★ Lyon, Nathaniel

Nathaniel Lyon​

Born: July 14, 1818

Birthplace: Ashford, Connecticut

Father: Amasa Lyon 1771 – 1843

(Buried: Phoenixville Cemetery, Eastford, Connecticut)​

Mother: Kezia Knowlton 1781 – 1852

(Buried: Phoenixville Cemetery, Eastford, Connecticut)​

Education:

1841: Graduated from West Point Military Academy – (11th​ in class)​

Occupation before War:

1841 – 1847: 2nd​ Lt. United States Army, 2nd​ Infantry Regiment​

​

1841 – 1842: Served in the Seminole War in Florida

​

1842 – 1846: Garrison Duty at Sackett's Harbor, New York​

​

1846: Garrison Duty at Fort Columbus, New York​

​

1847 – 1851: 1st​ Lt. United States Army, 2nd​ Infantry Regiment​

​

1847: Served in the Siege of Vera Cruz, Mexico​

​

1847: Served in the Battle of Cerro Gordo, Mexico​

​

1847: Served in the Battle of Contreras, Mexico​

​

1847: Brevetted Captain for Gallantry in two Mexican War Battles​

​

1847: Wounded at the Belen Gate during capture of Mexico City​

​

1848: Garrison Duty at Fort Hamilton, New York​

​

1848 – 1849: Served on a Voyage to California​

​

1849 – 1850: Frontier Duty in California​

​

1850: Served on Expedition to Clear Lake and Russian River​

​

1850 – 1851: Quartermaster Duty in San Diego, California​

​

1851 – 1861: Captain, United States Army, 2nd​ Infantry Regiment​

​

1854 – 1855: Frontier Duty at Fort Riley, Kansas​

​

1855: Frontier Duty at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas​

​

1855: Served in the Sioux Expedition​

​

1859 – 1860: Frontier Duty at Fort Riley, Kansas​

​

1860 – 1861: Frontier Duty at Silver Lake, Kansas​

​

1861: Frontier Duty at Fort Scott, Kansas​

Civil War Career:

​

1861: Brigadier General of Union Army Volunteers​

​

1861: Commander of St. Louis, Missouri Arsenal Defenses​

​

1861: Broke up an assembly of Secessionists at Camp Jackson​

​

1861: Kicked in the stomach by an Aide's Horse​

​

1861: In Engaged in Capture of State Archives at Jefferson City, Missouri​

​

1861: Union Army Commander at Battle of Wilson's Creek, Missouri​

​

1861: Mortally Wounded three times Battle of Wilson's Creek​

​

1861: His first wound was to the outer part of his right calf​

​

1861: His second wound grazed the right side of his head​

​

1861: He was killed by a chest wound, made by a squirrel rifle​

​

1861: Attempts to embalm the body were not successful​

​

1861: His body was placed in an icehouse at Springfield, Missouri​

Died: August 10, 1861

Place of Death: Battlefield, Missouri

Cause of Death: Killed in battle

Age at time of Death: 43 years old

Original Burial Place: Cornfield on Farm, Springfield, Missouri

Burial Place: Phoenixville Cemetery, Eastford, Connecticut

 

[19thGeorgia]

The Camp Jackson Massacre? Didn't you have an issue with Fort Pillow being called a massacre?

I have an issue with the slaughter of civilians.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Evidently not, as the arsenal was never threatened, nor had Missouri made any move to secede at all.

Thats the actual facts and events, rather then fantasy conspiracies. Nor in 150 years has evidence emerged to show any actual attack was ordered, or any sign Missouri was somehow moving to secede. Which again a Governor would be powerless to do anyway, regardless of his personal views.

Don't imply that I'm being dishonest. That's treading a line, and you don't want to go there.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I have an issue with the slaughter of civilians.

Once soldiers surrender, they shouldn't be slaughtered anymore than civilians.

 

[archieclement]

Don't imply that I'm being dishonest. That's treading a line, and you don't want to go there.

I'm just keeping the actual discussion within the realm of known factual events.

Your certainly free to advance any theory, however unsubstantiated, you wish. However the actual known and established events don't support that either an attack on Camp Jackson was planned or eminent, or that there was any movement towards secession on the part of Missouri, as that had been previously settled by convention. And indeed anyone wishing to be honest, would note the actual known baseline events before going into their speculation....

