★ 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

 

[DanSBHawk]

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.........

There was definitely a side in Missouri that was sympathetic to secession. And they would have supported the confederacy regardless of Lyon's actions.

Lyon was a loyal federal officer commanding federal troops. Those who had a problem with Lyon were mainly disloyal citizens.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I am more concerned with what Gov. Jackson did...

Lyon shut down the governor's opportunities before he could go further.

 

[Booner]

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

Lets see your proof for that statement.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Lets see your proof for that statement.

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/

 

[archieclement]

Lyon shut down the governor's opportunities before he could go further.

Go further? With what? There is no credible evidence of any further.

Rather tin foil society to suggest one has to stop something that never happened, that there's no evidence was going to happen, or that there is even a credible theory as to how it could possibly happen.....

And those who had a problem with Lyon were actually loyal Americans. From Gen Harney who had devoted his life to his country, who Lyon conspired against, to Blair who initially conspired with Lyon to realize he was a crackpot, so then had him demoted, unionists such as Samuel Glover who correctly advised him Camp Jackson was a legal assemblage of state militia. Fremont who correctly concluded SW MO was the least important part of state to secure.

Lets see your proof for that statement.

You won't. Because like all conspiracy theories you don't need evidence, because it's secret you know........

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Lyon shut down the governor's opportunities before he could go further.

Using your logic, northern sympathizers here should be very happy the Missouri State Guard shut down Lyon's opportunities before he could go further. Had Lyon defeated Price and McCulloch and survived Oak Hills, he might have displaced Grant in Southeast Missouri. Grant's service there and victory at Belmont eventually morphed into his command of the Army of The Tennessee leading to significant victories at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, etc.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Go further? With what? There is no credible evidence of any further.

Rather tin foil society to suggest one has to stop something that never happened, that there's no evidence was going to happen, or that there is even a credible theory as to how it could possibly happen.....

And those who had a problem with Lyon were actually loyal Americans. From Gen Harney who had devoted his life to his country, who Lyon conspired against, to Blair who initially conspired with Lyon to realize he was a crackpot, so then had him demoted, unionists such as Samuel Glover who correctly advised him Camp Jackson was a legal assemblage of state militia. Fremont who correctly concluded SW MO was the least important part of state to secure.

You won't. Because like all conspiracy theories you don't need evidence, because it's secret you know........

The Missourians that were most upset with Lyon intervening in their state in '61 were the same Missourians that had no problem with Missourians intervening in Kansas in '54-59.

They weren't "loyal Americans." They were loyal to Slavery over anything else. The pro-Slavery crowd always had a very conditional and hypocritical view towards states rights, state sovereignty, etc.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Using your logic, northern sympathizers here should be very happy the Missouri State Guard shut down Lyon's opportunities before he could go further. Had Lyon defeated Price and McCulloch and survived Oak Hills, he might have displaced Grant in Southeast Missouri. Grant's service there and victory at Belmont eventually morphed into his command of the Army of The Tennessee leading to significant victories at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, etc.

I disagree. I'm sure Lyon would have continued to contribute to the Union war effort, and I'm sure Grant would have as well.

 

[archieclement]

The Missourians that were most upset with Lyon intervening in their state in '61 were the same Missourians that had no problem with Missourians intervening in Kansas in '54-59.

They weren't "loyal Americans." They were loyal to Slavery over anything else. The pro-Slavery crowd always had a very conditional and hypocritical view towards states rights, state sovereignty, etc.

Actually being loyal to and respecting US law is being a loyal American. And yes, slavery was protected by US law. That you don't agree with other Americans doesn't make them any less Americans.....actually we have never been a one party system, and have always had divergent views as Americans. Missouri was politically rather overwhelmingly Democrat then, however being Democrat then was no more "un-american" then being a Democrat today would be.

And intervening in Kansas is a canard, as when the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed it was primarily Missourians who were there.......those forming "emigration societies" to try to intervene in Kansas were from far further east if one wishes to be actually honest.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Actually being loyal to and respecting US law is being a loyal American. And yes, slavery was protected by US law. That you don't agree with other Americans doesn't make them any less Americans.....actually we have never been a one party system, and have always had divergent views as Americans. Missouri was politically rather overwhelmingly Democrat then, however being Democrat then was no more "un-american" then being a Democrat today would be.

