The raid on lawernce was supposed to be in retaliation for the killing of the
southern women in the Kansas City Jail. Could the Federals have really undermined the jail as was alleged in the movie and in real life?
[email protected]
I highly doubt that the Federals deliberately weakened the jail in an effort to kill 14 wives of suspected guerillas. It was a stupid, draconian decision to imprison them, and the collapse turned it into a tragedy. But it's a long reach from a stupid imprisonment to an evil sabotage. Any claim that the jail was deliberately undermined, I have little doubt, can be filed under wartime propaganda.
"I fell out of favor with Heaven somewhere and I'm here for the Hell of it now." - Kirsty McColl
I have done some research on this subject. The Yankees didn’t deliberately weaken the building the women were being held in, however, they knew of the weakened nature of the structure. It wasn’t really a jail, it was just a building. Here is an excerpt from an article on the collapse.
“Signs of structural failure had apparently appeared prior to the collapse. The occupants of the store on the first floor removed their goods after seeing cracks in the walls and mortar dust on the ground. The guard at the building notified the captain of the provost guard, who had a soldier inspect the structure. The building collapsed during the inspection, before the occupants could be evacuated. Charity McCorkle Kerr, Susan Crawford Vandever, Armenia Crawford Selvey and Josephine Anderson died in the disaster. Mollie Anderson was severely injured, and Mollie Grindstaff sustained slight injuries.”
If you want to read more about this disaster this article was excellent. It is titled Catalyst of Terror: the Collapse of the Women’s Prison in Kansas City. It was featured in the Missouri Historical Review in the April 1995 issue. It was written by Charles F. Harris, who is related to Nannie Harris McCorkle.
The raid on Lawrence had been planned for some time, before the collapse took place, but I do think that it may have been used as a justification for the Confederates action that day.
Hope this helps some.
actually, recent speculation has said that there was a whore house next door and that the union soldiers dug a tunnel through the wall in the basement to reach the prostitutes without having to go outside. this weekend the foundation causing the building to collapse.
Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something
That's very interesting. Could you tell me where you read that? I am very interested in this subject, and I would love to read your info.
shareTry a book called "Quantrill Of Missouri," by Paul Petersen. Quanttrill may
have believed it considering that the state and especially the border counties
with Kansas were virtually under siege during the war. The following questions are also fair: If the Federals didn't commit atrocities or at least nastiness,
why would boys no more than 15 or 16 take to the bush? What else could drive
boys many bought up religously in a lot of cases take to joining a guerilla
army? It should well be remembered that the type of warfare in Missouri wouldn't be repeated until Vietnam a century later. Boys of 15 or 16 don't just
join a guerilla outfit where there are Guns, Liquor, an the constat threat of
death without a reason. Give it some serious thouht and research rather than just scoffing. Think for yourself rather than just accepting official historical accounts written by the victors.
THANK YOU
[email protected]
The Yankees did commit atrocities and nastiness. Look at Order #11. That was just horrible. I imagine atrocities were committed on both sides, Yankee and Confederate.
Those 15 and 16 year old boys went to war to fight for a cause. There wasn’t much of an organized war effort in Missouri. They just fought were ever they could and where they felt like they were needed.
Order #11 was excessive and draconian, and perhaps stupid as well. But it still pales in comparison to Lawrence. The utter wantoness of Lawrence is unmatched by either side in any place of the war. Quantrill killed far more innocent people at Lawrence, in one afternoon, than Sherman's marches through Georgia and the Carolinas did.
I wholehartedly agree that Lane and others were, most of the time, just as bad as Quantrill and Anderson. But Lawrence (and to a lesser extent Baxter Springs) took things to another level.
"We're not lost, Private - we're in Normandy." -- Dick Winters (Damien Lewis)
"Quantrill killed far more innocent people at Lawrence, in one afternoon, than Sherman's marches through Georgia and the Carolinas did."
On what data do you base this statement?
Dear Splatt99:
There had ben an Indian uprising at New Ulm in Minnesota a year earlier in
1862. I will state WITHOUT HESITATION that in terms of violence it was Worse
than Lawerence and the draft uprising in NYC a year later.
Thank You
[email protected]
We must remember that the way we think of kids today, or the way we treat them, was very different in different cultures, in the past or even in other parts of the world today.
