At the same time, they did not favor going to war with the Southern states. Some points of Brownlee's rendition of history appear to reflect this seeming ambivalence, but not when one goes full circle to consider that things happened in war that usually does not happen at other times. While his book is expected to give evidence of the Gray confederate position where the guerillas were supposed heroes trying to treat a malady from the oppression of its Blue enemies, Brownlee described events in a language obviously not couched to protect the supposed Gray confederates. He also told of their misdeeds, a reality of what war has made of them. This was to equal the scope of martial law in Missouri that presented a complete picture of the Union's abuses.
Told from the eyes mostly of a confederate, the purpose of the book is clearly to relate about the civil war from the context of struggling from the ruthlessness of the enemy or the Union. Achieving a purpose in terms of writing is normally quantified by its impact on the people - for whom it is written - what effects the piece of writing had, and how sustained the effect is. The Missouri war, however, even until today, is seen from two sides and can only be understood, depending upon which side one's sympathies lay; and further, how wide one's perspective is willing to reach out. As it is, each side tries to present its own version. ...Show more