★  Lyon, Nathaniel

Nathaniel Lyon

:us34stars:
Lyon.jpg


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
Lyon 2.jpg
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:
Lyon 1.jpg

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
Yes before the war they were militia. So what? By the time of Camp Jackson, they were enlisted federal troops. And loyal to the US.
 
Yes before the war they were militia. So what? By the time of Camp Jackson, they were enlisted federal troops. And loyal to the US.
Is that meant to be disengious? The "so what" is any responsible Governor aware of a unauthorized private army being raised in his state would be rather forced to seek arms and contingency plans to counter such a potential threat.
 
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.
It was Lyons words "decades after the war." Snead wrote the words down within a few hours of the meeting.
And no one who was at the meeting has ever contested what Snead said.
 
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.
'Federal' troops? Those troops consisted almost entirely of volunteer regiments from neighboring States and foreigners with belligerent intentions toward Missouri citizens. They weren't securing Missouri. They were robbing, pillaging, imprisoning and murdering civilians under color of the Union. And they did all this long before Missouri's legislature voted to secede from the Union. Federal troops were most assuredly not a benevolent, but an antagonistic occupation force. Early on, the Federal Gov't did nothing to earn the loyalty of Missourians. The Lincoln regime cared only to secure it's western flank on the Mississippi River and supply it's war effort against the Southern States with the substantial human and natural resources of the State of Missouri. Loyalty is a two way street and the Lincoln regime, through it's treatment of the Government and people of Missouri deserved none in return. The evidence for your assertion that Missouri's citizens were disloyal secessionists does not exist.
 
...from the enemy of the US.
???? There was no state of war, during this period trade was still openly being conducted. Would say until Bull Run in July, many on both sides still thought war might be averted and hardly viewed the other region as "enemy".
 
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.
Don't forget that Gen. Harney had assured Gov. Jackson those 'federal' arms stored in the St. Louis arsenal would be delivered to the custody of Missouri's State Militia of the Missouri State Guard. After the Blairs and Lyon conspired to overthrow Harney and transfer his command to Capt. Lyon, Lyon secretly transferred thousands of arms and ordnance across the River to Illinois in addition to his supply of the Blair's private Dutch militia.
 
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.
This is false and not all that difficult to debunk.
 
Don't forget that Gen. Harney had assured Gov. Jackson those 'federal' arms stored in the St. Louis arsenal would be delivered to the custody of Missouri's State Militia of the Missouri State Guard. After the Blairs and Lyon conspired to overthrow Harney and transfer his command to Capt. Lyon, Lyon secretly transferred thousands of arms and ordnance across the River to Illinois in addition to his supply of the Blair's private Dutch militia.
Yes which makes Lyons excuse he had to attack Camp Jackson to protect the arsenal from some phantom attack that never existed all the more dubious.

The arsenal was empty.
The arms with some from Illinois had armed over 8k troops in the STL area.
There was nothing to protect and 700 men who had done nothing was hardly a threat to 8000.

On the other hand the MVM camp was set to disband as musters were 11 days and Harney about to return.

The only sense of immediacy would have been from wanting to usurp his superior in General Harney (who was no secessionist), that's what passes as a sense of "loyalty or devotion" in the military to some.

Edit-added I often use a rather simple smell test, would the same thing fly today? And I honestly can't see a junior officer conspiring with a partisan politician to defy his superior and seize a national guard encampment that had done nothing.......as being acceptable today......and here's the kicker.....after seizing it, they are released as their was no actual criminal charges or case at all.
 
Last edited:
Yes which makes Lyons excuse he had to attack Camp Jackson to protect the arsenal from some phantom attack that never existed all the more dubious.

The arsenal was empty.
The arms with some from Illinois had armed over 8k troops in the STL area.
There was nothing to protect and 700 men who had done nothing was hardly a threat to 8000.

On the other hand the MVM camp was set to disband as musters were 11 days and Harney about to return.

