Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Pop Culture

Not that I think popular referrences are a significant part of this entry but mentioning "Quantrill's Raiders" has become something of a cliche in Westerns. The Jack Nicholson directed comic western "Goin' South", in which he also stars, has one of the characters claim "He (Nicolson) cooked for Quantrill's Raiders". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.100.176 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists?

It think it's highly inappropriate for this group to be included in the "American Terrorists" category. Thoughts? Batman2005 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is inappropriate? Except for the state of war, they seem to fit the criteria listed here: Category:Terrorists. -Will Beback 05:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could point out literally THOUSANDS of war criminals that fit the exact discription listed on that page, who are not considered terrorists at all. Quantrills Raiders should be listed in a "War Criminals" category if one exists, but to throw them into the same lot as Osama Bin Laden? The state of war is indeed highly important, they were outside the scope of their conventional warfare as a militia during a state of war. Additionally, many of their tactics are what we now call "Special Operations." i.e. striking quickly, ambushes, shoot and move, etc. Just my thoughts, I think the terrorists category should be left open for men such as Bin Laden, Richard Reid, and the like. 4.224.90.149 18:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key aspect of terrorism, as opposed to special operations, is targeting civilians. Category:War criminals would probably not be suitable since most "war crimes" were not designated until the Geneva Conventions. If 9/11 brought the world into a state of war, and if that state of war means that actions are no longer terrorism, then Richard Reid would not qualify either. Osama bin Laden is not known to have personally performed any action attacking civilians, to the best of my knowledge. -Will Beback 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I didn't mention that targeting civilians was a part of special operations. If you're arguing that Osama Bin Laden isn't a terrorist i'm guessing you're going alone in that one, but the simple fact is that when you compare Quantrill with Bin Laden, or Quantill with Al-Zawahiri...you're comparing apples to oranges. Quantrills actions today, would be prosecuted as war crimes, as they were a militia group led by Quantrill (a confederate soldier). Sure, the geneva convention outlined what we consider today to be war crimes, Quantrills actions today would be war crimes. If we're going to call this man and his followers terrorists, why don't we label Lt. Calley and his men terrorists as well? Did they not target hundreds of innocent vietnamese? I think includig him and his group (Quantrill) in a War Criminals category would be more appropriate. 4.224.162.51 23:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is targetting civilians a part of special ops? If not then the comparison doesn't apply. Quantrill's raider were not part of the military, unlike the war criminal you mention. They were civilians, attacking civilians, just like the terrorists you mention. -Will Beback 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most frequently-used term for the raiders is "guerillas". I'll see if there's a category for that. -Will Beback 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Check your facts, Quantrill was a Captain in the confederate Army. My comparison to present day special forces was that SOME of the tactics, which i said in my first post about the subject...SOME of the tactics that they used, which at the time were considered dirty, are presently used by special forces soldiers. The guerillas category is MUCH more appropriate than the Terrorists category was. Good Discussion. 4.224.90.165 04:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quantrill was only made a captain by the Partisan Ranger Act in August 1862. He had been operating on his own for at least a year prior to that date. After being formally made a captain, he frequently disregarded the needs of the Confederacy in preference to his own agenda and blatantly disobeyed orders. Further, "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies." These very acts, targeting civilians including a Senator, and stealing private property were among the primary operations that Quantrill and his unit engaged. ebatti (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-American Cavalier

In fact they do not meet all the standards imposed on terrorist category. JAG has numerious caveats and opinions for the Geneva Convention rulings which limit it's breadth and scope. If it weren't every bomber crew during WWII in the allied forces would be a terrorists as would the majority of Allied soldiers. To limit Quantrill's culpability as a terrorist we have: Officer in a unit of a belligerent power, fighting behind enemy lines is no longer considered illegal, attacking property can be legitimate for reprisal or if the property is used for military purposes, the Confederate government considered the actions of the Yankee raiders as initiating illegal acts which were duly responded in kind, the Confederate government of Missouri never surrendered and through it's Partisans controlled most of Missouri even though the Union government of Missouri claimed the foward edge of the battlefield had pushed regular confederate units far to the south.

Quantrill's death

The wiki page for Quantrill himself describes him as having been shot in May, as opposed to June in this document. Clarification?

NPOV dispute

80.166.132.211 wrote the following under the Origins section. I have added an NPOV-section alert to the section and moved his text here:

NOTE FROM READER: This article is strongly subjective, and fail to assertain a professional objective view at historical events. I would urge a member of Wikipedia to look into this article, and repair damages.
To students or other who would use this article for professional or educational means, it would be wise to find a better source than this article. The sections of the article below this entry, seems to be objective, and can be used.

--C-squared 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantrill's Raiders "terrorists"?

Quantrill's men were not acting as terrorists. There were different types of men comprising the Missouri guerrillas. Some fought for the state of Missouri, against the yankee invasion. Some fought specifically against federal & Kansan aggressions and personal crimes against their families (example: Coleman & Jim Younger). Some fought as Border Ruffians, taking advantage of the unstable times. Some fought solely to protect their homes and lives. There were many types of men fighting in the irregular units of western Missouri.

Quantrill's men fought with several types of peoples. They fought Kansas regular army troops (Blount). They fought against Kansas irregulars (jayhawkers). They fought pro-Union whites. They fought pro-union German soldiers and settlers (the "Dutch"). Finally, they fought U.S. regular troops (federals, yankees or blue-bellies). Terror or terrorist is a relative term.

