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

[archieclement]

Fine noted, and as I have said between the two positions, I am in line with the majority of credible works, authors and historians, and you continuely fail to provide anyone who asserts the account I quoted is false........

So until you do, and have some actual evidence more substantive then someones "doubts" it's rather pointless..

 

[Booner]

It was pure sarcasm!

Bill

It was supposed to say, "Pat doesn't care for Lyon either."
I posted the first response on my tablet, and it has that anticipatory spelling thing on it. I missed the change it made.
The next time we meet, I guess the first drink is on me, to prove to you that I hold you in the highest esteem. (I'm writing this on my computer, as I'd hate to think what my tablet would write in place of "esteem.")

 

[DanSBHawk]

you continuely fail to provide anyone who asserts the account I quoted is false........

Not true. I provided an 1861 newspaper account written by an eyewitness. Your account is written by a confederate apologist in 1886.

 

[archieclement]

Not true. I provided an 1861 newspaper account written by an eyewitness. Your account is written by a confederate apologist in 1886.

You give a varient account not used by most authors and historians as not credible as it doesn't fit the sequence of events at all.......Don't see that as evidence at all. Again whether you like it or not, the reason one is accepted more then the other, is it has been deemed the more credible of the two by historians and researchers.

It's bizarre if "reliability' is indeed your concern, you lobby for one discounted by most historians as far as credibility.........Instead of the one that has been accepted by the majority of historians and authors. Again believe whatever you wish........however if it's not a generally accepted view by most published works, I likewise can point that out.......

 

[Booner]

Not true. I provided an 1861 newspaper account written by an eyewitness. Your account is written by a confederate apologist in 1886.

Let me see if I understand what you have been arguing about for the past three pages of this thread.....whether or not Lyon's made the "This means War!" statement, as part of his death to everyone in Missouri if the state defies the Federal Government?

 

[archieclement]

Let me see if I understand what you have been arguing about for the past three pages of this thread.....whether or not Lyon's made the "This means War!" statement, as part of his death to everyone in Missouri if the state defies the Federal Government?

Yes and Snead is somehow more of a "confederate apologist" then Conant would be a "Lyon lackey"

Both were junior aides to their principles, as far as having agendas, one would be suspect as the other.......why personally I believe countless historians have gone with the one that actually fits the events and temperament Lyon had demonstrated throughout, instead of that seems some uncredible attempt at PR spin to excuse their actions, as since May Blair's had been intriguing against Lyon as he was too "rash and impolitic".

 

[DanSBHawk]

...not credible as it doesn't fit the sequence of events at all.......Don't see that as evidence at all.

That makes no sense, as it was written within one or two days of the actual event.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Let me see if I understand what you have been arguing about for the past three pages of this thread.....whether or not Lyon's made the "This means War!" statement, as part of his death to everyone in Missouri if the state defies the Federal Government?

The entire Snead account of the meeting is twisted into a Southern apologist point of view. It's a post-war fabrication.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yes and Snead is somehow more of a "confederate apologist" then Conant would be a "Lyon lackey"

Both were junior aides to their principles, as far as having agendas, one would be suspect as the other.......why personally I believe countless historians have gone with the one that actually fits the events and temperament Lyon had demonstrated throughout, instead of that seems some uncredible attempt at PR spin to excuse their actions, as since May Blair's had been intriguing against Lyon as he was too "rash and impolitic".

One of the lackeys wrote an account the same day or next day, and submitted it to the press. The other lackey waited 25 years and wrote an account when he knew the Lost Cause would approve of, and cover his dishonesty.

 

[archieclement]

No it makes perfect sense as the sequence of events goes back to March 1861 if one is examining a "he was more desirous of peace then any man in Missouri" claim.

And only one one of the two had the motive they had defied both Harney and Blairs wishes, and were fresh out of patrons supporting his ***.

But this dance is several pages old now, if you have indeed have read much on the subject.........You know which account of the two is and has been more widely accepted......as do I, and it is in fact Snead's.

So there is really no reason to pretend otherwise. Your quoting one blogger who merely states she has doubts, certainly doesn't show otherwise, compared to all the published works and biographers.

You can believe whatever you wish, its certainly your prerogative...........However when you call the generally accepted account "unreliable" with no actual evidence other then a account that has been gave very little credence by most established historians....it does come across rather disingenuous as far as presentation or being actually objective..........especially if one alludes to holding to the generally accepted view of historians as somehow being not "objective or biased".