The only sense of immediacy would have been from wanting to usurp his superior in General Harney (who was no secessionist), that's what passes as a sense of "loyalty or devotion" in the military to some.

Edit-added I often use a rather simple smell test, would the same thing fly today? And I honestly can't see a junior officer conspiring with a partisan politician to defy his superior and seize a national guard encampment that had done nothing.......as being acceptable today......and here's the kicker.....after seizing it, they are released as their was no actual criminal charges or case at all.
Relatively shortly after release, those Missouri State militiamen captured by Lyon at Camp Jackson organized in Memphis under Col. (soon Gen.) Bowen as the 1st Missouri Infy. Reg. They served with distinction at Shiloh, Corinth, Port Gibson, Champion Hill, Vicksburg, Altoona and the Atlanta campaign.
 
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.
Thank you for being honest with me in that your statement was simply your opinion.
With all due respect, I would say that your opinion is not based on common sense, but on a far-off view of the actions.
You have to have a much closer view of the events to understand what happened and why. I'm a 5th generation Missourian, and very interested in this period of our state history.

"Those Missourians who opposed federal troops securing Missouri were disloyal, pro-secessionist citizens."

Those were not Federal Troops. To me, a Federal soldier is one who is employed by the Fed. Government. The only Federal soldier of this group was Lyon himself. The officers and troops under his command were newly enrolled State militia, (there are some who feel they were illegally enrolled-more on that in a bit), most of which were newly-immigrated Germans. Rightly or wrongly, at that time many Missourians didn't view them as U.S. citizens. The grandfathers of these Missourians had fought against hessians in the American revolution, and had passed down their strong feeling about fighting against paid mercenaries. These Germans, in the view of native Missourians, were not Americans. They spoke a different language, acted funny, they didn't assimilate into American society, they drove up prices for farmlands, they took American jobs, etc. (where have we seen this feeling?). So in a very real sense, (based on 1860 thinking), the Federal Government was bringing in foreign troops to occupy their city and state. Certainly during this time there were some Missourians who where secessionist, just as there were Missourians who would support the U.S. Government without reservations. But there was this vast middle group of citizens who supported the Government and the constitution as it was, who wanted to remain neutral during the upcoming conflict. They felt that The Fed. Government was overstepping their authority, Inserting itself into a state matter, and trampling on their rights. Remember, Missouri voted twice regarding the matter of succession; overwhelmingly in both votes they rejected succession; they wanted to stay in the Union. Again, during this time period, if asked, many folks would have said the were citizens of Missouri, and that they owe their allegiance to the State of Missouri; Missouri was their Government. Their state was their sovereign, owing allegiance to the Federal Government was secondary The idea of being a citizen of a much bigger entity such as the "United" States hadn't taken root yet in their minds. So to better understand the thinking of 160 years ago, how in all fairness can you judge them with 21st century thinking?

The enrollment of these "German" troops;
The controversy goes very briefly -something- like this. Per the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln calls upon the Governors of the states to call up their state's Militia's to fill Lincolns' order for 75,000 troops. Missouri's quota is something like 3,000 militia. Gov. Jackson refuses to supply any of Missouri's quota, stating he thinks the call for troops is unconstitutional. In response to this, the Fed. Gov. empowers Congressman Francis Blair to enroll these German immigrants into the State Militia, and place them under Lyons command, thus satisfying Missouri's quota for the Fed. call-up of troops. Can you not see why Missourians would be upset with the actions of Lyons and Blair? To the majority of the citizens of Missouri, the Fed. Gov. has usurped the sovereignty of their state.
 
Yes which makes Lyons excuse he had to attack Camp Jackson to protect the arsenal from some phantom attack that never existed all the more dubious.

The arsenal was empty.
The arms with some from Illinois had armed over 8k troops in the STL area.
There was nothing to protect and 700 men who had done nothing was hardly a threat to 8000.

On the other hand the MVM camp was set to disband as musters were 11 days and Harney about to return.

The only sense of immediacy would have been from wanting to usurp his superior in General Harney (who was no secessionist), that's what passes as a sense of "loyalty or devotion" in the military to some.

