Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
Was Lyon really the "Savior of Missouri", or did his radical actions actually cause more Missourians to turn toward the Southern side of the conflict in Missouri.
Chuck in Il.
Chuck,
I can't believe that nobody has addressed this topic.
There is lots of room for debate here. Lyon was without doubt a radical. This seems to have arisen, in great part, from his time at Ft. Leavenworth during the 1850s.
Lyon did prevent the seizure of the Federal arsenal at St. Louis. He did drive the pro-southern governor Jackson his supporters in the legislature and Price's Missouri State Guard out of Jefferson City and into South West Missouri. However they came back with notable success after the Battle of Wilson's Creek. IMHO the loss of Missouri to the Confederacy had as much to do with the failure of the Confederate Government, in 1861, to realize the importance of Missouri as it did with Lyon.
As to the suggestion that Lyon caused more Missourians to turn toward the south, I would suggest that that honor goes more to Freemont, Lane, Jennison and their ilk than to Lyon.
I think that it is somewhat unlikely that Missouri would have ever voted, if given the opportunity for a popular vote, to have left the Union. I offer in evidence Price's November 26, 1861 proclamation. (Emphasis is mine)
Fellow Citizens:
In the moth of June last I was called to command a handful of Missourians, who nobly gave up home and comfort to espouse, in that gloomy hour, the cause of your bleeding country, struggling with the most causeless and cruel despotism known among civilized men. When peace and protection could no longer be enjoyed but at the price of honor and liberty, your chief magistrate called for 50,000 men to drive the the ruthless invader from a soil made fruitful by your labors and consecrated by your homes. To that call less than 5,000 responded; out of a male population exceeding 200,000 men, one in forty only stepped forward to defend with their persons and their lives the cause of constitutional liberty and human rights...
Where are those 50,000 men? Are Missourians no longer true to themselves? Are they a timid, time-serving, craven race, fit only for subjection to a despot?
... Where are our Southern-rights friends? We must drive the oppressor from our land. I must have 50,000 men. Now is the crisis of your fate; now the golden opportunity to save the state; now is the day of your political salvation. The time of enlistment for our brave band is beginning to expire. Do not tax their patience beyond endurance; do not longer sicken their hearts by hope deferred. They begin to inquire, "where are our friends?" Who shall give them an answer?
I do not believe that Nathaniel Lyon was a radical. Governor Claiborne Jackson was a radical by definition…Jackson is the one that believed Missouri needed to leave the Union and he was willing to do anything to help accomplish that mission, even armed insurrection.
Lyon was dedicated to preserving the Union at all costs and was not willing to sit by passively and watch Jackson build his little army in St. Louis and than take the arsenal.
Instead Captain Lyon, who was the commandant of the arsenal at the time, distributed the arsenal’s stand of arms to Missouri Home Guards and sent the remainder to the arsenal in Springfield, Illinois. Later those muskets would arm the First Iowa Volunteer Infantry who saw action at Forsyth, Dug Springs, McCulla’s Store and the Battle at Wilson’s Creek.
Lyon himself reconnoitered Camp Jackson in the guise of a woman to determine how soon his plan to take Camp Jackson must become an action.
It is certainly a tragedy that twenty-eight men, women and children were killed during a protest after the camp’s capture. And this unfortunate killing helped to move Sterling Price into action, who had previously opposed Missouri’s secession under all circumstances.
Lyon was aggressive, very aggressive. Even when outnumbered in hostile territory, he continued to move rapidly.
His victory at Booneville and putting Jackson’s government to flight using his small force of 2,000 men was instrumental in keeping the states rights men from gaining any larger foothold in Missouri.
To sum it all up, Lyon was not radical in his actions, only aggressive in his ways to stop the insurrection.
Just my thoughts….
Best Regards,
Court
Greetings Doug,
I have always found the quote, " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", an interesting and thought provoking statement.
At face value, I accept that, but in a lawful world, I will not agree that this is correct.
There are ‘determinable standards’ that decide if an action is lawful or if it is terrorism. The ends can never justify the means.
Granted that in and of itself would be argued by either side in a disagreement. But, there are laws that we must conform.
