Kansas, Missouri battle over companies

[aknowledgeableperson]

We probably shouldn't go here but you are wrong on your assumptions. Missouri men fought in proportions of over 2:1 in favor of the Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_i ... _Civil_War

All that said, why do people try to reference the Civil War when speaking of any contest between Kansas and Missouri from basketball to incentives to incite relocation? The stock of people living in both states are most likely from ancestors not even residing in either state during the war.

From another source, the number of MO volunteers was much higher:

Missouri sent more men to war, in proportion to her population, than any other state. The total number of Missouri Volunteers who served was 199,111

which is quite higher than the Wiki source. Related to my source is another quote from a different webpage

The total number of men who served from Missouri on the side of the Union was approxiamately 110,000 and 90,000 on the side of the Confederacy but the total number will never be known for sure. The following list of Union Forces from Missouri has been generated by the Missouri Commandery of MOLLUS from Frederick H. Dyer's "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion, V.III" and includes 445 Union troops. This three volume set can be found in many libraries. The Missouri Commandery will be working to get the unit histories on-line as well but this may take some time. Currently there are only a very few number of either Union or Confederate unit histories from Missouri units. We plan on working with our Confederate counterparts to have a similar list developed for the Confederate Forces from Missouri. For further information please contact us at momollus@mail.usmo.com or write THE MISSOURI COMMANDERY OF MOLLUS, 302 W. Springfield Ave., Union, MO 63084

However, it appears your German men (sometimes referred as 'Dutch', why I don't know yet) greatly influenced the Union numbers:

Germans took the lead as war opened; six regiments were made up solely of Germans in Missouri.
NOTE: The 31,000 Germans in Missouri who went into blue saved the Western frontier for the Union; four fifths of the St. Louis Union men were foreign~born, chiefly German

From another source I found:

Many Missouri men served in more than one type of military unit during the four-year conflict. Men serving in short-term militia units organized shortly after the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861, for instance, later often enlisted in Missouri Volunteer Regiments or in Enrolled Missouri Militia units.
Some men even served in units on both sides of the conflict during the war (in some cases, men detained in prison camps volunteered to serve in the enemy army in order to avoid the possibility of dying due to diseases contracted while being held prisoner).

So, I wonder how many men might be counted twice or more in the numbers above? And how many served on both sides?

Of course, the MO Secretary of State office has the numbers:

In all, 109,000 Missouri men served the Union, while 30,000 fought with the Confederacy. These numbers account for 60% of the men eligible for military service.

And maybe the number for the Union might be inflated just a little bit:

Most of the volunteers in Missouri's early regiments were German immigrants, and Lyon supported the creation of a regiment of "native-born Americans" to demonstrate that the Union cause in Missouri had support beyond the German-American community. Ironically, the Eighth Missouri also ended up with a high percentage of immigrants. Many of its members were Irish Americans who had worked on the Mississippi River docks prior to the war, giving the regiment a distinct Celtic personality (an ironic result considering Lyon's goal of an ethnically "American" regiment)[1]. In addition to its St Louis recruits, several companies were actually raised in Illinois. The Illinois volunteers joined the Eighth Missouri because their home state's quota for enlistments was full.

All-in-all this has been an interesting exercise. Currently reading a book about the Gettysburg battle and set to watch again the Ted Turner movie about this battle. I will concede that the number of Missourians fighting for the Union was higher but not by much.


With regards to the "Border War" I just see that as more of a way to market a game a way to make the game sound important. I would compare that to "Subway Series", the Governor's Cup game, the I-70 Series for the Royals and Cardinals, Texas and Oklahoma's Red River Rivalry, and so on. Kansas and Missouri has a history of fighting each other before the Civil War and many attribute this fight as a good start to the War Between the States.