And intervening in Kansas is a canard, as when the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed it was primarily Missourians who were there.......those forming "emigration societies" to try to intervene in Kansas were from far further east if one wishes to be actually honest.

I didn't say anything about political parties. There were democrats that were pro-union and there were some that were pro-secession.

I was talking about pro-slavery zealots that put their addiction to slaveholding above any loyalties to country or states. Those same people, who preached states rights, had no issues at all with interfering with a neighboring territory which was working on becoming a state. So much for Popular Sovereignty.

I would not consider those types of citizens to be loyal Americans. Their allegiance was to the institution of slavery. Those were the people most upset at Lyon securing Missouri for the union.

 

[archieclement]

Again red herrings, as no one was upset at Lyon for securing Missouri, because in reality he didnt.......

Fremont ultimately secured Missouri for the Union after Lyon needlessly put Missouri's position in doubt with his blunders. Again the facts are before Camp Jackson Missouri was already in the Union, the only doubt was created by Lyons actions at Camp Jackson.......which Lyons campaign didn't end at all, because after his defeats at Carthage and Wilsons Creek, which lead to the defeat at Lexington, his army retreated to where it had started, accomplishing nothing other then creating and arming a hostile army that hadn't and wouldn't have existed without Lyons blunders. Leaving Fremont and others to actually secure the state for the Union. I can certainly understand the need for propaganda in war(such as spinning the first general to fall as some hero), as the Union effort had been rather dismal, but its less understandable why some persist in it today. As the facts don't support him having saved anything......as he dies, his army retreated, and the state forces were resurgent, it took Fremont to rectify that and secure the state, thats simply reality.

And respecting US laws and national policies isn't zealotry........thinking your entitled to defy them based on personal religious views such as John Brown would be.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Again red herrings, as no one was upset at Lyon for for securing Missouri, because in reality he didnt.......

Fremont ultimately secured Missouri for the Union after Lyon needlessly put Missouri's position in doubt with his blunders. Again the facts are before Camp Jackson Missouri was already in the Union, the only doubt was created by Lyons actions at Camp Jackson.......which Lyons campaign didn't end at all, because after his defeats at Carthage and Wilsons Creek, which lead to the defeat at Lexington, his army retreated to where it had started, accomplishing nothing other then creating and arming a hostile army that hadn't and wouldn't have existed without Lyons blunders. Leaving Fremont and others to actually secure the state for the Union.

And respecting US laws and policies isn't zealotry........opposing them based on religious or personal morals would be........

We'll just have to disagree then, because control of Missouri was never seriously threatened after Lyon took action.

There was nothing lawful about Missourians intervening in Kansas in the 1850's.

 

[19thGeorgia]

The best recruiter for the Confederates in Missouri: Nathaniel Lyon.

 

[DanSBHawk]

The best recruiter for the Confederates in Missouri: Nathaniel Lyon.

Definitely separated the loyal from the disloyal.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

The best recruiter for the Confederates in Missouri: Nathaniel Lyon.

Clearly, and the terrorists from kansas were a close second. There's no lower form of life than a chicken-squawk kansan.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Definitely separated the loyal from the disloyal.

I think it had to do with the Camp Jackson Massacre where 100 civilians were killed and wounded...

 

[archieclement]

We'll just have to disagree then, because control of Missouri was never seriously threatened after Lyon took action.

There was nothing lawful about Missourians intervening in Kansas in the 1850's.

Yes but if one is honest control of Missouri was never in doubt before Lyon as well....as it hadn't seceded, nor had any plans to.

It remains the only state of flux as to control of Missouri was entirely created by Lyon himself. He essentially set the fire himself, then failed to put it out, leaving others to actually to do so......

And actually Missourians had as much right to intervene to influence Kansas as anyone else politically. And most often Missourians were on the side of law and order in Kansas prewar.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I think it had to do with the Camp Jackson Massacre where 100 civilians were killed and wounded...

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

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yes but if one is honest control of Missouri was never in doubt before Lyon as well....as it hadn't seceded, nor had any plans to.

It remains the only state of flux as to control of Missouri was entirely created by Lyon himself. He essentially set the fire himself, then failed to put it out, leaving others to actually to do so......

I disagree, and I'm being completely honest.

 

[archieclement]

I disagree, and I'm being completely honest.

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.