So, the dialogue would now concern itself with Lyons’ actions.
Where were his actions radical? And where were they aggressive?
As for Missourians wanting to be left alone…I agree, but then again so did the majority of South Viet Nam. Too often the destiny of a people lay in the hands of others.
I have waited ten days now. Do I have to do all the Trans-Mississippi work?
OK Court here we go.
IMHO Lyon was radical in the following actions:
1. His assault on Camp Jackson. At the time of this action Lyon was a Captain in command of Company B, Second United States Infantry his assignment was to reinforce the St. Louis Arsenal Garrison. He was under the command of Brigadier General William S. Henry, Commander Department of the West. At the time of the assault on Camp Jackson he had no orders to take any action against the Missouri Troops.
2. His invasion of Missouri. When Lyon moved his troops against the duly elected Missouri Government the state had not seceded from the United States. No military action had been taken against the United States by Missouri forces, although governor Jackson had called for 50,000 troops to “defend the state.” The question of whether or not the Missouri Legislature would have passed articles of secession had Lyon not marched on Jefferson City, is forever open to debate and speculation at this time. There was plenty of resentment over Lyon’s previous actions. However the state not in “rebellion” at the time.
Aw shucks Doug, we are just bowing to the fact you are obviously the resident expert on the Trans Mississippi. I'd admit freely and without reservation you know far more than me in this arena. In fact I am very interested in the Trans Mississippi and love reading your posts.
Hi Doug,
Captain Lyon was responsible for the security of the Arsenal and its contents.
Both Francis Blair, another unconditional Unionist, and Lyon knew what was being planned by Governor Jackson and General Frost to seize the Arsenal. This scheme was plotted before Beauregard fired on Sumter. The attack on Fort Sumter and President Lincoln’s call for volunteers proved to be the catalysts for that plot to be placed in motion.
Captain Lyon fully understood the climate of Governor Jackson’s Missouri and demonstrated aggressive, preemptive action by halting General Frost’s State Guard from taking the St. Louis Arsenal.
Yes, at this point Lyon was only a Captain, but that did not stop him from executing his duty to secure the Arsenal and showing the initiative that did save the Arsenal from being taken by Governor Jackson’s State Guard.
So even without express written orders to stop Jackson and Frost, Lyon’s actions won him the support of his superiors with the fact that he entered Missouri a Captain and within less than five months he was a Brig. General in command of the Army of the West, later the Southwest.
Captain Lyon did not give Governor Jackson the opportunity to turn his plans into military action.
I certainly wonder ‘what if’ Lyon had not ‘invaded Missouri’. Where would have Missouri been in the whole scheme of things, Slave or Free??? Would Sterling Price continue to try to keep the State in the Union? Or was Lyon just accelerating the inevitable?
Of coarse, I see Lyon’s actions as necessary and if more of the Union commanding officers would have been as aggressive as Lyon in the following years, the war might have ended sooner…or not…. I digress.
To conclude, I am aware of some ‘historians’ that describe Lyon as an “unbalanced, monomaniacal Unionist zealot”. I certainly do not share that feeling nor do I believe the majority of the common soldiers from Kansas and Iowa that served under Lyon in Missouri thought him to be nothing more than an aggressive General.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts, Doug.
Best Regards,
Court
I don’t totally disagree with you. I think that Lyon was a radical abolitionist, the historical record and his own actions and writings support that. Unbalanced, I don’t think so. If you want an unbalanced radical look at John Brown, to name one, there were plenty to go around on both sides. Especially, in St. Louis in 1861. I was not meaning to imply that Lyon was the only radical around. You mention Blair on the Union Side, and Gov. Jackson and Sterling Price were certainly as radical on the other. If Jackson had been as bold as Lyon, the Arsenal would have been taken. I think the refusal of the “State Convention” which he had called, to agree to succession, slowed him down.
I like you, wonder what would have happened if Lyon had not “invaded.” I think that Missouri suffered more than most states in the war. I believe that it was the only “loyal” state to be under Martial Law for four years.
You asked where were Lyon’s actions radical and aggressive, I answered. I am respect your opinions and am glad that you respect mine.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
