★ 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

 

[ErnieMac]

Lyon's service on the expedition to Clear Lake and Russian River was highlighted by the Clear Lake (Bloody Island) Massacre [see links]. Even though he was only a lieutenant Lyon was in command of the troops. The number of Pomo Indians killed is uncertain with estimates ranging from 60 to 400 including numerous women and children. No prisoners were taken. U.S. military casualties were 2 wounded.
http://www.chrisanddavid.com/clearlakemassacre/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Island_massacre

 

[Luke Freet]

Lyon's service on the expedition to Clear Lake and Russian River was highlighted by the Clear Lake (Bloody Island) Massacre [see links]. Even though he was only a lieutenant Lyon was in command of the troops. The number of Pomo Indians killed is uncertain with estimates ranging from 60 to 400 including numerous women and children. No prisoners were taken. U.S. military casualties were 2 wounded.
http://www.chrisanddavid.com/clearlakemassacre/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Island_massacre

One of the thing to note nowadays when we hear "moral high ground" types regarding the Union, many of these regular army men were complicit or active participants in Manifest Destiny, which these folks would classify as a genocide.

 

[Patrick H]

Sherman sings his praise. I think these two have a lot of elements in common. Who knows; maybe Lyon would have won the war in 1862; maybe he would have turned out to have been a different timeline's General Pope. His legacy rests on whether you think highly of his aggressive "decisive" actions, or condemn him for his rashness. And that complexity in opinion fascinates people like me.

I grew up and still live in a community where many families were negatively impacted by his rashness. Others probably found some sense of security in his rashness. I am confident he forced a lot of fence sitters over to the rebel cause by his rashness. But I've already made my opinion clear. Regarding Sherman, I don't think he was rash at all. I think he was deliberate...just ruthless. He got the job done. I probably wouldn't like him if I was raised in Georgia. But I don't have that hanging over me.

 

[Pollaco]

Regarding General Lyon, In Lyons honor the 24th Missouri Volunteer Infantry was recruited as "the Lion Legion". They had a regimental color depicting a Lion under 6 stars.

 

[DanSBHawk]

As @Booner and @mofederal have suggested, Lyon doesn't get much praise in Missouri. This is not without reason. His actions were extremely controversial, then and now. For example, in my home town, he not only suppressed the free press, he destroyed a newspaper by scattering its type and hauling off its printing press. I really have to snicker at the line in his obit that says "in manner he was singularly modest and unassuming." He was neither of those things during the Planter House meeting in St. Louis. I know he's a hero to some. To me, he was a strutting little egomaniac and a martinet.

When you say he "doesn't get much praise in Missouri," is that mostly from Missourians that sympathize with the secessionist side?

 

[DanSBHawk]

One of the thing to note nowadays when we hear "moral high ground" types regarding the Union, many of these regular army men were complicit or active participants in Manifest Destiny, which these folks would classify as a genocide.

The regular army men weren't running the country. They obeyed their superiors. And regardless, the Civil War was its own thing, and can be considered on its own.

 

[Pollaco]

On Dec. 24, 1861 Lyon recieved the Thanks of Congress for his role in saving Missouri for the Union. This was more than 4 months after his death.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Lyon's service in the Civil War was brave and patriotic. He deserves to be honored.

 

[Patrick H]

When you say he "doesn't get much praise in Missouri," is that mostly from Missourians that sympathize with the secessionist side?

Not necessarily. I wouldn't say that @Booner or I sympathize with the secessionist side. Is that what you imply?

 

[Booner]

I don't think any study of Lyon's action in Missouri is complete without an understanding of his connection, (either protection by or patronage to, or both), to Francis Blair, Jr.

Francis Blair, Jr's father, Francis Blair Sr, is a founding member of the Republican Party. His older brother, Montgomery Blair, is Lincoln 's Postmaster Genereral and a member of Lincoln's cabinet. Family friend, Edward Bates,' is Lincoln's Attorney General and fellow Lincoln cabinet member. With all of this going for the newly elected congressman, Francis Blair Jr. had some muscle, or should we say, "relative ability" in acting as Lincoln's man in charge in Missouri. He is given a certain level of authority to act on behalf of the U. S. Government that's way beyond that of a newly elected congressman. What Blair lacked was a way to influence the military in Missouri. This changed once Lyon was transferred to St. Louis.