Whether intentional or an oversight on your part, would think you would wish actual known events noted and separated from ones speculation of events that never occurred at all. It shouldn't be anything to take offense of if ones intent is a factual or honest discussion. It certainly wasn't meant as a slight, but speculation of events that never happened should be noted separate from actual known historical events.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I'm just keeping the actual discussion within the realm of known factual events.

Your certainly free to advance any theory, however unsubstantiated, you wish. However the actual known and established events don't support that either an attack on Camp Jackson was planned or eminent, or that there was any movement towards secession on the part of Missouri, as that had been previously settled by convention. And indeed anyone wishing to be honest, would note the actual known baseline events before going into their speculation....

Whether intentional or an oversight on your part, would think you would wish actual known events noted and separated from ones speculation of events that never occurred at all. It shouldn't be anything to take offense of if ones intent is a honest discussion.

Whether intentional or an oversight on your part, Jackson was in communication with the secessionist government and requesting weapons.

Also, either intentional or an oversight on your part, disloyal Missourians had already seized weapons at the Liberty armory.

Those are in the realm of known factual events. So maybe you need to rethink your accusing other posters of dishonesty.

 

[archieclement]

Whether intentional or an oversight on your part, Jackson was in communication with the secessionist government and requesting weapons.

Also, either intentional or an oversight on your part, disloyal Missourians had already seized weapons at the Liberty armory.

Those are in the realm of known factual events. So maybe you need to rethink your accusing other posters of dishonesty.

Again I havent denied either, though neither support either Missouri was either seceding or attacking anything. In fact, quite the opposite as we know the MVM camp was set to disband.

As originally said the only way Missouri could secede was by Lyons actions, so I do give him credit for that, though don't see it as a plus, perhaps if your pro secession you would.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Again I havent denied either, though neither support either Missouri was either seceding or attacking anything. In fact, quite the opposite as we know the MVM camp was set to disband.

My opinion is based on facts. The facts are that the governor was disloyal and he was supported by many disloyal Missourians.

Those are the facts.

 

[archieclement]

My opinion is based on facts. The facts are that the governor was disloyal and he was supported by many disloyal Missourians.

Those are the facts.

Actually not at all. And simply repeating your opinions doesn't make it fact.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Actually not at all. And simply repeating your opinions doesn't make it fact.

Actually, yes it is fact. And your denial doesn't change that.

 

[archieclement]

Actually, yes it is fact. And your denial doesn't change that.

I haven't denied any facts, only you do......

Again by known facts, Jackson sympathized with the south, he misread the sentiment and certainly took steps to ensure Missouri would in a position to act if the State Legislature acted to secede........

But it remains he misread the sentiment rather completely, the State Legislature wasn't acting, nor have I seen any historian advance how he could have proceeded without them.......so to suggest he was or could have is rather baseless in fact.

In fact the only thing that enabled him to do so was Lyons attack on Camp Jackson, as that is what it took to spur the Legislative to reverse itself, and pass military bill and war powers acts. That is indeed what Lyon has full credit for, making a loyal state a divided one.

What is rather ironic is that's what Lyon and Jackson actually have in common, is they both thought the populace far more secessionist then it ever actually was in 1861.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I haven't denied any facts, only you do......

Again by known facts, Jackson sympathized with the south, he misread the sentiment and certainly took steps to ensure Missouri would in a position to act if the State Legislature acted to secede........

But it remains he misread the sentiment rather completely, the State Legislature wasn't acting, nor have I seen any historian advance how he could have proceeded without them.......so to suggest he was or could have is rather baseless in fact.

In fact the only thing that enabled him to do so was Lyons attack on Camp Jackson, as that is what it took to spur the Legislative to reverse itself, and pass military bill and war powers acts. That is indeed what Lyon has full credit for, making a loyal state a divided one.

What is rather ironic is that's what Lyon and Jackson actually have in common, is they both thought the populace far more secessionist then it ever actually was in 1861.

So you admit the governor was disloyal. That's a start. But the state was already divided before Lyon showed up. Bleeding Kansas showed that. The violence and the pro-slavery zealots were already there.

