Howard, thanks for your temperate and thoughtful remarks and comments. I think most accounts of the attack on Lawrence, the sacking, are simplistic. I think the attack on Lawrence came as a final, desperate act that came as the culmination of a lot of provocations in Missouri by Union and Jayhawker troops, which included the destruction of a lot of towns in Missouri in 1861; the destruction and confiscation of much property in 1861 through Lane's sweep up the western counties; the freeing of Missouri slaves along the western border,which had been legally owned chattel property; the planned banishment of guerrilla families; and the planned use of the same-mentioned black slaves for military operations in Missouri. Then, of course there was the collapsing of the building on 14th and Grand occupied by captured guerrilla girls. That was a factor, too. I think of the attack on Lawrence as akin or analogous to a boil finally bursting. In this case, it was in the form of a violent, bloody attack on Lawrence, which many of the guerrillas recognized as a visible source of vulnerable enemies on which to vent their revenge. But that's just how this man views the situation, and there is a strong subjective element in all such surmising. No one can ever know all the motivations for the attack on Lawrence. Some of them were prompted by the grievances of individual guerrillas, the product of their own special circumstances and those of their families in Missouri. Many of the guerrillas had horror stories to tell, and most of them were true. It was all regretable, on both sides, but it happened nonetheless. And it is hard to assign blame without examining the sins of both parties. But to put one's finger on one item to two items and say that was the reason for the attack on Lawrence; that's not a compelling argument for me, personally.

Don G.