quakers all of their lives because of the limitations on women and speaking out in public against slavery. The Browns were supposedly part of the underground railroad, including Owen Brown, John Brown's father, but as many times as I read it, I never found notes in the books to back it up. Never said he should not be held responsible for Pottawatomie creek. But you can't use modern thinking and terminology to define a person who existed 150 years ago. Stop being absurd and just read.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
Still looking around for information on Pelathe, but haven't found anything new.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
157 violent deaths in 7 years in Bleeding Kansas....seems pretty low since the period is called "Bleeding kansas." and only 56 were listed as political. So I wonder if they counted the Battle of Osawatomie, and the other skirmishes in that number.....
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
interesting article......The anti slavery which were listed as killed was what drove Brown to retribution, as well as the lack of leadership in Lawrence to defend itself (or so thought) Brown, as well as various rumors already stated above. All of the biographies of Brown mention multiple murders of the Free state party or anti slavery folks, and threats against the same as Brown's reason. But he gave lots of reasons as to why. He was intent on retribution and he did it. Was he as crazy as some people like to think? No. Did he have an obsessive zeal to end slavery - yes? Impatient - yes. Crazy - not really. He assisted in the murders of the 5, but didn't commit any more, except at harper's Ferry and during battles. He was a complex person as probably was quantrill.