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.
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.........
Strictly speaking, I suppose rounding up a militia clearly being assembled to seize yet another Federal installation might be considered extralegal. Perhaps someone with more than an elementary acquaintance with that document can be persuaded to weigh in.
Does the constitution require that a conspiracy to commit a crime be allowed to fester until the actual crime is committed? Did any court rule on the round-up of the militia? Was the round-up ever questioned to the point that court action was even considered? Insisting an action is unconstitutional based on a layman's interpretation of that document is hightly questionable.
One more thing: "Lyon declared war on Missouri." Did he ever declare war? This claim is based on what documented pronouncement? Who gave him the authority to declare war?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Strictly speaking, I suppose rounding up a militia clearly being assembled to seize yet another Federal installation might be considered extralegal. Perhaps someone with more than an elementary acquaintance with that document can be persuaded to weigh in.
Does the constitution require that a conspiracy to commit a crime be allowed to fester until the actual crime is committed? Did any court rule on the round-up of the militia? Was the round-up ever questioned to the point that court action was even considered? Insisting an action is unconstitutional based on a layman's interpretation of that document is hightly questionable.
One more thing: "Lyon declared war on Missouri." Did he ever declare war? This claim is based on what documented pronouncement? Who gave him the authority to declare war?
ole
General Lyon to Gov. Jackson and Gen. Price Planter's House Hotel June 11, 1861:
"Finally, when the conference had lasted four or five hours, Lyon closed it, as he had opened it, ‘Rather,’ said he (he was still seated, and spoke deliberately, slowly, and with a peculiar emphasis), ‘rather than concede to the State of Missouri the right to demand that my Government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State whenever it pleases, or move its troops at its own will into, out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my Government in any matter however unimportant, I would (rising as he said this and pointing in turn to every one in the room) see you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman, and child in the State, dead and buried.’
"Then turning to the Governor, he said: ‘This means war. In an hour one of my officers will call for you and conduct you out of my lines.’
I notice that he said, "This means war," rather than, "put up your dukes." I realize it's being a nit-picky about the choice of words, but this is not what most consider declaring war. Conclusion: That Lyon declared war is hyperbole.
From the Link: "After they withdrew from the conference, Gov. Jackson, as Price’s trumpeter, sounded the call "to arms" in a proclamation to the people of Missouri."
Heard a presentation by a man named Donald L. Gilmore who read from his book, Civil War on the Missouri-Kansas Border. Read the reviews on Amazon. I think you'll find it useful to you.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Simply that, if you hadn't read the book, I thought you might enjoy it.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Strictly speaking, I suppose rounding up a militia clearly being assembled to seize yet another Federal installation might be considered extralegal. Perhaps someone with more than an elementary acquaintance with that document can be persuaded to weigh in.
Does the constitution require that a conspiracy to commit a crime be allowed to fester until the actual crime is committed? Did any court rule on the round-up of the militia? Was the round-up ever questioned to the point that court action was even considered? Insisting an action is unconstitutional based on a layman's interpretation of that document is hightly questionable.
One more thing: "Lyon declared war on Missouri." Did he ever declare war? This claim is based on what documented pronouncement? Who gave him the authority to declare war?
ole
Lyon had some civilian political types (Unionist & Neutral) advising him to allow them to proceed thru the courts after the Crates marked Tamora Marble (the CS code for the Baton Rouge shipment of arms) arrived in Camp Jackson. Then they would attempt to try and convict the Pro- Southern/Secessionists with receiving or possesing stolen Federal Property in Federal Court.
I don't I cannot believe that there is any requirement for any military commander to allow a probable enemy to marshall and form their forces, make sure that said forces are suitable in number and properly armed and allowed to build fortifications commanding the position being maintained by that military commander and then attack that position before being allowed to defend or prevent that attack and deal with the threat.
I don't I cannot believe that there is any requirement for any military commander to allow a probable enemy to marshall and form their forces, make sure that said forces are suitable in number and properly armed and allowed to build fortifications commanding the position being maintained by that military commander and then attack that position before being allowed to defend or prevent that attack and deal with the threat.
Then perhaps you are an Empirest, Borderruffian.
Democracy is messy business, sir. It is not the most efficient nor the most effective form of government. It is not rational, nor militarily sound. Hell, it may not even be right. But, it is an expression of the Will of the People and I reckon it is our sacred duty to defend our Right.
Do you believe Alexander should've crossed the Hydaspes?
Do you believe Ceasar should've crossed the Rubicon?
In both cases they did what any responsible military commander would do, but in both cases they lost their Republic and perhaps their Soul.
I reckon Nathanial Lyons did the same. I don't know what would've happened if he had not, but I believe, he did NOT have the Right. I ain't sayin' we'd be better off today. I cannot argue with success. From sea to shinning sea; One Nation under God with Liberty and Justice for All; Who can Afford it. But, I believe, he did NOT have the Right.
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 09-10-2007 at 05:19 AM.
Democracy is messy business, sir. It is not the most efficient nor the most effective form of government. It is not rational, nor militarily sound. Hell, it may not even be right. But, it is an expression of the Will of the People and I reckon it is our sacred duty to defend our Right.
I reckon Nathanial Lyons did the same. I don't know what would've happened if he had not, but I believe, he did NOT have the Right. I ain't sayin' we'd be better off today. I cannot argue with success. From sea to shinning sea; One Nation under God with Liberty and Justice for All; Who can Afford it. But, I believe, he did NOT have the Right.
I don't believe I'm an empirest but hey I've been a Yankee so what's the difference tag me any way you wish.
Democracy also does not function on the theory that by mustering the State Guard in striking distance of an arsenal and making plans to take that arsenal plans to take that arsenal by force and being in colusion with a hostile goverment (CS) because you know you don't have the votes to ratify secession you are protected by law. Thats what Jackson was doing.
If any thing what the Pro-Southern contingent in Missouri suffered from was a bumbling leadership in Jackson and cronies during this time period. They had grand ideas and no way to pull them off and no way to keep them secret.
You may not like the theory that Lyon had no duty to be laid siege to within the arsenal but I'm stickin to it. Democracy or no Lyons decision made good military sense in light of his intelligence.
Its essentially the same overall view that the Federal government did not actually possess the power to put down the rebellion. HOWEVER, the action is consistent with the overall Federal viewpoint that secession is illegal and the government has the authority to suppress the rebellion - its nothing new or inconsistent.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