For the folks in this movie, a 15 or 16 year old boy was practically a man, good for the same work and the same fightin' as his pa. In some states, he was old enough to get married. Girls were married often at this age, sometimes younger, all across the frontier at this time, and it wasn't unusual for people this age to marry in cities, either, though plenty of folks might have said "those two are too young". Out in a farming community, or the frontier where there ain't much community to speak of, marrying, working and fighting had to be done, and if there were teenagers around, they set to it. I don't believe the word "teenager" even existed in their language back then.
the book Black Flag: Guerrilla Warfare on the Western Border, 1861-1865: A Riveting Account of a Bloody Chapter in Civil War History by Thomas Goodrich was pretty decent on the subject
shareIt was actually Anderson who organized the raid on Lawrence. It was his sisters, after all. Quantrill just gets credit for it most of the time in historical accounts.
shareI'm not sure about that. In the book mention in previous post,"Black Flag", Quantrill is credited with the raid. Another book "The Devil Knows How to Ride" (not the book the movie was based on--that was a novel)Quantrill is again credited. Anderson's sisters were in the collapsed "jail" however, and that motivated many of his atrocities thereafter.
shareI was in Lawrence, KS a few months ago and saw a historical short film about the raid. They said the raid was in reprisal for a raid on a town in Missouri.
I took an interest in the subject as my great-great-grandfather was on the raid and was wounded but survived. There is also a walking/driving tour of the raid. You can get the brochures at a historical center. My girlfriend went to college in Lawrence.......... Kansas is an awful state! Glad my great-great-granddad burned it down!
Kansas is not an awful state (though its public education system, thanks to the endorsement of ID, obviously needs an upgrade.) I know lots o' folks from Kansas, most of them relatives (well, mostly from Missouri but living in Kansas.)
No matter what Lawrence was a reprisal for, it was far worse than anything that led up to it.
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
ID was one of those things they got right. Now about naming a major university team/mascot after a band of murdering cut-throats...
share I assume you're joking about the ID thing.
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
No. I hope you don't confuse Creationism with ID.
share Same thing, different packaging. ID, since it introduces a supernatural element, is by definitiion not scientific (also because it is not observable, testable, or able to be demonstrated from any sort of physical evidence.)
Feel free to have discussions of ID in current events, or theology/philosophy type classes, in public school. But to waste time on it in a public science class is a disgrace to the educational system that allows it. (It's a disgrace to private school science as well, but private schools can teach what they want to since I'm not funding them.)
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Same thing, different packaging."
I hear that a lot, sort of an agnostic/atheist mantra I suppose. Quite a difference really as creationism is usually embraced by fundamentalist Christians who have a literal interpretation of the Bible and therefore often a
young earth theory. ID can extend to liberal Christians, non-Christians, Deist, etc.
You also echo the usual anti-Christian view that such discussions of ID belong in philosophy not science class and yet when that is tried, as it was in California last year, the same old liberals come out screaming separation of church and state (and as someone, apparently, with some knowledge of history you know that the s.of c. and s., as it is now argued,is NOT what the founders meant at all).
If evolution can be preached in science classes why can't ID? A bunch of fossils don't prove a biological link between non-human primates and man--nor does any of their evidence (oh I forget Piltdown man)as no link ever existed.
Using your critera there is no observable, testable or demonstrable proof of evolution either.
What po's me is how the neo-Darwinist crowd tries to shut down all debate that challenges their shaky position. One would think they would welcome open debate in the classroom. They act like someone who doesn't have strong faith in their beliefs.
Evolution is not "preached" in science class. Nor it its position "shaky." The evidence for evolution is strong, and grows stronger all of the time. Scientists still debate as to the exact method of evolution, but as to the question of whether it has happened, it is a close to fact as any science can get (granted, nothing in science is ever 100% certain.) Evolution is supported by evidence in many areas besides the fossil record. There is growing molecular evidence, for one.
And in fact, evolution does not contradict anything in Christianity, and extends quite well to "Christians, non-Christians, Deists etc." The only group to whom evolution is anathema are fundamentalists, who are a minority of Christianity (though a very vocal one, with political power beyond their numbers.) I grew up Catholic, and as backwards as the Catholic Church has been in many areas over the years (and despite the blind spots it still has), it long ago accepted evolution. It's only those who read Genesis "like a damn newspaper" (in the words of a friend who's a Paulist priest) that consider evolution incompatible with Christianity.