 

[DanSBHawk]

No it makes perfect sense as the sequence of events goes back to March 1861 if one is examining a "he was more desirous of peace then any man in Missouri" claim.

And only one one of the two had the motive they had defied both Harney and Blairs wishes, and were fresh out of patrons supporting his ***.

But this dance is several pages old now, if you have indeed have read much on the subject.........You know which account of the two is and has been more widely accepted......as do I, and it is in fact Snead's.

So there is really no reason to pretend otherwise. Your quoting one blogger who merely states she has doubts, certainly doesn't show otherwise, compared to all the published works and biographers.

You can believe whatever you wish, its certainly your prerogative...........However when you call the generally accepted account "unreliable" with no actual evidence other then a account that has been gave very little credence by most established historians....it does come across rather disingenuous as far as presentation or being actually objective..........especially if one alludes to holding to the generally accepted view of historians as somehow being not "objective or biased".

And likewise, you can believe whatever you wish. But you can't claim that I didn't present evidence backing my opinion. Because I certainly did.

And accusing other posters of being "disingenuous" is accusing them of dishonesty. It's an insult. So either back it up, or stop throwing it out.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

In other words, you have no evidence that it is common knowledge among writers and they dismiss it. Understood.

Conant wrote the account. He was a first hand source.

What you've posted here in regards to The Planter House Meeting is unsubstantiated, merely a repeat of the uninformed opinion of those who had a bias against the Missourians, the people who did participate in the meeting. You can choose to believe the recollections of one of the participants or not. That's of no concern, but let's be clear that it is just your opinion and nothing more. In regards to Lyon, it appears there has been some investment on the part of northern historians in a theory that he was some type of hero. Everything I've read from those who had personal contact with lyon indicate he was a brave man but difficult, doctrinaire and a bit of a martinet. Lyon exhibited no particular talent for command of the forces he deployed against Missouri. In the end at the Battle of Oak Hills Lyon was defeated by the mediocre Gen. Sterling Price, even though he had the advantages of surprise, a vastly better armed and provisioned and much better trained force, including several Companies of Army regulars and early tactical possession of the high ground. Lyon got beat and lost his life to untrained Missouri farm boys armed with shotguns and hunting rifles. It was a fitting end to a man who brought shame to the U.S. Army during his brief time in Missouri.

 

[archieclement]

And likewise, you can believe whatever you wish. But you can't claim that I didn't present evidence backing my opinion. Because I certainly did.

And accusing other posters of being "disingenuous" is accusing them of dishonesty. It's an insult. So either back it up, or stop throwing it out.

Actually it's twice you've made that allegation now.....no, disingenious is not calling someone a liar at all, it simply means they are being not candid or sincere.......

Such as suggesting between Snead's and Conant's accounts, Snead's would be the one unreliable or not accepted by historians.....when if one has read many works on the subject they would know the reverse is true......strikes me as rather less then being candid or sincere, or you would note your stance isn't the widely accepted one.

You can't have it both ways.......claim you are well read and knowledgeable on the subject and the established works on it......then pretend one doesn't know Snead's account has been the one widely accepted, and Conant's the one discounted........that is indeed what would qualify as disingenuous.

As would be condemning one side for something, while ignoring it for the other side.....it would go to sincerity in my opinion of ones condemnation, if the condemnation is based on partisanship rather then the actual event.

 

[Booner]

One of the lackeys wrote an account the same day or next day, and submitted it to the press. The other lackey waited 25 years and wrote an account when he knew the Lost Cause would approve of, and cover his dishonesty.

I've seen it both ways, as to whether Lyons said, "This means war" or not. To me, whether he said that one sentence or not doesn't really matter. Everything he said up to that point, including the statement that he, Lyon, would see every Missourian dead and buried if they denied the will of the Federal Government, was a statement of war. That was very apparent by who ever wrote down what Lyon's said, whether is was Snead, who attended the meeting and was Gov. Jackson's secretary, or Conant, Lyon's aid, also at the meeting, that Lyon declared war on the State of Missouri. The statement, "This means war!" could have been said, or the writer may have used that sentence to sum up what Lyon had said. Certainly Jackson and Price thought war had been declared upon the State of Missouri, as did the others at the meeting, as they sat quietly wondering, "what just happened?" After Lyon's statement, what else could be said? The die was cast for the state of Missouri.

