★  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:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
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.
Again there was no wrongdoing, as no one was even charged with anything.

It is rather hard to sympathize with someone who does an unwarranted attack, and in the end didn't even have grounds to charge anyone for anything illegal at all.

He even had legal consul on the security council point out there was no grounds for the attack. If he actually had concerns the proper course would have been a writ of replevin. But again the real actual concern wasn't the MVM camp, but trying to usurp his superior which hardly was an act of "loyality". As trying to circumvent US policy and change of command is hardly that.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
No, not really. Lincoln had written Blair about his discomfort with Harney. It wasn't all Lyon. Another excuse.
No not excuse at all, unless your referring to yourself. As Harney was indeed left his superior by Lincoln.
 
Last edited:

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
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.
I've been following this thread for all of its pages. This particular post is a deflection and you know it. We are discussing Lyon.

My original contribution to this thread was post #16, in which I stated that Lyon doesn't get much praise in Missouri. You immediately jumped on my assertion in your post #25 and asked if those who don't give him much praise are mostly disloyal Missourians. You DID ask that, and I have been biting my tongue ever since. I found your question both snarky and highly offensive. I pointed out that neither @Booner nor I favor the disloyals. In fact, we favor the civilians in Missouri above all others. It should not have taken much deduction to figure out where our sympathies lie.

You have been arguing with @Booner and @archieclement and @Lusty Murfax for many screens. I have avoided the argument until now.

Here are some facts: Lyon came to my town on June 17, 1861. He was, indeed, challenged by a hot headed Governor who was nonetheless the duly elected governor of a sovereign state--acting within the law of the time. Lyon stomped on the rule of civil law and destroyed civilian businesses in my town, and he ruined civilian people needlessly.

I will express these next statements as my personal opinion and not as fact (although I am pretty sure many people will find fact in my opinon.) I have edited the following remarks because I know they are uncharitable. I can't find much charity for Lyon.

I believe Lyon was a little man, short in stature and doomed with a Napolean complex. I believe he was an egomaniac and I believe he had a personal grudge against Missourians because Missouri was a slave state. I believe he made a personal moral judgement that he applied with too broad a brush over every single resident of my state. I believe this was an extremely foolish assumption for him to make. I believe it alienated many civilians who were trying to remain neutral and I believe it made Lyon an unwittingly effective recruiter for the Southern cause. I will not elaborate with further personal opinions because I am sure I have made myself clear.

I don't expect everyone to share these opinions and that's okay. We are all entitled to our opinions. Now everyone should have a crystal clear understanding of my opinion with regard to Nathanial Lyon. I am not presenting any of my opinions as facts, beyond what Lyon perpetrated in my town in June of 1861.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I was referring to you, if you believe it was all about career advancement. There was actually a civil war going on, with actual enemies of the US involved.
Again though it actually only really refers to you, as their was not a civil war going among Union states, which Missouri was one.

Despite your endless spins, there was only one aggressor, both at Camp Jackson and the Planters House.

And despite your endless spin the role of US military is to protect US states not to attack them.

And despite your endless spins of conspiracy theories, their was no "coup" of the Missouri government, it was legally elected, it had committed no crime, no was ever any actual charge of any criminal action on its part ever made for any events before Camp Jackson.

There was no legal basis for Camp Jackson, as was even pointed by legal consul at the time, the proper course would have been a simply a civil serving of a writ of replevin. Nor was anyone at Camp Jackson ever charged with having violated any law whatsoever, nor was the silly oath binding as it was a unwarranted requirement.

The only conspiracy that was implemented and carried out was the conspiracy of Blair and Lyon against General Harney, who we indeed know was no secessionist, but a loyal career officer to the United States. Which indeed if you have read Lyons biography or other histories was motivated for personal gain. As they conclude he was rather a martinet, megalomaniac and considered himself some rather bizarre crusader.

Your opinion is noted, as is the actual events, evidence, and the legal system doesn't support such an opinion, in fact they run counter to it.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I've been following this thread for all of its pages. This particular post is a deflection and you know it. We are discussing Lyon.

My original contribution to this thread was post #16, in which I stated that Lyon doesn't get much praise in Missouri. You immediately jumped on my assertion in your post #25 and asked if those who don't give him much praise are mostly disloyal Missourians. You DID ask that, and I have been biting my tongue ever since. I found your question both snarky and highly offensive. I pointed out that neither @Booner nor I favor the disloyals. In fact, we favor the civilians in Missouri above all others. It should not have taken much deduction to figure out where our sympathies lie.

You have been arguing with @Booner and @archieclement and @Lusty Murfax for many screens. I have avoided the argument until now.

Here are some facts: Lyon came to my town on June 17, 1861. He was, indeed, challenged by a hot headed Governor who was nonetheless the duly elected governor of a sovereign state--acting within the law of the time. Lyon stomped on the rule of civil law and destroyed civilian businesses in my town, and he ruined civilian people needlessly.

I will express these next statements as my personal opinion and not as fact (although I am pretty sure many people will find fact in my opinon.) I have edited the following remarks because I know they are uncharitable. I can't find much charity for Lyon.

I believe Lyon was a little man, short in stature and doomed with a Napolean complex. I believe he was an egomaniac and I believe he had a personal grudge against Missourians because Missouri was a slave state. I believe he made a personal moral judgement that he applied with too broad a brush over every single resident of my state. I believe this was an extremely foolish assumption for him to make. I believe it alienated many civilians who were trying to remain neutral and I believe it made Lyon an unwittingly effective recruiter for the Southern cause. I will not elaborate with further personal opinions because I am sure I have made myself clear.

I don't expect everyone to share these opinions and that's okay. We are all entitled to our opinions. Now everyone should have a crystal clear understanding of my opinion with regard to Nathanial Lyon. I am not presenting any of my opinions as facts, beyond what Lyon perpetrated in my town in June of 1861.
The reference to the USCT is not a deflection. It illustrates that the federal government does not need the permission of a disloyal governor to raise troops. Jackson was disloyal. There's no question that he was communicating and conspiring with the enemy.

I'm surprised that you would find my posts alone as "snarky." Others have written borderline-insulting posts.

I understand and appreciate your opinion. It reinforces my opinion that much of the negative feelings towards Lyon are similar to the negative feelings of some Georgians towards Sherman. It's a mix of emotions and facts passed down through generations, that may not necessarily be 100% fair to Sherman or Lyon.

The Snead account of the Planter House meeting is the one that's always cited by those who demonize Lyon. Yet there is another eyewitness account, by Conant, that gives a substantially different impression of Lyon at that meeting.

My opinion is that Missouri was more of an unstable and volatile mess than perhaps any of the border states. It was going to be difficult for any Union general to handle. Harney was being played by the pro-secessionists. It took a firm, decisive general to head off the disloyal crowd. Lyon did the job that was required. That's my opinion. I thinks it's important to give an alternate opinion, to stand in contrast to ones that want to dance a jig on Lyons grave.
 
Top