Tell me - other than surgically excising Genesis references, what major difference is there between Creationism and ID? And what scientific basis is there for ID? None. Putting ID in a science class is akin to putting Asrology in an Astronomy class. Why muddy the scientific waters with something that has not a shred of scientific evidence in its favor? It's a waste of time.
Ah, yes - Piltdown man. What everyone who brings that hoary old event up seems to forget is that it was science that exposed it as a fraud. Thanks to the scientific method, which is ever testing new hypotheses and seeking new evidence, science is self-correcting. Unlike dogmatists, science admits and corrects its own mistakes. (Although recent theory holds that it was actually Piltdown Man who, by angrily shaking bars in an adjoining cell, weakened the KC jail and forced its collapse.)
As for separation of church and state, the basic concept of the framers was twofold: to ensure the freedom of religious practice, and to disallow the establisment of a "state religion." Both legs are necessary for freedom of religion to stand. I presume by "as it is now argued" you do not mean the false claim that the United States was founded "by Christian men on Christian principles," which is one argument we do hear a lot. Because that ain't true.
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
The process of evolution (not necessarily evolution as it is conceived of by those identifying themselves as "evolutionist"), of course, is a fact--lack of design in the process is not. And the fact that evolution happens doesn't mean that one species evolved into a completely different one. If I'm wrong give me specific examples. (BTW are you familiar with "Darwin's Black Box"?)
I read that Britain's Museum of Natural History kept the Piltdown hoax from the public for 40 years, so science may have uncovered the truth but a 40 year delay in admitting it suggest some insecurity, "shaky faith", to me.
Since evolution, or neo-Darwinism actually, doesn't meet the criteria to be a science, the criteria you yourself mentioned, I would consider it a psuedo-science, much like astrology or psychology--"we have the answers now we need the questions."
I think saying the Catholic church accepts evolution is a great oversimplificaton if not a deliberate misrepresentation of their view. (I have several friends who were raised Catholic and are now unbelievers--seems to be a much higher percentage of this than present among Protestants. Wonder why? Not wanting to argue this--just curious what your opinion might be).
Not all the founders were Christian, though the majority were and those that weren't still believed in a Creator--an intelligent designer if you will. They never invisioned a society where prayer were forbidden in schools and "Christmas" was a forbidden word.
But speaking of non-Christians I just heard that, far from KC, it was a Piltdown man known as "Ape-Lincoln" in DC who shook the Constitution until he had the centralized government that our founding fathers broke free from four score and nine years before.
Evolution is not a case of fitting the questions to the answers - that's what ID does. The evolutionary theory has been investigated and strengthened through use of the scientific method. It is true that there is no way to know whether evolution has a designer behind it - but that is not a scientific question. The possibility exusts that a supreme being of some sort put evolution in motion, perhaps even steps in now anf then to mix things up.
But that's not what the ID crowd is about. ID is never presented, as far as I've seen, as a complement to evolution - rather it is championed as an alternative. And in that guise (or any guise, since it is supernatural in nature) it is a waste of time in a science class.
Prayer is not forbidden in public schools - just school-sponsored prayer, which is different entirely. Individual students can pray any time they want to at a public school, except when they're supposed to be paying atention in class. And "Christmas" is far from a forbidden word in public schools or elsewhere.
What the Founding Fathers never envisioned was "In God We Trust" on currency (though that's not really objectionable if "God" is considered as any God, or even no God) or "Under God" in the Pledge, or even a pledge of allegiance, period (the actual pledge was not written until the late 19th Century, and "Under God" was not added until after World War II." And they certainly never envisoned judges attempting to use the Ten Commandments to trump local or national laws, which has been attempted.
The Catholic Church does vary quite a bit from area to area, but I have yet to meet anyone who grew up Catholic and was taught any anti-evolutionism.
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
Guess we read different books and news articles.
ID does not rule out evolution altogether (evolutionary changes within species, Si, trans-species leaps, No--and there still is NO proof of the latter)it is more Darwinism ID has a problem with. If you read anything the leading evolutionists/neo-Darwinists (Dawkins for instance)say you will see that it is THEY who don't see ID as compatible with evolution--they can't accept the power of a Supreme Being being at work in the process of evolution--it has to be random and purposeless to be compatible with evolution as defined by them.
Evolution is fine being taught in science class. Saying or implying (without solid proof)that one species mutated into another or that man evolved from an ape-like primate is what most ID'ers object to. It is a matter of faith by evolutionist more than a proven theory--they just won't admit to it or allow any debate on the issue.