Edit-added I often use a rather simple smell test, would the same thing fly today? And I honestly can't see a junior officer conspiring with a partisan politician to defy his superior and seize a national guard encampment that had done nothing.......as being ac,ceptable today......and here's the kicker.....after seizing it, they are released as their was no actual criminal charges or case at all.
Concerning Camp Jackson--
It was the duty of the Gov. of the state to call up the Militia for a week or tens days of training at various location in the state every year. You have a very contentious situation taking place in St. Louis, and it would have been irresponsible and a neglect of his duties as Governor of the State for Jackson not to have called upon the state troops to gather during this time. -Period-

Now were engaged in a staring competition between the two forces: Lyon and Blair for the Fed. Gov. vs the Gov. of Missouri.
By now Lyons had removed the guns from the arsenal, and Blair has his German Militia camped there, so many in fact that there wasn't room for them all. That Jackson was a pro-secessionist is correct in my mind. That earlier he had made plans to take these arms, I have no doubt. But that time had passed. That Jackson had had communications with Jeff. Davis is without doubt. Some arms from the Fed. armory in Baton Rouge had been delivered to Camp Jackson. But was Camp Jackson on a war footing to use these arms in an attempt to take over the St. Louis Arsenal? No, not in the least. In fact, many reports given during this time talk about the "Holiday Mood" which was prevalent in the camp. Lyon later stated in his after action report that these arms ( I'm assuming he's talking about the arms received from Baton Rouge), were found in pieces in various boxes; un assembled, therefore not ready for use. Lyon and Blair conspire to break up Camp Jackson and arrest the militia there as THEY BELIEVE the camp is somehow planning secessionist activities. They plan to attack the camp on May 10th. Why is that date important? Because they have received word that Gen. Harney is returning to St. Louis on May 11th. Gen Harney has told Lyons not to take action against the State Militia at camp Jackson, then due to Blairs involvement, Harney is called back to Washington where he has to defend his loyalty, command, and career against allegations from the Blair Cabool, as the Blairs BELIEVES Harney is not loyal, (or not loyal enough). Lyons and Blair know that Harney will be soft on the State of Missouri, so they have to act today before Harney returns. They take the camp and march the state Militia through the streets where a riot occurs while Lyon takes them to the arsenal where they will be granted pardons. All but one of the militia take a pardon. The one man who refused the pardon later takes his cast to federal court and wins. Lyons action by taking Camp Jackson was an illegal act. And it was a giant step towards escalating the war in Missouri.

-Gotta go and exercise one of my most favorite rights as an American. You guys play nice while I'm gone
 
Thank you for being honest with me in that your statement was simply your opinion.
With all due respect, I would say that your opinion is not based on common sense, but on a far-off view of the actions.
You have to have a much closer view of the events to understand what happened and why. I'm a 5th generation Missourian, and very interested in this period of our state history.

"Those Missourians who opposed federal troops securing Missouri were disloyal, pro-secessionist citizens."

Those were not Federal Troops. To me, a Federal soldier is one who is employed by the Fed. Government. The only Federal soldier of this group was Lyon himself. The officers and troops under his command were newly enrolled State militia, (there are some who feel they were illegally enrolled-more on that in a bit), most of which were newly-immigrated Germans. Rightly or wrongly, at that time many Missourians didn't view them as U.S. citizens. The grandfathers of these Missourians had fought against hessians in the American revolution, and had passed down their strong feeling about fighting against paid mercenaries. These Germans, in the view of native Missourians, were not Americans. They spoke a different language, acted funny, they didn't assimilate into American society, they drove up prices for farmlands, they took American jobs, etc. (where have we seen this feeling?). So in a very real sense, (based on 1860 thinking), the Federal Government was bringing in foreign troops to occupy their city and state. Certainly during this time there were some Missourians who where secessionist, just as there were Missourians who would support the U.S. Government without reservations. But there was this vast middle group of citizens who supported the Government and the constitution as it was, who wanted to remain neutral during the upcoming conflict. They felt that The Fed. Government was overstepping their authority, Inserting itself into a state matter, and trampling on their rights. Remember, Missouri voted twice regarding the matter of succession; overwhelmingly in both votes they rejected succession; they wanted to stay in the Union. Again, during this time period, if asked, many folks would have said the were citizens of Missouri, and that they owe their allegiance to the State of Missouri; Missouri was their Government. Their state was their sovereign, owing allegiance to the Federal Government was secondary The idea of being a citizen of a much bigger entity such as the "United" States hadn't taken root yet in their minds. So to better understand the thinking of 160 years ago, how in all fairness can you judge them with 21st century thinking?