[Highlander]

The point is, AKP, the "border war", as understood in modern minds, is a myth. Nothing but a big fat myth..at least you seem to acknowledge that in part. Kansas and Missouri were, for the most part, both union states. Allies. What went on in Osceola and Lawrence were mere skirmishes, and small ones at that, fought by the very few men that, for whatever reasons, never went off to the real war. Even then, it was hardly Kansas vs Missouri. Quantrill himself from Ohio and led southern sympathizers from all over the south who came to Missouri to attempt to influence affairs in Kansas. I am sure there were Missourians in that group (Bill Anderson for one), and probably even a few Kansans too. The battle of Wesport was mostly Kansas Militia and Missouri regulars fighting together to fend off Price's confederate invasion (which also failed because he failed to gain ANY support or recruits in Missouri) Here is the order of battle for Wesport..mostly Missourians and Kansans fighting side by side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westport_U ... _of_battle

The entire region would be so much better off if they would just educate themselves a bit over something that happened 150 years ago. I would not doubt if Kansans feel it is easier to justify their pilfering of KCMO's business's based upon their erroneous understanding of history.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The point is, AKP, the "border war", as understood in modern minds, is a myth. Nothing but a big fat myth..at least you seem to acknowledge that in part. Kansas and Missouri were, for the most part, both union states. Allies. What went on in Osceola and Lawrence were mere skirmishes, and small ones at that, fought by the very few men that, for whatever reasons, never went off to the real war. Even then, it was hardly Kansas vs Missouri. Quantrill himself from Ohio and led southern sympathizers from all over the south who came to Missouri to attempt to influence affairs in Kansas. I am sure there were Missourians in that group (Bill Anderson for one), and probably even a few Kansans too. The battle of Wesport was mostly Kansas Militia and Missouri regulars fighting together to fend off Price's confederate invasion (which also failed because he failed to gain ANY support or recruits in Missouri)

Given that only 40% of MO residents (almost 10% were slaves) in the 1860 census considered themselves "native born" MO was filled with people that came here with either southern sympathy or northern leanings. But the important thing MO was considered a "Border State", along with Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and later West Virginia - all were slave states in the Union. And as a slave state it had an identity as a southern state, although that was changing slowing given the European immigrants coming into the state. And in one reference I found St Joseph is described as the northernmost Southern city.

Saint Joseph, Missouri, was the most northern southern city in the United States at the outset of the War of the Rebellion. As neighborhoods and families were torn apart by sympathies to opposing sides, fierce tension brought the establishment of martial law to the city which lasted until the end of the war. Today more than 300 Union and Confederate veterans lie in close proximity on Mount Mora Cemetery�s shady hillsides. No fences, no divisions separate the graves. Walking tours related to various periods in St. Joseph�s history are available upon request. The Civil War Walking Tour acquaints the visitor with William Faunstock Ridenbaugh, first newspaper editor and southern sympathizer, M. Jeff Thompson who came to be known as the Swamp Fox, Captain John C. Landis, General James Craig, the Ashton family slave, Sallie Alice Travis who is buried in the Ashton family plot, William Halley and Thomas Jefferson Brown who both rode with Quantrill, Governor Willard Prebble Hall, Missouri�s governor under unusual circumstances, and many others

And, from what I can tell most of Sterling Price's troops, Army of Missouri, was made of recruits from MO along with men from Arkansas supplemented by MO bushwackers. Even though it may be considered a Confederate invasion many of the troops were going back into their home state.

And for fun here is one take of the situation:

For instance, when doing an internet search, you will get a very different story when searching for "Bleeding Kansas" than you will get if you search on "Missouri Civil War." Many of the books that are available are no different. Though most lean toward the Kansas side of the conflict due to its anti-slavery sentiment, Missouri cannot be ignored in its contribution to history and its heavy losses during the Civil War. Officially, a Union State, Missouri was internally divided between its pro-slavery sentiments and its obligation as a Union State. Never officially entering the Civil War, Missouri fought its own internal battles between the Federal Officers and its own State Forces.
Even when we visit the historical sites of Kansas and Missouri, we get a different impression in the "telling." Kansas sites will focus on the great battle of Mine Creek, where the Union Forces won the skirmish against the Confederates at immense odds; the Lawrence Massacre by Quantrill's Raiders, or, upon John Brown, the fanatic abolitionist, and his actions to defeat the Missouri Bushwhackers.
In Missouri we heard the stories of the burning of Osceola by Lane's Kansas Brigade, the attack upon the Missouri building that killed many innocent women and children, and the forcible evacuation of Kansas City area counties that displaced many Missourians and turned the area into a desolate "No Mans Land."
The "war" between Kansas and Missouri began almost immediately when Kansas was opened for settlement in 1854, seven years before the Civil War officially began. No doubt, both sides were ugly -- it was a "war" between people that had strong opposing sentiments and lifestyles at stake.