Phillips, in his book, "DAMNED YANKEE, the life of General Nathaniel Lyon" included the "This means war!" as part of the speech that Lyon's made. Phillips footnotes for the quote includes "Missouri Democrat, July 2, 1861,"; Peckham," Lyon and Missouri" pg. 248; Snead, "Fight for Missouri" pgs. 199-200. I'll note that I have never read an author who had more disdain for his subject as Phillips had with Lyon. He thought Lyon was brash, impulsive, and insubordinate but also had an overwhelming desire to punish those who did not hold the same opinions as Lyon. Phillips ends the chapter regarding the Planters house meeting with the sentence, "Nathaniel Lyon had forced war upon Missouri." I thinks that's pretty telling from a man who wrote a book about Lyon.

Parrish, in his book "FRANK BLAIR, Lincoln's Conservative" also includes the sentence "This means war!" although he put that sentence in italics and notes in his footnotes that there were several versions of Lyon's final remarks. He also sites the same sources as listed above in Phillips book.

I put the majority of blame for the war in Missouri squarely on the shoulders of Blair and Lyon. Certainly Gov. Jackson played his minor role, but it was Blair and Lyon that, in my opinion, were the instigators, the ones that saw secessionists behind every tree and they were the ones who were proactive in bringing war to the state. I have and always maintained that no other state suffered as much from the War as Missouri and the majority of that blame rests squarely upon Lyon and Blair. Both of the above authors agree with me.

 

[archieclement]

I've seen it both ways, as to whether Lyons said, "This means war" or not. To me, whether he said that one sentence or not doesn't really matter. Everything he said up to that point, including the statement that he, Lyon, would see every Missourian dead and buried if they denied the will of the Federal Government, was a statement of war. That was very apparent by who ever wrote down what Lyon's said, whether is was Snead, who attended the meeting and was Gov. Jackson's secretary, or Conant, Lyon's aid, also at the meeting, that Lyon declared war on the State of Missouri. The statement, "This means war!" could have been said, or the writer may have used that sentence to sum up what Lyon had said. Certainly Jackson and Price thought war had been declared upon the State of Missouri, as did the others at the meeting, as they sat quietly wondering, "what just happened?" After Lyon's statement, what else could be said? The die was cast for the state of Missouri.

Phillips, in his book, "****ED YANKEE, the life of General Nathaniel Lyon" included the "This means war!" as part of the speech that Lyon's made. Phillips footnotes for the quote includes "Missouri Democrat, July 2, 1861,"; Peckham," Lyon and Missouri" pg. 248; Snead, "Fight for Missouri" pgs. 199-200. I'll note that I have never read an author who had more disdain for his subject as Phillips had with Lyon. He thought Lyon was brash, impulsive, and insubordinate but also had an overwhelming desire to punish those who did not hold the same opinions as Lyon. Phillips ends the chapter regarding the Planters house meeting with the sentence, "Nathaniel Lyon had forced war upon Missouri." I thinks that's pretty telling from a man who wrote a book about Lyon.

Parrish, in his book "FRANK BLAIR, Lincoln's Conservative" also includes the sentence "This means war!" although he put that sentence in italics and notes in his footnotes that there were several versions of Lyon's final remarks. He also sites the same sources as listed above in Phillips book.

I put the majority of blame for the war in Missouri squarely on the shoulders of Blair and Lyon. Certainly Gov. Jackson played his minor role, but it was Blair and Lyon that, in my opinion, were the instigators, the ones that saw secessionists behind every tree and they were the ones who were proactive in bringing war to the state. I have and always maintained that no other state suffered as much from the War as Missouri and the majority of that blame rests squarely upon Lyon and Blair. Both of the above authors agree with me.

I agree, a good example was I once read a book about the Alamo where it was said whether or not Travis literally drew a line in the sand with his sword or if it was a legend was somewhat irrelevant.....and misses the point......as every Texan who remained to the end, had figuratively crossed that line in their minds........

Seems somewhat similiar in getting caught up in semantics over Lyons wording rather then the result of the meeting which was to prevent the outbreak of war, ended in the creation of war, which even Conants version lays on some vague unsubstantiated conspiracy theory of Lyon's.