 

[archieclement]

So you admit the governor was disloyal. That's a start. But the state was already divided before Lyon showed up. Bleeding Kansas showed that. The violence and the slavery zealots were already there.

Actually I didn't, as not aware of it ever having been proven he actually committed a disloyal act before Camp Jackson. Trying to secure arms for ones state militia as far as I can tell isn't illegal or disloyal. The prudent thing for any Governor to do would be prepare for what he thinks might happen. It hardly means he plans some bizarre coup

Again that would require unsupported speculation.

 

[Booner]

Let's see some contemporary proof of Lyon's planter house remarks.

People sure trot out that planter house story without anything except a decades-old single biased source. This has all been discussed before: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/nathaniel-lyon-hero-devil-or-both.150386/

I see how you do this. I challenge you on a statement that you made, and you counter me with another challenge. But I'll play along.
You list a rather long thread, so what am I to but do but guess at what you want me to respond to? I'm assuming you want the statement that Lyon's made at the Planter House meeting, It was written by a Col. Sneed, who was an aid to Gov. Jackson at the time of the meeting, and later became an aid to Gen. Price but he was in attendance at the meeting.

I'm quoting from the book, "The Struggle for Missouri", John McElroy, 1909. During the war, McElroy was a union soldier who was captured and spent time in Andersonville prison, and certainly wasn't then or afterwards in sympathy with anything southern. He wrote a book about his time as a prisoner in 1879, and then published his "Struggle for Missouri" in 1909, dedicating it to the Union men of Missouri, and as it would be expected, had a Union slant to it.

"As Gen. Lyon was about to take his leave, he said: 'Gov. Jackson, no man in the State of Missouri has been more ardently desirous of preserving peace than myself. Heretofore Missouri has only felt the fostering care of the Federal Government, which has raised her from the condition of a feeble French colony to that of an empire State. Now, however, from the failure on the part of the Chief Executive to comply with constitutional requirements, I fear she will be made to feel its power. Better, sir, far better, that the blood of every man, woman and child of the State should flow that that she should successfully defy the Federal Government.'"

Col. Snead has published this account of the close of the conference:

"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.'

"And then, without another word, without an inclination of the head, without even a look, he turned upon his heel and strode out of the room, rattling his spurs and clanking his saber, while we, whom he left, and who had known each other for years, bade farewell to each other courteously and kindly, and separated –Blair and Conant to fight for the Union, we for the land of our birth."

So, what we have here is a newly-made general of the Union army declaring war on the state of Missouri; that's pretty clear. I have read Lyon's statement many times, and in some statements the sentence "This means war" is left out. Does that really matter? I could be that Snead put that sentence in his notes to sum up Lyon's statement. Certainly by saying "I would see you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman, and child in the State, dead and buried' leaves no doubt of Lyon's intent; the Rubicon had been crossed. For Lyon, there was no room or interest in further negotiations. Lyon's Planter House statements, whether or not they included the sentence, "This means war" makes that very clear; Lyon, as an agent for the Federal Government, had declared war on the state of Missouri.

 

[Booner]

Those who had a problem with Lyon were mainly disloyal citizens.

As a reminder, this is the statement you made that I challenge you on.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I see how you do this. I challenge you on a statement that you made, and you counter me with another challenge. But I'll play along.
You list a rather long thread, so what am I to but do but guess at what you want me to respond to? I'm assuming you want the statement that Lyon's made at the Planter House meeting, It was written by a Col. Sneed, who was an aid to Gov. Jackson at the time of the meeting, and later became an aid to Gen. Price but he was in attendance at the meeting.

I'm quoting from the book, "The Struggle for Missouri", John McElroy, 1909. During the war, McElroy was a union soldier who was captured and spent time in Andersonville prison, and certainly wasn't then or afterwards in sympathy with anything southern. He wrote a book about his time as a prisoner in 1879, and then published his "Struggle for Missouri" in 1909, dedicating it to the Union men of Missouri, and as it would be expected, had a Union slant to it.