With regards to "Border War" I think many refer that to the period of time before the Civil War, with John Brown and all, not so much as during the Civil War. For many though the Civil War was just a continuation of the Border War.

[knucklehead]

My understanding is that many of the early incidents in the state of Kansas were abolishionist groups attacking southerners who had settled in Kansas in an attempt to drive them out of Kansas.

those attacks are spun as innocent abolishionists being killed by southerners when in fact it was just the opposite. It was innocent southerners being attacked by abolishionists.

A lot of the blood in bloody Kansas was the result of Kansan on Kansan attacks, especially in the early years before Missourians began to retaliate for Kansas raids into Missouri (such as Osceola which occurred two years before Lawrence).

The eastern abolishionest press had an agenda to demonize southerners. They were located in New York and Philedelphia and didn't have a lot of actual facts to work from. So they spun what they had hard pro-Kansan. A lot of that propaganda worked its way into historical accounts after the war (the winners write the history).

In fact, Missouri was much more established and wealthy than Kansas. Many of the people who went to Kansas early on didn't have much property. Some were recruited by abolishionist groups and people without assets were easier to recruit (they were not leaving anything behind).

Some of the people without property used the war as a looting opportunity. The flow of booty was definately much more from Missouri to Kansas than the other direction. This was for two reasons. Kansas didn't have as much to steal, as it was just recently opened for development. and Kansas property had the protection of the Union army much more so than Missouri property (which seems strange since Missouri was a member of the union).

Looted booty was sold openly in Lawrence with the authorities doing next to nothing to stop the fencing of stolen goods.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Given that MO was a state that lean to the South (afterall, many in state government sided with the South) but sent more troops to fight for the Federals may be that many MO southern sympathizers were Unionists in that they didn't want to suceed from the Union.

[brewcrew1000]

I have a question maybe someone can answer this. If the founder of AMC was a huge supporter and idea maker behind P&L, why wasn't a new HQ just built there instead of giving incentives to HR Block to build a new HQ. It almost seems like a slap in the face.

[FangKC]

By the time P&L started construction, Stan Durwood was dead and AMC's involvement was no longer the driving force behind the South Loop Redevelopment. A new management group had taken over, and their interest was not in real estate redevelopment. And by that time, AMC had already sold Ten Main Center. I assume to have done the new headquarter back then, AMC would have had to break its' lease, and at that point, they weren't apparently as unhappy with new building owners.

[Highlander]

By the time P&L started construction, Stan Durwood was dead and AMC's involvement was no longer the driving force behind the South Loop Redevelopment. A new management group had taken over, and their interest was not in real estate redevelopment. And by that time, AMC had already sold Ten Main Center. I assume to have done the new headquarter back then, AMC would have had to break its' lease, and at that point, they weren't apparently as unhappy with new building owners.

Yea, I think it was just a timing issue. The incentives, however, were probably never going to match the insane incentives that Kansas was willing to give. A better question would be where was Kansas and its incentives when the NCAA was pulling out of the metro? They'll go all out to a pull company across state line, but when it came down to keeping an institution like the NCAA in the metro, they did practically nothing.

[KCPowercat]

Amc was behind p&l 1.0 that never took off.

[KCMax]

Yea, I think it was just a timing issue. The incentives, however, were probably never going to match the insane incentives that Kansas was willing to give. A better question would be where was Kansas and its incentives when the NCAA was pulling out of the metro? They'll go all out to a pull company across state line, but when it came down to keeping an institution like the NCAA in the metro, they did practically nothing.

PEAK incentives, which was used to lure AMC, were enacted in 2009.

I'm not really sure what kind of incentives were around back in the early 90s when the NCAA relocated, but I would guess there weren't as many "tools in the toolbox" back then, and in fact I'll bet, these current incentives were a response to Kansas losing the NCAA and other jobs like Boeing back in the day.

