The Missouri in the Civil War Message Board

Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
In Response To: Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed ()

One of the primary problems of Union efforts in Missouri was that the dissension among the factions was in some ways greater than that between secessionists and the "moderates"--and that is without even throwing in the deleterious effects of Kansans raiding periodically! The infighting really didn't help, see George Caleb Bingham's actions and statements for the extreme personal animosity that characterized some of it. An advantage for the Southern interests is that they don't appear to have been as divergent as the Union interests.

As you note Brown was at the center of this sort of factional dispute. While he had been moderately successful (where others had failed) and personally brave, folks like Milton Burch and Bazel Lazear had a great deal to do with Brown's actual successes. Lazear complained bitterly (see MHR articles) of Brown's inability to trap Shelby in 1863 when Lazear had done the bloody work to contain him before Marshall. Brown/McFerran's replacement during battle in 1864 is a reflection of the distrust of Union leadership in their ability/willingness to aggressively prosecute an offensive. Whether or not the decision was correct/necessary, the units seemed to be highly effective without them. (The reader should keep in mind that Lazear was also critical of the impact of Gen. Order #11 on civilians, outright lamenting the effect in one of his letters.)

The area in question essentially eastern Jackson Co., southwest Lafayette Co., and northwestern Johnson Co. were pretty rough places at the time for Union men. In Feb. of 1861 a southern sympathizing official of Johnson Co. murdered a fellow unionist official (Foster) because of the way he voted in the referendum. In Lafayette Co. in the presidential election of 1860, a man (McGinnis) was threatened by a mob because he voted for Lincoln, until Shelby stepped in. So the natural internal violence/intolerance was deep seated, even predating the war itself in Missouri. Bleeding Kansas or the Mormon expulsion of 1838/extermination order weren't exactly moral high points for the state either. Taken together, before the guerrilla war even began, they represent challenging terrain for navigating an effective yet moderate course.

For comparison, see how Texans dealt with far lesser levels of opposition early in the war without much of an existential threat at the time: "Tainted Breeze, The Great Hanging at Gainesville, Texas 1862." One might ask: if the roles had been reversed, what courses would the two sides have taken? Guerrilla warfare and countermeasures are ugly things that debase both sides. How low will one or both sides go to be effective or before the backlash is counterproductive?

Messages In This Thread

Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed
Re: Edward Thomas Smarr Confed