An "answer looking for a question" (maybe a bad analogy) is in reference to the fact that evolutionist look at a species (Man, say)and then work backwards--"we are here now, we weren't then, apes were, we vaguely resemble apes, therefore we have common ancestry. Then they expect acceptance without evidence, or with evidence that is later discarded (quitely) as it is found to be false.
When they confront the issue of ID their response is very similar to a witch-hunt, McCarthisms, what have you--call someone an ignorant, Bible-pounding fundamentalist and discussion is over. Argument won, don't have to talk anymore.
I've been a subscriber to the evolutionist doctrine--hey, to quote Dylan, "I've been to college too"--but I've seen the holes in it.
But the thing I can't tolerate is the way discussion (free speech if you will) isn't allowed--and I'm not just talking about in the schools. Evolutionists avoid debate in the public forum, falling back, in cowardly fashion, on the argument that as "scientists" they won't discuss the issue with Intelligent Design proponents (even those who are also scientists), using the lame excuse that science and religion can't be debated on the same level.
They also try to lump ID and Creationism into the same category--that way they can claim those who disagree with them are just a bunch of cretinous Bible-thumpers who don't deserve a reply (see witch-hunting above)--that ends the discussion and they remain secure in their pompous narrow-mindedness.
Regarding prayer, coinage, Pledge of Allegiance--I prefer to avoid the Pledge myself because it was composed by a "defrocked" Baptist minister turned socialist. And also I don't agree that this nation is, legally, indivisible.
Will I get a pie in the face if I say "We're not in Kansas anymore!"
shareYes - because Kansas City is in Missouri... LOL
I don't think there is anything about microevolution that would preclude macroevolution. Cettainly not in what I've read. In any case, the prime point, again, about ID is that, by introducing a supernatural Creator, it forfeits any pretext of being a science.
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
"by introducing a supernatural Creator, it forfeits any pretext of being a science"
Let's just say that is the case. Then if science/evolutionists can't consider the existence of a Creator, and He is the answer to how life/man/the cosmos came to be then they will never find the answer.
Perhaps not. But i any case, the origin of the universe is not a concern of evolution anyway. Evolution deals with changes in already-existing matter, not the creation of matter per se.
BTW, this one was on cable last night. First time I'd seen it in a long time, and it was even better this time around. One thing I found interesting was that Zach Greiner, who plays Mr. Evans, looks uncannily like Tobey Maguire in several ways. He could easily pass for Tobey's father, IMHO. Maybe he should have played Mr. Rodel...
"A mountain is something you don't want to *beep* with" - Frank Zappa, "Billy the Mountain"
"the origin of the universe is not a concern of evolution anyway"
True, that's why I said "science/evolution"--should have used "and" in between, or just said "science"--getting lazy in my old age.
"Mr. Evans, looks uncannily like Tobey Maguire in several ways. He could easily pass for Tobey's father, IMHO. Maybe he should have played Mr. Rodel..."
You know, you're right. Hadn't noticed that. BTW I think Mr Evans'summation of the differences between North/South (though not his opinion of those difference being the reason the North would win)while they sat at table is one of the more succinct statements on the subject that I've heard.
What cable channel showed it?
One of the Independent channels, I think. It used to be an Encore channel but now it is called Indieplex.
Evans' summation is definitely succinct. I would not call it wholly accurate as far as overall history goes, but it is very believeable coming from his character in that time and place, and in that sense it is very accurate. I was also struck by how true the dialogue (in the movie as a whole) sounds - better than in most movies covering this time period.
"People say I'm a drinker - but I'm sober half the time" -- Jagger/Richards
"I would not call it wholly accurate as far as overall history goes"
Not wholly, no. I can't recall the whole statement but the part that stands out in my mind dealt with the Northern attitude of minding other people's business, much like the British mindset was at one time.
It has now gotten to the point that the US has to make the world safe for democracy, whether the world wants it or not.
Are any of you guys even from Kansas? Ok, where do I start? First of all a good chunk of Kansas City is on the Missouri side, but there is still a large part on the Kansas side as well. It is divided by both the Kansas and Missouri rivers.
And to all the people mocking Kansas for being such a horrible state, well for the most part you got it right- really it's all those crazy people living in western Kansas that made the whole evolution thing happen anyways. I grew up in the suburbs of Kansas City (which happens to be a very rich and affluent community). The Eastern side of Kansas is actually hilly, not flat like a pancake. I attend the University of Kansas which is on top of Mt. Oread. (Yeah I know it's actually a giant hill).
