This was funny: http://m.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/sep/15/osceola-urges-kansas-to-drop-jayhawk-name/
Yup, you have the basics of their
argument right there. The University of Kansas should change its mascot to
something else so as to assuage the feelings of the fine citizens of Osceola
who still sting from the scars of the looting of their town in...1861.
Additionally, Kansas and KU should not be capitalized because "neither is a proper name [n]or a proper place".
Yes, it is true that in September
of 1861 Kansas senator Jim Lane, a citizen of Lawrence, KS, brought with him a
large group of men and sacked the town over two days. Such was life on the
border between the states of Kansas and Missouri after the Kansas / Nebraska
Act of 1854 allowed popular sovereignty to decide whether the two
territories would enter the Union as free states or slave states. This was one
single incident in a string of bloody events that would see popular writer
Horace Greeley to label the hotbed "Bleeding Kansas". Beginning in
the mid 1850's and continuing through the end of the Civil War in 1865, the
border between the two states was rife with turmoil and bloodshed. Events such
as the Marais des Cygne Massacre, the Battle of Osawatomie, the Battle of Black
Jack, the sacking of Osceola, and Quantrill's raid on Lawrence colored the
fields and towns of Kansas and Missouri red with the blood of "Free
Staters" and "Border Ruffians". At stake was whether Kansas and
Nebraska would be free from slavery or would allow slavery in their states.
Abolitionists from the East settled in Kansas to ensure that Kansas would be
free. Border ruffians from Missouri felt that the Southern "way of
life" (i.e., ability to keep slaves) was threatened and vowed to do what
they could to assure that Kansas was a slave state including sending bands of
thousands of border ruffians across the state line into Kansas to vote in
Kansas elections often times at gunpoint. The resolution fails to tell the
whole story either. Quantrill's raid on Lawrence was not the first such raid on
Kansas' "Free State Fortress". In May of 1856 approximately 800
pro-slavery ruffians led by Sheriff Samuel Jones rode into Lawrence with guns
and artillery and sacked the town. His men burned buildings, tossed printing
presses into the Kaw River, and looted the town. My assertion here being that
one cannot take two instances out of a decade long struggle and treat them as a
microcosm for the whole era. One now has the benefit of 150 years passing and
can look at the picture as a whole. Event after event in which people were
killed, land was burned, towns looted, and property stolen occurred in this
area and was a horror for citizens on both sides of the state line.
The author of this resolution, Rick
Reed, as stated in the article, "is a one-time Civil War re-enactor and member of the John T. Coffee Camp of the sons of Confederate Veterans, [and] said his real goal is to educate the people about the full story of the Civil War. 'Things are not always the way you have been taught'." Clearly there is a slant toward the "Confederate cause". I'm not writing to condemn Mr. Reed for this. His viewpoint is just that...his viewpoint. I would only challenge the people of Osceola to make certain that this is indeed a warranted resolution. Given that both sides of the state line fought for their own particular cause and both sides emerged from the war with blood stained hands. Wouldn't it be a sensible option to celebrate the history of the region and remember the fallen instead of taking a viewpoint which appears to want to revise history and gain some measure of moral high ground against a state which, let's face it, was fighting for the rights and freedoms of an enslaved group of people? Is the "Southern way of life" still held so dear to certain citizens of Missouri that they must continue to fight for it a century and a half after it ended? This is akin to the citizens of Boston still verbally sniping at the British for perceived injustice during the American Revolution.
The Civil War, one of the worst
chapters in American history, is over. Kansas and Nebraska became free states,
slavery was completely abolished, and the US Civil War ended in victory for the
Union at a horrific price - in terms of bloodshed, the bloodiest period in US history. The "border war" now manifests itself on
the court at Allen Field House and on the gridiron at Faurot Field. Old Mizzou
has taken a historic beating on the basketball court at the hands of the
University of Kansas who hold five National Championships in the sport. KU is
one of the historic and storied programs in the nation. Mizzou has built an incredibly impressive program in the last several years on the football field and is one
of the Big XII's finest. They recently kept KU from a potential national title
shot in football and beat the Jayhawks senseless in the last couple of seasons. Both schools boast impressive academic credentials, nationally ranked programs, and are
AAU member institutions.
The hatred one group of fans may
have for another is seen nationwide. I am a graduate of The University of
Kansas (and really fail to see how I am in any way arrogant or uppity.?.? Ha!)
and have rooted with all my soul against the "hated" Tigers but have
difficulty seeing this resolution passed by Osceola for more than a petty stunt
aimed at firing a shot, 150 years too late, at Lawrence. Osceola, you are
relevant. Yours is a fine town with a rich history and a memory of horrible
events which occurred a century and a half ago. Look at the event within the
framework of the Civil War era not in the vein of disgruntled modern sports
fans. As a region we should celebrate together the Civil War and marvel in what
a rich history we share. In very few places in this nation are two states so
inextricably linked as Kansas and Missouri. Let us now allow the brave men and
women who fought and died in this area live on in our memories as reminders of what
was truly the cradle of the Civil War and celebrate the great states that are
Kansas and Missouri.