"As Gen. Lyon was about to take his leave, he said: 'Gov. Jackson, no man in the State of Missouri has been more ardently desirous of preserving peace than myself. Heretofore Missouri has only felt the fostering care of the Federal Government, which has raised her from the condition of a feeble French colony to that of an empire State. Now, however, from the failure on the part of the Chief Executive to comply with constitutional requirements, I fear she will be made to feel its power. Better, sir, far better, that the blood of every man, woman and child of the State should flow that that she should successfully defy the Federal Government.'"

Col. Snead has published this account of the close of the conference:

"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.'

"And then, without another word, without an inclination of the head, without even a look, he turned upon his heel and strode out of the room, rattling his spurs and clanking his saber, while we, whom he left, and who had known each other for years, bade farewell to each other courteously and kindly, and separated –Blair and Conant to fight for the Union, we for the land of our birth."

So, what we have here is a newly-made general of the Union army declaring war on the state of Missouri; that's pretty clear. I have read Lyon's statement many times, and in some statements the sentence "This means war" is left out. Does that really matter? I could be that Snead put that sentence in his notes to sum up Lyon's statement. Certainly by saying "I would see you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman, and child in the State, dead and buried' leaves no doubt of Lyon's intent; the Rubicon had been crossed. For Lyon, there was no room or interest in further negotiations. Lyon's Planter House statements, whether or not they included the sentence, "This means war" makes that very clear; Lyon, as an agent for the Federal Government, had declared war on the state of Missouri.

The point is that Lyon's supposed exact words are from a single biased source decades after the war. So yes, there is a bit of doubt as to his exact words.

 

[DanSBHawk]

As a reminder, this is the statement you made that I challenge you on.

There was no poll. It's my opinion based on common sense. Those Missourians who opposed federal troops securing Missouri were disloyal, pro-secessionist citizens.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Actually I didn't, as not aware of it ever having been proven he actually committed a disloyal act before Camp Jackson. Trying to secure arms for ones state militia as far as I can tell isn't illegal or disloyal. The prudent thing for any Governor to do would be prepare for what he thinks might happen. It hardly means he plans some bizarre coup

Again that would require unsupported speculation.

So communicating with the confederates asking them to invade his state, and sending the Lt Governor to Richmond to ask Davis to invade his state... you wouldn't consider those disloyal acts.

 

[archieclement]

So communicating with the confederates asking them to invade his state, and sending the Lt Governor to Richmond to ask Davis to invade his state... you wouldn't consider those disloyal acts.

Actually haven't seen any such communications at all. So when you jump here, there, everywhere it's hard to follow.

Prior to Camp Jackson he only requested arms that I'm aware of. The only requesting "invasion" or military cooperation was before WC, after Lyon had unilaterally declared war on Missouri.

Jackson requesting arms was certainly no more irregular then Lyon taking Illinois and Federal arms to equip a private militia that was under neither State or Federal authority. If your concerned about loyalty to the laws and authority of the United States.

That's the catch, people who opposed Lyon or Lincoln because their actions were highly irregular or legally suspect are hardly disloyal, but actually valued our laws and principles. Some then and now seem to excuse the irregular or suspect actions evidently on some the "ends justify the means"........which frankly was used to excuse slavery and manifest destiny as well, it's a quite popular defense of whatever one sees bring beneficial, as any other principle can be thrown to the wayside.

Also events were not occuring in a vacuum, as one sees a private army under no legal authority being raised, the state if responsible would have to respond to such a potential threat to it's security.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Jackson requesting arms was certainly no more irregular then Lyon taking Illinois and Federal arms to equip a private militia that was under neither State or Federal authority. If your concerned about loyalty to the laws and authority of the United States.

By the time of Camp Jackson, the "private militia" were actually federal troops, having been already been enlisted and sworn in. Pro-secessionists constantly try to denigrate those troops as simply "militia," but they were federal troops, and proved to be good loyal Americans, unlike the secessionists.

 

[archieclement]

By the time of Camp Jackson, the "private militia" were actually federal troops, having been already been enlisted and sworn in. Pro-secessionists constantly try to denigrate those troops as simply "militia," but they were federal troops, and proved to be good loyal Americans, unlike the secessionists.

Actually I assume you are aware they had been organizing and training for months before ever having been sworn into anyone's service....and were not federal troops at all during that time.....but would constitute simply a private army. And recognizing that reality hardly made anyone pro secessionist.