Golden Thread Nathaniel Lyon: Hero, Devil, or both?

[leftyhunter]

@Tennessee_Mountainman ,
Her is what Stiles stated about Lyon in his book on Jesse James. Stiles is a prolific writer so he may of stated further on Lyon in recent years.
p.65 has a lot of information. I obviously can't post the entire page due to copyright laws. In essence the governor and state legislature were organizing pro Confederate militia. Congressmen Blair was desperate to arm loyal German immigrants to counter them. The Mayor of St. Joseph, Mo Jeff Thomson who would later become a Confederate general wrote a letter to CSA president Davis that"Mo would soon wheel in to line her Southern sisters". On April 20 1861 secessionists already seized the small federal armory at Liberty, Mo. So no not a great time for calm rational discussion on the part of Unionists.
p.66
Both Unionist and pro Confederate forces are raising volunteer companies ; not well trained by any standard.
Captain Lyon did not have to attack the at the time legal secessionist militia under David Frost at Camp Jackson. the arms at the St. Louis Arsenal were already safely across the Mississippi River in Il.
However Lyon is not exactly Mr. Patient and like a hammer he sees every problem has a nail and he strikes first. Yes it caused a backlash against the Union although overall Mo stayed loyal to the Union i.e. an estimated 30K CSA troops vs 110k Union.
P.67 Lyon grows impatient with Gov. Jackson and former Gov. Price and tell tells them that neutrality is not acceptable and he would rather "that the blood of ever man,women and child within the limits of the State should flow,then that se would defy the federal government .This means war".
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

"... and achieved victory against overwhelming numbers at the battle of Springfield..."

What did Napoleon say about lying like a bulletin?

Agree that does tend to imply the resolution was very tongue in cheek. But reckon after getting routed at Bull Run, Sigel routed at WC, and Lyon dead and the rest of the Union army forced to retire 100 or so miles from WC, and Price advancing to another victory, time to break out the fake news even back then......

While today we can debate the importance of 1st BR, WC, Lex, in the context of the time compared to Rev, Mex, or Indian battles pre CW these were some of the largest battles in our history, and the south was running the board.

 

[leftyhunter]

"... and achieved victory against overwhelming numbers at the battle of Springfield..."

What did Napoleon say about lying like a bulletin?

Yeah Congress did get that part wrong. However nothing but love and hugs from Congress . Apparently the U.S.Congress had no issues with what Lyon did in terms of any perceived legality.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Still not seeing your point. In the 19th century slavery was acceptable. Women having little rights was acceptable.
Has little to do with saying it's wrong today. Or that they were wrong were back then.

As was killing civilian Indians. As was what ever the Union Army did to who ever they thought was pro Confederate in Mo.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Little puzzled at your comments, are you saying YOU condone such behavior? Or are somehow implying you think we should condone such behavior today.

You say "unfortunately " but seem to be offering it as some excuse that makes it somehow OK.

If I had a time machine I would try to fix the past. Unfortunately what happened happened. As I keep pointing out and I and others have posted sources neither the Union or Confederate Army really had an issue with killing Indian civilians.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

Yeah Congress did get that part wrong. However nothing but love and hugs from Congress . Apparently the U.S.Congress had no issues with what Lyon did in terms of any perceived legality.
Leftyhunter

Remember that Blair was greasing the skids on both ends. It's quite possible that Congress was never informed of some of his behavior in central Missouri. This is another of those things that we will never know.

 

[Booner]

Was Lyon a hero ? According to the U. S. Congress the answer is an unequivocal yes.
On December 24th 1861, the United States Congress passed a resolution of thanks for the "eminent and patriotic services of the late Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. The country to whose services he devoted his life will guard and preserve his fame as part of it's glory. That the thanks of Congress are hereby given to the brave officers who,under the command of the late general Lyon sustained the honor of the flag and achieved victory against overwhelming numbers at the battle of Springfield Missouri.
Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher. Civil War High Commands, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 2001.
Leftyhunter

And that happened approximately 6 months after Lyon was killed. We have the benifit of looking at his actions 150+ years latter, after the emotions and hyperboly of the era have subsided.

 

[archieclement]

If I had a time machine I would try to fix the past. Unfortunately what happened happened. As I keep pointing out and I and others have posted sources neither the Union or Confederate Army really had an issue with killing Indian civilians.
Leftyhunter

And unless you somehow think that makes it right somehow..... no idea why you keep pointing it out, if you do believe it was wrong......

 

[leftyhunter]

Remember that Blair was greasing the skids on both ends. It's quite possible that Congress was never informed of some of his behavior in central Missouri. This is another of those things that we will never know.