DOCCROW DOCCROW (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the topic, but I think the term "terrorist" gets applied becuase of targeting civilians. Aside from that, http://arkansasroadstories.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes because it is self-published. If the same inforamtion can be found in a better source then it'd be fine. I'm going to delete the citation, add a cite request, and if none can be found in a reasonable time then the assertions will also be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unionist Missouri flag incorrect for Quantrill's Raiders article

The modern tri-bar colored Missouri State flag posted on this article is the incorrect standard (battle-flag) for Quantrill's Raiders. In fact, it is the anti-thesis of the Quantrill's Raiders.

The battle-flag most corroborated by Missouri historical groups and the veterans of Quantrill's Raiders was the black flag with red letters "Quantrell", presented by Miss Finkle to the Rangers.

There are various reports of another battle-flag offering a simple "Q" in the top left corner of the Black Flag. No conclusive evidence of these flags exists, to my recollection. Probability of their historical existence is fairly good, though. (opinion)

DOCCROW (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) DOCCROW, Jackson County, MO[reply]

Regarding this text:
  • Regional history regarding Quantrill includes the name "Quantrell". Annie Fickle of Lafeyette County, MO, May 1862 presented a battle flag to Quantrill's men in thanks for helping her get out of yankee incarceration on the charge of aiding the partisans. In red letters, she stitched the name "Quantrell", a mis-spelling, on the Black Flag. The Rangers appreciated her gift and carried the standard into several battles. Napkins and reunion ribbons years thereafter in Independence, MO displayed the spelling "Quantrell". Reference: "Recollections of Missouri Partisan Ranger George Shepard" biographer unknown, "Gray Ghosts of the Condederacy" author Richard Brownlee
I looked up Brownlee, Richard S. (1984-02). Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy: Guerrilla Warfare in the West, 1861-1865. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0807111627. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) and I can't find any mention of this incident. The book does cite a couple of contemporary reports that use the "Quantrell" spelling, but I don't see where it attributes the spelling to Fickle or the flag or references anything else in this material. I can't find any trace of "Recollections of Missouri Partisan Ranger George Shepard" biographer unknown, - where could I locate a copy? Could DOCCROW possibly transcribe the portion that's being used as a source for this?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched one of the references listed (Quantrill of Missouri) at Google Boks and could only find references to a Harrison Trow using the alternative spelling. I could also not find any reference t the alternative spelling in the Monaghan book. Since there was no response to the above request and since sourcing has not been properly provided (i.e. a verifiable work with proper bibliographic info. and a page number), I have removed the section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for unbalanced viewpoint: January 2010

I have tagged this article for an unbalanced viewpoint. Both sides of the Missouri-Kansas border war did all kinds of acts that were against the law and outside of any normal military activity; however this is not reflected in this article. It would appear that Jayhawkers and Redlegs started all of the problems and that Quantrill's raids into Kansas were only retalitatory in nature. Kansas history is replete with incidents of killings, etc. caused by border ruffians from Missouri attempting to establish Kansas as a slave state. I'm just as sure that there are instances where Kansas Freestaters crossed into Missouri to commit crimes in the name of anti-slavery. All I'm asking for is a balance view of what Quantrill did and why without the subjective word retribution being used to excuse his actions. Both sides bled too much and the Border War was the initial spark that set off Civil War. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start. A series of edits attributed to a 1961 work but lacking page numbers recently made the situation worse. I've replaced the movie references and replaced some of the more flagrant POV with a quote from historian Albert Castel who has written both about the war in the west and a biography of Quantrill. There is no particular need to rehash in great detail the events of Bleeding Kansas so I added a reference to that article in the section on "Origins". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made additional edits today using two standard references to the Civil War. The idea that somehow Missourians were prevented by circumstances from joining the CSA troops and thus were forced into guerilla warfare was POV to the extreme. More work is still necessary. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on this issue: you are dealing with a local variant of the Lost Cause or neo-confederatism. As someone who grew up in the area, I can attest that Quantrill's reputation has undergone a strange transformation in recent decades. He was at one time extremely disreputable, since his activities (most obviously the Lawrence Massacre) can justly be described as war crimes - although terrorism is an inaccurate description. But he, and various of his associates, have become romantic figures to some people: their activities are endlessly justified, while the Union side is demonized. It is not a matter of dispute among serious scholars that pro-slavery forces committed a series of depredations along the K-M border prior to and during the war, or that this sparked official and unofficial retaliatory action. Anyone who tries to make a hero out of Quantrill needs to explain the many outright murders of civilian noncombatants carried out by his forces, but the Lost Cause types just blame it all on vaguely described activities of "Redlegs" and "Jayhawkers", without ever detailing precisely what justified Quantrill's atrocities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidiank (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not much better in January 2014. 50.135.255.40 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantrill's Raiders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing claims under John Noland

The claims that John Noland, a slave without rights, liberty or self-determination, somehow had the desire or privilege to join a band of Confederate partisans out of his own volition are direct talking points of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. My reading of the talk pages for this article and for John Noland itself shows that, for some 13 or 14 years, this claim has been criticized but never a reference added. My own research only shows pro-Confederate and pro-Quantrill's Raiders sources that make any claim about Noland's sympathies.

I have thus removed it. It was inappropriate to include this uncited claim at all per WP:Reliability, and it remains no less inappropriate having still been without reference a decade later. Zkidwiki (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantrill%27s_Raiders