 

[DanSBHawk]

What you've posted here in regards to The Planter House Meeting is unsubstantiated, merely a repeat of the uninformed opinion of those who had a bias against the Missourians, the people who did participate in the meeting. You can choose to believe the recollections of one of the participants or not. That's of no concern, but let's be clear that it is just your opinion and nothing more. In regards to Lyon, it appears there has been some investment on the part of northern historians in a theory that he was some type of hero. Everything I've read from those who had personal contact with lyon indicate he was a brave man but difficult, doctrinaire and a bit of a martinet. Lyon exhibited no particular talent for command of the forces he deployed against Missouri. In the end at the Battle of Oak Hills Lyon was defeated by the mediocre Gen. Sterling Price, even though he had the advantages of surprise, a vastly better armed and provisioned and much better trained force, including several Companies of Army regulars and early tactical possession of the high ground. Lyon got beat and lost his life to untrained Missouri farm boys armed with shotguns and hunting rifles. It was a fitting end to a man who brought shame to the U.S. Army during his brief time in Missouri.

It seems there are plenty of biased opinions of Lyon.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I've seen it both ways, as to whether Lyons said, "This means war" or not. To me, whether he said that one sentence or not doesn't really matter. Everything he said up to that point, including the statement that he, Lyon, would see every Missourian dead and buried if they denied the will of the Federal Government, was a statement of war. That was very apparent by who ever wrote down what Lyon's said, whether is was Snead, who attended the meeting and was Gov. Jackson's secretary, or Conant, Lyon's aid, also at the meeting, that Lyon declared war on the State of Missouri. The statement, "This means war!" could have been said, or the writer may have used that sentence to sum up what Lyon had said. Certainly Jackson and Price thought war had been declared upon the State of Missouri, as did the others at the meeting, as they sat quietly wondering, "what just happened?" After Lyon's statement, what else could be said? The die was cast for the state of Missouri.

Phillips, in his book, "****ED YANKEE, the life of General Nathaniel Lyon" included the "This means war!" as part of the speech that Lyon's made. Phillips footnotes for the quote includes "Missouri Democrat, July 2, 1861,"; Peckham," Lyon and Missouri" pg. 248; Snead, "Fight for Missouri" pgs. 199-200. I'll note that I have never read an author who had more disdain for his subject as Phillips had with Lyon. He thought Lyon was brash, impulsive, and insubordinate but also had an overwhelming desire to punish those who did not hold the same opinions as Lyon. Phillips ends the chapter regarding the Planters house meeting with the sentence, "Nathaniel Lyon had forced war upon Missouri." I thinks that's pretty telling from a man who wrote a book about Lyon.

Parrish, in his book "FRANK BLAIR, Lincoln's Conservative" also includes the sentence "This means war!" although he put that sentence in italics and notes in his footnotes that there were several versions of Lyon's final remarks. He also sites the same sources as listed above in Phillips book.

I put the majority of blame for the war in Missouri squarely on the shoulders of Blair and Lyon. Certainly Gov. Jackson played his minor role, but it was Blair and Lyon that, in my opinion, were the instigators, the ones that saw secessionists behind every tree and they were the ones who were proactive in bringing war to the state. I have and always maintained that no other state suffered as much from the War as Missouri and the majority of that blame rests squarely upon Lyon and Blair. Both of the above authors agree with me.

As far as "bringing war to the state," there was already a war and as Kentucky found out, neutrality was not going to keep the fighting out of the state.

I understand that some people blame Blair and Lyon. But I also get the impression that there is a residual bias in the historiography.

It will be interesting to see how current and future historians judge the participants.

 

[archieclement]

As far as "bringing war to the state," there was already a war and as Kentucky found out, neutrality was not going to keep the fighting out of the state.

I understand that some people blame Blair and Lyon. But I also get the impression that there is a residual bias in the historiography.

It will be interesting to see how current and future historians judge the participants.

I agree, it been taking place, for years Lyons or the Union's spin was rather uncritically accepted, most all the more modern works such as Castel or Phillips, have looked at what is known, and his claims, and concluded most of Lyons claims were without solid evidence, and where there is known evidence.....it doesn't fit his claims.........

 

[Patrick H]

One of the lackeys wrote an account the same day or next day, and submitted it to the press. The other lackey waited 25 years and wrote an account when he knew the Lost Cause would approve of, and cover his dishonesty.

You are entitled to your opinion, however much it reveals your own disdain for Snead. It seems to me that both subordinates would naturally try to put their commanders in a favorable light. Further, why is it assumed that Snead drew his account from memory? It is
reasonable to believe that each man kept a journal of their impressions of the meeting. And why is it assumed that Snead was dishonest?

 

[Lusty Murfax]

No, because Lyon and Conant published it. Not Jackson and Snead.

This is the first time I heard anyone accuse Lyon of publishing in Missouri. He is better known for ordering the destruction of printing presses of papers he deemed friendly to Missouri and antagonistic to Union occupation.