Wilsons Creek/Oak Hill missed opportunity for the CS?

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

Huh..yeah. And Lyon did nothing different than any field commander CS or US did during the war by using private residences as billets and HQ's.

Yeah, well, maybe, but that don't make it any less un-constitutional and Lyons did it first.

Why do modern day reconstructionists continue to repress Union actions in Missouri in the spring of 1861? Why do you all continually deflect the issue by saying things like "oh well the rebs did it too"? Bull-Hockey! Lincoln's Legions violated the Constitution of the United States time and time again. It was the good people of Missouri and the Southland's duty to resist, duty to rebel. Lincoln was a Tyrant and his Lieutenants were agents of oppression.

[rivrrat]

"The North was never in danger from MO, it was never in danger from anywhere."

You haven't studied this much have you?

If Missouri was so unimportant why did Lincoln promote Lyon from Captain to Brigadeer General in one fell swoop? Why did he back his actions over his superiors? If Missouri was so unimportant why was under Martial law for four years? Why in 1864, was there such a scramble to find troops to resist Price's invasion?

For that matter if the west was so unimportant, why was the Vicksbug Campaign undertaken at all and why were all those battles fought in Tennnessee?

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Dred

"The North was never in danger from MO, it was never in danger from anywhere."

If you look at things through Blue tinted lenses, you will never see the truth and it will never set you free.

[Dred]

Whatever... blue tineted lenses doesn't bring your rivers any closer to the seat of war. Those rivers would have helped IF the confederateswon the war, having two major riverways would help anybody. I'm looking at this from a strategic view, that section of river was unimportant unless you also held the mouth of the river on the gulf, wich the rebs did not. Even if they did, the imortance is limited to the immediate vicinity of the river. But you still have thousands of men who were desperatley needed in more important areas. MO was nothing more than a minor annoyance to the North AND South, a barely settled area with no strategic value. Nothing would be gained by holding onto a state so far out west. The union scrambled to hold onto it for the same reason they scrambled to hold onto anythign else.. it was their property. And as far As Tenesee goes... That was control for the Mississippi and depriving any resources being sent up river or down, depriving the area of resources, and taking over cities that were much more important to the southern cause the St Louis.

Maybe I wsa too quick to say unimportant alltogether.. but more important than "All the Battlefields of Virginia Combined"? Hold on to St Louis all you want.. hell take all the way to California if it makes you happy. If Richmond Falls so does the Confederacy... so DID the confederacy. Holding MO doesn't save Richmond or Atlanta.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

Yeah, well, maybe, but that don't make it any less un-constitutional and Lyons did it first.

Why do modern day reconstructionists continue to repress Union actions in Missouri in the spring of 1861? Why do you all continually deflect the issue by saying things like "oh well the rebs did it too"? Bull-Hockey! Lincoln's Legions violated the Constitution of the United States time and time again. It was the good people of Missouri and the Southland's duty to resist, duty to rebel. Lincoln was a Tyrant and his Lieutenants were agents of oppression.

Thanks but I'm not reconstructionist modern day or otherwise.

And you cannot have it both ways. It can't be wrong when US troops do it an "Just Southern boys raisin cain and defendin' their rights and freedom." when CS troops do it.

You want to throw out the constitution then the Unionist cause has a good fight in that the act of secession was a violation and we can go round and round on that issue.

The good people of the South in general and Missouri in particular got sold a bill of goods by Jeff Davis and crew and Claiborne Jackson and cronies and alot of good honorable men were used as cannon fodder to preserve a way of life that very few persons could aspire to in that society.

It's not a white wash it's taking both points of view into account. Just turning a blind eye toward the opposing point of view does nothing to further any discussion.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by rivrrat

I was actually refering to events after th Camp Jackson incident, although the legality of that action by Lyon is in question. I am refering to Lyon's May 11th declaration of war on Missouri, followed by his march on Jefferson City, which launched the campaign which culminated at Wilson's Creek. Lyon's stated objective was to drive the elected governor and legislature from the State and seize the state treasury. Where is it written that the Federal Government has the right to remove the elected state government of a state not in rebellion, occupy its capitol, and seize assets?

By the by, Lyon did not "seize the armory" at St Louis, it was already in his hands. What he did was surround a state militia which was on lawful training duty, under the flag of the United States.

I'm still failing to see how an advance into Missouri , a state still in the Union and subject to all that entails was "illegal". You are eitheir in rebellion or you are not. You are eithier a state in secession or a state in the union. As Missouri was a member of the Union the deployment of Federal Troops into Federal territory does not seem "illegal" to me.

