Donald.... All things are a matter of definition. Caleb Carr writes in his book "The Lessons of Terror" that a terrorist is "someone who deliberately attacks civilians in order to effect a change in both the support of those civilians for their leaders and the policies of those leaders themselves" Later Carr contrasts terrorists with guerrillas. He says, "Many analysts have likened guerrillas to modern-day terrorists, with some reason. Guerrillas have always tended to hide among civilian populations and to draw support from them, as do terrorists. Also, reprisals from the conventional troops that guerrillas attack have been inflicted on those civilians as much as or more than on the guerrillas themselves. But it is precisely this difference - of intended targets - that has usually separated guerrillas from terrorists. The greatest masters and theorists of guerrilla war have understood the need to maintain the loyalty of the civilian population (a need eventually codified by Mao Zedong in his famous "three rules and eight remarks") and therefore have advised trying to limit casualties among noncombatants..... Therefore, the similarities between guerrilla war and terrorist campaigns cannot ultimately be considered as important as their differences. Far more significant is the similarity of reaction that both groups inspire in their opponents.... In attempting to respond to guerrilla activity, those same armed forces often commit precisely the same sort of acts: the usual strategy for countering guerrilla groups is to try to root them out from under the cover afforded by their presumed civilian sponsors through the use of indiscriminate brutality."

Although you may or may not agree with this premise, it does make sense to me that the Civil War along the Missouri/Kansas border was a mixture of both guerrilla acts and terrorist acts. Using this definition the burning of the Platte River Bridge trestles in September 1861 was an act of terrorism. It could be argued that the men (reportedly Si Gordon's band) "thought" they might be killing Union soldiers but Gordon's men were aware of the high probability that civilians would be killed. The burning of Lawrence, while cited as "revenge" does meet Carr's definition of terrorism as a list of targeted civilians was used with the intent of eliminating men of political or military influence including, by and large, civilians.

This does not excuse Union depredations against civilians, whether or not they can be considered primary or retailitory but it does support a concept of mine, that acts of war against civilians (whether guerrilla or terrorist) takes on a life of its own and all sides become aculturated to the environment of terror until the escalation eliminates all reason and terrorism prevails.

What this means to me is that the issue is not as simplistic as "Union men were all bad and Southern men were all good", or that the "strategies and tactics of the South were wrong and the North was right". I believe that selective history should be analyzed and challenged whether it is Connelly or Edwards or your own book. What I would hope for is that you challenge yourself.

I do appreciate the compliment and would agree that all of this discussion has been enlightening.