Lyon became Blair's man, and his (Lyon's) actions, both in dealing with his superior officers and his actions once he became a general, were protected by Blair's influence. It was Blair who removed Gen. Hearney, Lyons superior, and the third highest ranking man in the U. S. Army, from command and replaced him with Lyon, all with the passive permission of Lincoln. Some historians say that it was Lyon who saved Missouri for the Union. That would not have been possible if it was not for Blair pulling the all the strings in the background.

The two acted as a team, and were very efficient and agressive in their actions in keeping federal control over Missouri. They were able to constantly keep the state authorities in a reactive position and off balance to what the Lyon/Blair combination did. But once the war started in Missouri, something happened within the Lyon/Blair team that caused Blair to either loose confidence in Lyon, or question Lyon's ability to lead a large army.

After the First Battle of Boonville, (June 1861), which Lyon won with Blair acting as a Colonel of a regiment of volunteers, Blair had to leave Missouri and take his seat as a U. S. Congressman. Once he arrived in Washington, the Blair family began to heavily promote for John C. Fremont to become the commander of the Department of the West, and Lyon's superior. (Fremont's wife, Jesse Benton Fremont, was a family friend to the Blair family). Meanwhile, back in Missouri, without his confidant and protector gone, Lyon vasilated in Boonville in gathering supplies to chase after the Missouri State Guard. By the time Lyon reaches Southwest Missouri, he's having periods of depression, and he has lost his aggressive tendencies. Lyon has lost his benefactor and promoter within the government and He is not being supported by Fremont, who is now in charge. Fremont is more concerned by the military situation possibly developing in Southeast Missouri, (of which nothing developed), and the lack of readiness in his department to begin operations in the west. Lyon is largely on his own.

Lyon now finds himself is in the position to either take his troops who are now in great need of supplies back to St. Louis and loose everything he has gained, or attack Price and McCullock. It's Seigle who provides the battleplan for what's to be known as the Battle of Wilson's Creek, where Lyon looses his life.

It's a "what if" question if Lyon would have gained as much notoriety in the Civil War as he did if he did not have Blair's help. He was promoted from a Captain to General with Blair's help. That's a huge gain in rank without gaining the experience he needed to command an army. He was known to be arrogant and insubordinate and not well liked by his fellow officers. He was required to leave the army for a year due to the harsh punishment he gave a private in his command when he was a young lieutenant, and court of inquiry was to have been convened concerning the death of one of his men due to Lyon's harsh punishment just as Lyon was called to St. Louis. (the court of inquiry never took place due to the rapid development of the war). His anger and impulsiveness was certainly shown at the infamous Planters House meeting where Lyon effectively declared war on the state of Missouri. It's my belief that it was at that meeting where Blair must have thought that he had created a monster and began questioning his support of Lyon.

 

[Booner]

Lyon's service in the Civil War was brave and patriotic. He deserves to be honored.

Not by me.
I blame him for bringing the war to Missouri, and no other state suffered as much as Missouri did.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

When you say he "doesn't get much praise in Missouri," is that mostly from Missourians that sympathize with the secessionist side?

Lyon hated Missouri. He conspired with powerful Lincoln allies in St. Louis to oust his commanding officer from his post. Lyon infamously declared war on the civilian population at the Planter House Meeting. He used his privately raised Dutch militia to rob banks, confiscate and destroy private property and evict popularly elected State officials from the State capitol. Lyon gave Missourians ample reason to hate him and he received his just reward from the Missouri State Guard at Oak Hills. Lyon warred against a State that had not seceded.

 

[Patrick H]

Lyon warred against a State that had not seceded.

Yes, and this is a point that is often overlooked. Jackson was as much a hot head as was Lyon, and Jackson was known to be a secessionist, but he didn't get the job done. The war probably would have eventually come to Missouri, but Lyon's actions at St. Louis, Boonville, and Southwest Missouri certainly hastened the onset.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Yes, and this is a point that is often overlooked. Jackson was as much a hot head as was Lyon, and Jackson was known to be a secessionist, but he didn't get the job done. The war probably would have eventually come to Missouri, but Lyon's actions at St. Louis, Boonville, and Southwest Missouri certainly hastened the onset.

Gov. Jackson was acting in the best interests of the State. Keeping Missouri out of the federal government's eastern war against the South was a best case scenario for Missouri's civilian population.

 

[LetUsHavePeace]

Polk blockaded the Mississippi at Columbus for the same reason Washington closed the Hudson to the British. They even used the same method.