[FangKC]

These state incentives have become like TIF in some ways. TIF was created to redevelop blighted areas of the city to make it more attractive for business to locate there, and to bring job back into portions of cities that had lost them--mostly downtowns, older retail strips in the central city, and former industrial areas. Examples being the places like Troost and Linwood, the West Bottoms, Fairfax, Sheffeld and Leeds industrial districts. Development lawyers found ways to use TIF for Briarcliff Village, and the Harley Plant in a greenfield of the Northland. For example, under the original purpose, TIF would have only been given to the Harley Plant to locate in the Leeds District, and not the Northland.

State incentives were created with the intent of drawing in businesses from out of state/out of metro. Now it's become a way for in-Metro businesses to finance their new buildings by moving a few miles across the state line.

The whole incentives thing has turned into a racket that companies use to get a free ride. The way it's set up now, in a few years when the incentives expire, the company can move again, and get another free ride.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The old "Slippery Slope" explanation.

[warwickland]

However, it appears your German men (sometimes referred as 'Dutch', why I don't know yet) greatly influenced the Union numbers:

Germans took the lead as war opened; six regiments were made up solely of Germans in Missouri.
NOTE: The 31,000 Germans in Missouri who went into blue saved the Western frontier for the Union; four fifths of the St. Louis Union men were foreign~born, chiefly German

In St. Louis, the Germans were called "Dutch," i.e. "Dutchtown," and the "Scrubby Dutch." This came from the mispronounciation of Deutsch.

The last time I was in Lawrence, I had to explain that I wasn't a "slaver," as I was very early accused of in the evening by a hippie before I ever said much of anything of where I was from whose home I was happily expelled from after some words were exchanged, and that Lawrence was a mudhole while St. Louis produced nearly half the ammunition for the Union Army (this was after the "slaver' thing reached a fantastic crescendo) and a friend of mine (actually born and raised in Lawrence) urinated on their front door. HAH! I guess you shouldn't go around calling people from Missouri "slavers," that have fun friends from Kansas...

[warwickland]

This crazy motherfucker has had enough of the "Kansas Problem."


http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/ ... ant126.JPG

and this bitch ass motherfucker.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Willi ... herman.jpg

both lived and and one buried in Missouri. Yeah, crazy fucking UNION GENERALS.

We need to start tearing up rails over there.

[KCMax]

Special Session Showdown Over Eco Devo Bill, KC’s ‘Anti-Poaching’ Bill May be in Trouble

Unless consensus can be found in the next couple of days, Missouri House members may simply spike a job-creation bill approved by the Senate and end a special legislative session without passing any new incentives for businesses to locate and expand in Missouri, a key lawmaker said Monday night.

Rep. John Diehl, a lead sponsor and negotiator on the economic development efforts, said the Senate legislation passed last week “is dead on arrival” in the House because it deviates too greatly from the deal struck between Republican House and Senate leaders this summer.

[KCMax]

Jack Stack Barbecue moving operations from Martin City to Overland Park

At least it won't cost Kansans $40 million.

[mean]

It still pisses me off but it would have been worse if they moved to Dallas.

I agree such a move would have been worse, but I don't think Dallas (or any other city) was even seriously on the table. At least not unless they were willing to give up the kinds of incentives AMC got from KS, and I'm pretty sure there is no other place in the country that would have given them that much.

[kcmetro]

Jack Stack Barbecue moving operations from Martin City to Overland Park

At least it won't cost Kansans $40 million.

How many employees does Jack Stack have at their HQ? Can't be too many.

[KCPowercat]

Kraske has a good column today mostly addressing the bill in MO....which I'm not too sold is the best method here. As his article states MO is already "winning" the job count....why throw away more tax money on companies?

Also mentions ks might not see any benefit from the amc move....smart money being spent for pride I guess.

[KCMax]

That's the jobs scorecard for just this year - isn't MO suffering a net loss overall the last few years? I can't imagine MO thinks this can be a long-term winning war for them - at least until the coffers go dry in KS and these abatements run out.