To be fair Missouri had two Senators and more then one Congressmen. Missouri had plenty of newpapers some Pro Republican and some Pro Democrat. Therefore Congress had plenty of other informational sources other the Congressman Blair.
Point being Congress had no issues with Lyon's actions.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

And unless you somehow think that makes it right somehow..... no idea why you keep pointing it out, if you do believe it was wrong......

Just pointing out the historical realities of mid Nineteenth Century America.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Which means what, we shouldn't condemn killing civilians or owning human beings? If that's your position, once again simply say so........

If not, it's not really relevant to today.

 

[leftyhunter]

And that happened approximately 6 months after Lyon was killed. We have the benifit of looking at his actions 150+ years latter, after the emotions and hyperboly of the era have subsided.

We have to keep in mind the state of mind of Unionists in Missouri circa Spring 1861. It looked like the Confederacy might become a reality. Things were moving fast and a bold decisive man of action such has Lyon was appreciated by at least the U.S. Congress.
In hindsight should Lyon and Blair acted differently? We can't ever know that. History isn't about hindsight it's about what happened.
Can we learn lessons from what Lyon did and apply it today? Hard to say .
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

If I had a time machine I would try to fix the past. Unfortunately what happened happened. As I keep pointing out and I and others have posted sources neither the Union or Confederate Army really had an issue with killing Indian civilians.
Leftyhunter

Unfortunately, if you try and change the past, you'll change the present. Didn't you see " Back to the Future?"

And with regards as to what Lyon did in California, he received "the highest praise" from his department commander, Persifor F. Smith. Lyons report was read before the U.S. Senate where it was received with "warm approbation"

The purpose of the attack on two Indian encampments was to "chastise the authors of both outrages," (the killing of two white men by the Indians), "and to strike them promptly and heavily," and Lyons orders were to "call those Indians to an account before returning." Lyon followed his orders to the extreme.

 

[leftyhunter]

Which means what, we shouldn't condemn killing civilians or owning human beings? If that's your position, once again simply say so........

We should condemn both. We should also realize that in mid Nineteenth Century America many people both North and South did not have an issue with owning slaves or killing unarmed Indian civilians. Hopefully such attitudes have changed since then.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Makes him a hero to lefty, 19th century Congress couldn't be wrong, if 19th century values can't be.......

 

[leftyhunter]

Unfortunately, if you try and change the past, you'll change the present. Didn't you see " Back to the Future?"

And with regards as to what Lyon did in California, he received "the highest praise" from his department commander, Persifor F. Smith. Lyons report was read before the U.S. Senate where it was received with "warm approbation"

The purpose of the attack on two Indian encampments was to "chastise the authors of both outrages," (the killing of two white men by the Indians), "and to strike them promptly and heavily," and Lyons orders were to "call those Indians to an account before returning." Lyon followed his orders to the extreme.

Not seeing what is so great about the present other then fantastic beer that we never had brewed in California.You doccumented my point that while today we rightfully condem killing unarmed civilians in the past , at the time Lyon was thought of has a good officer at least in terms of his murderous actions against the Indians.
Hopefully we are a better nation then what we were.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

We should condemn both. We should also realize that in mid Nineteenth Century America many people both North and South did not have an issue with owning slaves or killing unarmed Indian civilians. Hopefully such attitudes have changed since then.
Leftyhunter

Glad to hear we should condemn both, just puzzled why it takes 4 pages of excusing army conduct to get to, we should in fact condemn such conduct..........rather then condemn it to start ......

 

[leftyhunter]

Makes him a hero to lefty, 19th century Congress couldn't be wrong, if 19th century values can't be.......

I wouldn't say Lyon is a hero in all respects i.e. killing Indian civilians and beating an enlisted man almost to death. On the other hand Lyon fid receive the praise of Congress for his actions in Missouri.
So we have a complex indvidual not a hero or villian.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

I wouldn't say Lyon is a hero in all respects i.e. killing Indian civilians and beating an enlisted man almost to death. On the other hand Lyon fid receive the praise of Congress for his actions in Missouri.
So we have a complex indvidual not a hero or villian.
Leftyhunter

??? It was just provided Congress praised him for killing indians.......Congress isn't an authority when it shared the same flawed values of the period.......

 

[leftyhunter]

??? It was just provided Congress praised him for killing indians.......Congress isn't an authority when it shared the same flawed values of the period.......

In your personal opinion 150 plus years latter. My point is that at the time Congress which does concern itsrlf with military and political matters thought Lyon was a Saint.
So in regards to @Patrick H 's OP absolutely per the U.S. Congress Brig. General Lyon was a hero.
Not everyone in 1861 thought that Lyon was a hero but many did.
Leftyhunter