The enrollment of these "German" troops;
The controversy goes very briefly -something- like this. Per the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln calls upon the Governors of the states to call up their state's Militia's to fill Lincolns' order for 75,000 troops. Missouri's quota is something like 3,000 militia. Gov. Jackson refuses to supply any of Missouri's quota, stating he thinks the call for troops is unconstitutional. In response to this, the Fed. Gov. empowers Congressman Francis Blair to enroll these German immigrants into the State Militia, and place them under Lyons command, thus satisfying Missouri's quota for the Fed. call-up of troops. Can you not see why Missourians would be upset with the actions of Lyons and Blair? To the majority of the citizens of Missouri, the Fed. Gov. has usurped the sovereignty of their state.
Agreed with common sense the Blair/Lyon reasoning advanced at the time falls apart like a house of cards.

What common sense shows is Missouri or the MVM encampment had little to with the real reason, which was simply to usurp US military authority and chain of command and install a partisan pet.
 
???? There was no state of war, during this period trade was still openly being conducted. Would say until Bull Run in July, many on both sides still thought war might be averted and hardly viewed the other region as "enemy".
Uhh, yes. There was definitely a war going on by May 1861.
 
Yes which makes Lyons excuse he had to attack Camp Jackson to protect the arsenal from some phantom attack that never existed all the more dubious.

The arsenal was empty.
The arms with some from Illinois had armed over 8k troops in the STL area.
There was nothing to protect and 700 men who had done nothing was hardly a threat to 8000.

On the other hand the MVM camp was set to disband as musters were 11 days and Harney about to return.

The only sense of immediacy would have been from wanting to usurp his superior in General Harney (who was no secessionist), that's what passes as a sense of "loyalty or devotion" in the military to some.

Edit-added I often use a rather simple smell test, would the same thing fly today? And I honestly can't see a junior officer conspiring with a partisan politician to defy his superior and seize a national guard encampment that had done nothing.......as being acceptable today......and here's the kicker.....after seizing it, they are released as their was no actual criminal charges or case at all.
The governor and Frost were disloyal Americans. The governors envoys had already met and bargained with the enemy. It's very difficult to sympathize with the weak excuses being made for Jackson.
 
The enrollment of these "German" troops;
The controversy goes very briefly -something- like this. Per the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln calls upon the Governors of the states to call up their state's Militia's to fill Lincolns' order for 75,000 troops. Missouri's quota is something like 3,000 militia. Gov. Jackson refuses to supply any of Missouri's quota, stating he thinks the call for troops is unconstitutional. In response to this, the Fed. Gov. empowers Congressman Francis Blair to enroll these German immigrants into the State Militia, and place them under Lyons command, thus satisfying Missouri's quota for the Fed. call-up of troops. Can you not see why Missourians would be upset with the actions of Lyons and Blair? To the majority of the citizens of Missouri, the Fed. Gov. has usurped the sovereignty of their state.
Do you believe that the disloyal governor of South Carolina was consulted before the forming of the 1st SC Infantry USCT? I'd say the SC citizens that were most upset at the forming of a SC unit of USCT were the same citizens whose opinions shouldn't matter as they were disloyal to the US.

The federal government didn't need the permission of a disloyal governor to enlist Missourians into the army.
 
Back
Top