IMO the whole Halleck-Price Truce, the State Guard ready to defend Missouri from any and all was a time delay for Jackson and Price in the secession process.
Jackson meant to take Missouri South. And I fail to see how a state can elect to remain neutral given the political and social climate of the time. Your in or your out. Jackson was buying time.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

You want to throw out the constitution then the Unionist cause has a good fight in that the act of secession was a violation and we can go round and round on that issue.

Missouri had not seceeded when Lyons seized the State Guard at Camp Jackson. It had not seceeded when his Dutch mercenaries fired on innocent civilians nor when he seized the McDowell House. Missouri had not even seceeded when Fremont stole all that gold in Lexington.

You union blue boys can deny it all you want. You can whitewash it, cover it up and expunge it from the Official Record, but the truth remains. Lincoln and his agents of oppression threw the constitution out long before anyone in Missouri, Gov. Jackson and Gen. Price included.

[rivrrat]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

I'm still failing to see how an advance into Missouri , a state still in the Union and subject to all that entails was "illegal". You are eitheir in rebellion or you are not. You are eithier a state in secession or a state in the union. As Missouri was a member of the Union the deployment of Federal Troops into Federal territory does not seem "illegal" to me.

IMO the whole Halleck-Price Truce, the State Guard ready to defend Missouri from any and all was a time delay for Jackson and Price in the secession process.
Jackson meant to take Missouri South. And I fail to see how a state can elect to remain neutral given the political and social climate of the time. Your in or your out. Jackson was buying time.

Since when does a Federal commander have the right to decare war on a state? Are you saying that the commander of Fort Leonard Wood could march on Jefferson City or the Commander of Fort Leavenworth could declare war on Kansas? By your theory the Federal govt. has the right to take military action against any state at any time.
While Jackson wanted to take Missouri into the Confederacy, he did not have the political strength to do so. Lyon's invasion actually strengthened sothern leanings as did Freemont's emancapation procolimation which Lincoln had to rescend.

John you are quoting a qoute from my post read the rest, no blue colored glasses on my nose.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by rivrrat

John you are quoting a qoute from my post read the rest, no blue colored glasses on my nose.

I know rat. Dred said it. I was just echoing what you said.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Since when does a Federal commander have the right to decare war on a state? Are you saying that the commander of Fort Leonard Wood could march on Jefferson City or the Commander of Fort Leavenworth could declare war on Kansas? By your theory the Federal govt. has the right to take military action against any state at any time.
While Jackson wanted to take Missouri into the Confederacy, he did not have the political strength to do so. Lyon's invasion actually strengthened sothern leanings as did Freemont's emancapation procolimation which Lincoln had to rescend.

John you are quoting a qoute from my post read the rest, no blue colored glasses on my nose.

Did Lyon jump the gun? Most probably. Frost didn't have a suitable force on May 10 to take the arsenal. Should he have waited for the legal process to follow thru the courts in regards to the "Tamora Marble"? It was an option but.........

The hand was tipped by Dan Frost when he sent Lyon the message stating that the State Guard needed to construct the fortifications on the bluffs above the arsenal for training purposes. After Pro-Confedrate banners of some units had been observed at Lindell Grove. IMO enough to make any commander nervous.

Lyon was also aware of the crates of "Tamora Marble" AKA weapons captured from the arsenal in Baton Rouge in route to Camp Jackson, he stated that in his second message to Frost on the 10th.

Taken all in all it may have been a prudent "over reaction on Lyons part as the commander on the field erring on the side of caution.

Did it hurt Union sympathies in Missouri. Yes but I'm willing to bet for the most part it was to the segement of the population that were in the neutral camp but with southern leanings in the first place.

Jackson lost out when the pro-southern officers at the arsenal were replaced by Lyon. The agreement to turn over the arsenal to the state peacefuly went out the window. He knew he'd have to take the arsenal by main force and it sorta became his little Fort Sumter. the letter to Jacksonr of April 23 1861 from Davis that Capt's Nash and Greene were to be provided two 12 lb howitzers and two 32 pound guns with proper ammo for use against the garrison and the walls "of the place" from "the commanding hills" bears this out.

Had the Baton Rouge shipment been timely and Frost not tipped his hands with the message that the State Guard was going to be erecting fortifications on the bluff who knows it might have been different.

Jackson may not have had the political support for secession but I don't believe he was inclined to wait he was going out by force.

So had Lyon not acted then maybe the Union camp would be blaming him for losing Missouri.