Howard, obviously you are well-read on terrorism and guerrilla warfare. And I think you are right in saying that the line can become blurred between them. But it's important, at the same time, to distinguish their differences, quite specifically, and try to define them as clearly as possible. I view terorism's specific focus as the commission of violence to achieve political ends. When guerrila actions fulfill that requirement, then, they partake of terrorism. Thus, I see the Pottawatomie massacre by Brown as more of an essentially terrorist activity, because there was no pure revenge motive, there was no ordinary rational motive, only the attempt to send tremors of fear through Brown's enemies, attempting, perhaps, to stir up a great political and military upheaval. Despite all the disclaimers, I'm not sure at all that that wasn't what Harper's Ferry was all about, also--an attempt to start an all-out war and gain the political objective of the freedom of all slaves. The problem with this, of course, was the cost, the most costly war by far ever pursued by the United States and against its own people. I can't see as much a political motive behind Quantrill's attack on Lawrence, which really was a reaction to a great deal of provocations in the state of Missouri by Kansans that proceeded it. It did, as you imply, have the ominous and real terrorist characteristics created by the death list. But I can't see a political objective to be obtained by the revenge on Kansans, and the result was negative on the Missourians. The guerrilla familes were all banished from the border counties, and their homes and farms were burned and much of their property confiscated. The sacking of Lawrence came as the result of a series of provocative actions earlier by Kansans in Missouri that destroyed much property in 1861 and resulted in the loss of many lives in Missouri and the plundering of much property. The actions of Ewing and the U.S. Army to deprive the slaveowners of their chattel slave property in Missouri also was a mitigating circumstance, as well as the planned banishing of the Missouri guerrilla families out of the area in 1863 BEFORE the sacking of Lawrence and the freeing of their slaves and the enlistment of many of them into the Union army to fight in Missouri. So I don't see the sacking of Lawrence so much as a terrorist action as a reprisal. It's disturbing to me to see ex-guerrillas like Jesse James now referred to as terrorists for the first time in history. This seems to be a trend toward expanding and manipulating the meaning of terrorism beyond its original meaning. But all of your remarks are well thought out, I certainly admit, and I thank you for them.

Don G.