I was in Lawrence, KS for the opening of the Quantrill Raid exhibit and an associated presentation on Quantrill’s men. The exhibit is worth viewing. As far as the presentation, someone in the audience asked if the massacre was justifiable considering the earlier destruction of Osceola. The speaker answered no, citing the number of men killed in Lawrence versus the number reportedly executed at Osceola. This answer certainly played well with the crowd, but I was disappointed in the superficiality of the answer.

First of all, while the Quantrill Raid was an escalation of violence perpetrated on civilians that was out of proportion to the events that triggered it, which was hardly anything unique in the Border War. The same same could be said of the Pottawotamie Massacre in 1856 and the jayhawking campaign of 1861-62.

Secondly, comparing Lawrence and Osceola is apples and oranges. It wasn’t just Osceola, it was the entire scope of the jayhawking campaign of 1861-62, which included the destruction of Dayton, Papinsville, Columbus and other towns, and arson/plundering across large swaths of the countryside. And it wasn’t just the jayhawking campaign of 1861-61; the raid was almost certainly also in response to the redleg incursions in the spring of 1863, another campaign of plundering in which up to 50 Missouri “noncombatants” were reportedly killed.

In short, I thought the speaker’s answer was not only superficial, but failed to provide any real insight into what was really going on with the Quantrill Raid. Do you think these are fair criticisms?