Talk:Sacking of Lawrence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

[edit] Semi-legal, and legal???

There is reference to the destruction of the Free State Hotel and the printing presses as semi-legal and legal. How could it be considered legal??? Johnor 10:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I too have a question about this. Is there a source that would validate the "semi-legal" status of a violent attack on a town?

Moreover the article on the second sacking of this town might need some work, the attribution seems questionable at best and it is about as bias a report as can be imagined.

I took out the part about the second sacking because it has its own article. I also added some context. The attack was "semi-legal" because it was a federally-authorized de-arming of renegade citizens. More work needs to be done, but I'm not going to do it just yet. Kgwo1972 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And you included an actual source for that? correct?

Now I have added two "actual sources." Kgwo1972 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: This journal article convincingly argues that none of the actions were "legal" or "semi-legal," although many history books say otherwise. I have edited accordingly. Kgwo1972 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)