Really this movie depicts a very turbulent time for Kansas (pre-)civil war. I mean they didn't call it "bleeding Kansas" for nothing. Kansas was a free state next to a 'southern' state (Missouri). So all of the Border Ruffians would ride across the border and vote in favor of slavery during elections. The raid of Lawrence is not the only time they came to burn down Kansas towns. The city of Olathe was burned down, and every citizen was murdered. There is a road called Kill Creek road (In between Olathe and Lawrence), where the border ruffians would kill Kansans because they wanted to live in a free state.
Kansas has a very violent past that seems to be overshadowed by tornados and that stupid bitch Dorothy.
I first learned about the history because it's required when you live in Kansas. I must say I had a new respect for my boring little state. They stood up for what they believed in, and that was simply to live in a free state.
I think I'm going to go down and have a beer at the Free State Brewery in downtown Lawrence now. So learn a little bit about Kansas' history before you start bashing the state. (I still say the western part sucks thought. That I agree with, but this movie dealt with the Eastern part of Kansas.)
You should read Bill James' "team comment" on the 1985 Royals (in his 1986 Baseball Abstract.) He goes on at some length about how Kansas gets unfairly slammed as the epitome of Nowhere (citing "The Wizard of Oz" and a bio of W.C. Fields, among other items.) He also specifically describes eastern Kansas (which, incidentally, is the only part of Kansas I've been in) as completely against stereotype.
For the record, I did defend Kansas (except to tweak it about the ID controversy.) Which KC 'burb are you from? I have cousins in Shawnee Mission and Prairie Village, and in the past some have lived in Overland Park and Lenexa. My mom's family is from KC proper, in the Brookside neighborhood (south of the Plaza, around 63rd and Main.) Ma went to St. Mary's in Leavenworth for her undergrad schooling.
When I was very young (back around 1968-70 or so) my grandmother used to pile a bunch of us in her black VW beetle and drive us down the middle of State Line Road, proclaiming "left side Kansas - right side Missouri!" She'd also drive us in a figure 8 around the islands in Cherry Street, a block from her home on 62nd. Ah, those were the days. We still go to KC every two years for a family reunion - just had one in July.
If I ever get to Lawrence I will make it a point to grab a drink at the Free State Brewery - sounds great! And speaking of "Free State," a lot of people who (correctly) take the Jayhawkers to task for helping to ratchet up the violence tend to conveniently forget that the whole ugly cycle was started by the "border ruffians."
"People say I'm a drinker - but I'm sober half the time" -- Jagger/Richards
Your little history lesson left out that epitome of anti-slavery goodness--John Brown seem to remember he butchered a few folks including a boy simply because they happened to be Southerners. And what was this eastern Yankee "ruffian" doing in Kansas anyway?
shareIt started before John Brown, though. I do not condone his actions in any way, but his bizarre track of violence was a reaction to, not an inititation of, the troubles.
It is beyond doubt that a substabtial majority of Kansans were free-soilers. Were that not the case, why would the Border Ruffians and their friends have had to resort to the irregularities that led to the non-representative Lecompton Constitution?
"People say I'm a drinker - but I'm sober half the time" -- Jagger/Richards
Dorothy was not stupid!!
Thank you
[email protected]
I think we can ALL agree on that.
Your welcome.
the raid in Kansas was in retaliation against the raid the jim lane made on Osceola missouri. I was born and raised in Osceola and there is a big sign about it on the lawn of the courthouse.
shareOsceola was sacked and burned by Jim Lane and his Kansas Jayhawkers in 1861.
They killed at least 9 (or 10) men (execution style...after giving them a "trial") and stole everything from pianos to silk dresses.
Lane was a United States Senator at the time.
Quantrill and his me knew who they were after in Lawrence and had a list. Almost all those killed were in the Kansas Militia, Lane's or Jennison's units. They had been killing people in Missouri for 2+ years straight when the Lawrence raid happened. Plus there was no quarter for Missouri Partisans by the Federal army or Kansas Militia units so why should they expect any? We also didn't live in those times.
Rarely do buildings just all of a sudden collapse.
Considering the deviousness of those who placed them in the jail I would say the plan was for it to look accidental and therefore "innocent."