Missouri could not stay out of the eastern war any more than upstate New York and Vermont could stay out of the Revolution. If the British were to defeat the rebellion in New England, they had to gain control of the connection between their garrisons in Canada and New York City. The Union had to gain control of the Mississippi for the same economic and military reasons so the "eastern war" would be brought to the west. None of this excuses the Blairs, who could never escape worshipping the bright light of their own public images.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Gov. Jackson was acting in the best interests of the State. Keeping Missouri out of the federal government's eastern war against the South was a best case scenario for Missouri's civilian population.

Governor Jackson wanted Missouri to join the seceded states. I wouldn't describe that as acting in the best interests.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Polk blockaded the Mississippi at Columbus for the same reason Washington closed the Hudson to the British. They even used the same method.

View attachment 408187

Missouri could not stay out of the eastern war any more than upstate New York and Vermont could stay out of the Revolution. If the British were to defeat the rebellion in New England, they had to gain control of the connection between their garrisons in Canada and New York City. The Union had to gain control of the Mississippi for the same economic and military reasons so the "eastern war" would be brought to the west. None of this excuses the Blairs, who could never escape worshipping the bright light of their own public images.

"Missouri could not stay out of the eastern war". Interesting that you bring up this point. This is exactly what Gov. Jackson was attempting to prevent when he refused Lincoln's request for troops from Missouri for his eastern war against the South. Jackson made no aggressive moves toward neighboring northern States and he took no action against federal troops or facilities in Missouri. When Lyon was brought in by the Blairs and put in charge of the Dutch militia in St. Louis, Gov. Jackson was immediately put on the defensive and could only minimally react to federal attacks of Missouri's citizens and government. These attacks occurred, even though Missouri's legislature had not yet voted to secede. On your other point, Missouri is not New York and the WBTS was not similar to the Revolution against GB. Nice photo of a chain, though.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Governor Jackson wanted Missouri to join the seceded states. I wouldn't describe that as acting in the best interests.

His sympathies were certainly with the South and Missouri was a Southern State. The Gov. acted to defend the State from outsiders and to prevent diversion of it's population and resources in a war against other States. I am more concerned with what Gov. Jackson did, rather than what some northern historian claims without evidence he might have been thinking at one time or another.

 

[ErnieMac]

It seems pretty obvious what Jackson's plans were. While I don't think highly of Lyon's personality; he did stop Jackson's plans. The letter from Jefferson Davis found in the Official Records (Series 1, Volume I, page 688) explains things pretty well.

Montgomery, Ala., April 23, 1861.
His Excellency C. F. Jackson, Governor of Missouri:

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge yours of the 17th instant, borne by Captains Green and Duke, and have most cordially welcomed the fraternal assurances it brings.
A misplaced but generous confidence has, for years past, prevented the Southern States from making the preparation required by the present emergency, and our power to supply you with ordnance is far short of the will to serve you. After learning as well as I could from the gentlemen accredited to me what was most needful for the attack on the arsenal, I have directed that Captains Green and Duke should be furnished with two 12-pounder howitzers and two 32-pounder guns, with the proper ammunition for each. These, from the commanding hills, will be effective, both against the garrison and to breach the inclosing walls of the place. I concur with you as to the great importance of capturing the arsenal and securing its supplies, rendered doubly important by the means taken to obstruct your commerce and render you unarmed victims of a hostile invasion.
We look anxiously and hopefully for the day when the star of Missouri shall be added to the constellation of the Confederate States of America.

With best wishes, I am, very respectfully, yours,
JEFFERSON DAVIS.

 

[archieclement]

When you say he "doesn't get much praise in Missouri," is that mostly from Missourians that sympathize with the secessionist side?

There is no secessionist side, as Missouri hadn't seceded.........

And why he may personally had sympathy to the south, I have yet to see any historian show any credible way he could have unilaterally made the state of Missouri secede, as frankly he couldn't, the convention was overwhelmingly Unionist. It's a red herring to suggest he was going to do something......that they then can't show how he possibly could have done what they falsely suggest.....

The only way the state could secede and officially organize troops to later join the CSA was by Lyons actions.......Lyon actually was as or more responsible for Missouri being recognized by the Confederacy and it's troops in Confederate service then Jackson.....as without Lyons rashness, Jackson's hands were quite tied politically.

Like many suggested conspiracies, that Jackson was somehow going to coup the Missouri Legislature, Convention, and people, falls apart on actual examination.........