MAY 11, 1861.-Riot in Saint Louis, Mo.

As very much an outsider (s desert dweller as my friends like to say) I have read just about every article suggested/presented in ALL of the Missouri threads. I want to share some observations, and folks can feel free to pick apart.

  • The catalyst events were apart and unrelated in the begining, but like a hurricane, they gathered energy, and sucked in the surrounding communities.
  • Rather than being able to speak of Missouri as a "state" as in general opinion, it must be viewed by area, as positions varied wildly from one area to the next
  • Guerillas appear to be more tribal, than cause loyal, ie, they seem to represent a family/geographic loyalty rather than a "Confederate" cause.
  • Even tribes have strict hierarchy/oversight, so when too much autonomy existed, a Lord of the Flies syndrome developed amongst some of the leaders, and barbarianism set in.
  • Since these groups were comprised of family, revenge seemed to be the main focus, rather than mission orientation
Due to this deviation from convention, I find that my own opinions vary from incident to incident. In other words, I find it hard to make over-arching, broad statements about the border war in relation to the rest of the Civil War, hence the war-within-a-war tag.
 
Last edited:
As very much an outsider (s deserve dweller as my friends like to say) I have read just about every article suggested/presented in ALL of the Missouri threads. I want to share some observations, and folks can feel free to pick apart.

  • The catalyst events were apart and unrelated in the begining, but like a hurricane, they gathered energy, and sucked in the surrounding communities.
  • Rather than being able to speak of Missouri as a "state" as in general opinion, it must be viewed by area, as positions varied wildly from one area to the next
  • Guerillas appear to be more tribal, than cause loyal, ie, they seem to represent a family/geographic loyalty rather than a "Confederate" cause.
  • Even tribes have strict hierarchy/oversight, so when too much autonomy existed, a Lord of the Flies syndrome developed amongst some of the leaders, and barbarianism set in.
  • Since these groups were comprised of family, revenge seemed to be the main focus, rather than mission orientation
Due to this deviation from convention, I find that my own opinions vary from incident to incident. In other words, I find it hard to make over-arching, broad statements about the border war in relation to the rest of the Civil War, hence the war-within-a-war tag.
Pretty much agree. the difference in the state is primarily a difference between urban and rural.

I'm currently dividing my time between two books, one of which Bushwhackers, Guerrilla warfare, Manhood, and the Household in civil war Missouri, makes the same tribal/local/justice conclusions
 
Legal is just opinion, its why there's two sides to every case, and even precedent is and can be overturned. It as opinion is no more valuable then any other type of opinion, except perhaps the juries opinion......who uses the if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.............its probably a duck opinion :smile:
The purpose of a court is to decide between 2 opinions by applying facts and law to it. Decisions have to be made or society collapses into chaos. Decisions are made and society moves on. New decisions may come later and be different, That does not matter, decisions have to be made at a particular point in time for that time.

Legal has a rather precise meaning. There are many SCOTUS decisions I have problems with, but that is only my opinion. Court decisions determine legality and the reality that society will move on with from there until there is a new one.
 
Pretty much agree. the difference in the state is primarily a difference between urban and rural.

I'm currently dividing my time between two books, one of which Bushwhackers, Guerrilla warfare, Manhood, and the Household in civil war Missouri, makes the same tribal/local/justice conclusions
Booner, Boonslick and I have all read that book. It is excellent. In fact, it inspired Booner to begin constructing a spreadsheet showing as many of the family relationships as he can find.

The family relationships among the guerrillas are really quite amazing and are worth a thread of their own. I will encourage Booner to launch one.
 
Last edited:
Interesting as to motive....

I've always found it somewhat odd Blair opposes Harney, then opposes Fremont, then opposes Halleck, then opposes Schofield, even opposes governor gamble.......then here it is on on page 270 civil war st louis

"Blair also had personal reasons for wishing to see an expanded federal military role in Missouri. As his wife, Apolline, noted in an August 1862 letter to her husband, they both hoped "to get rid of Schofield and Gamble" so that Lincoln "would make you military governor"
 
Please show me the post that establishes the time line for this thread.

Actually, when I made my comment, I was thinking of the post you made in # 535. In my mind, your post and the title of the thread established the timeline, which would include the events which lead up to the Riot, and anything that happened immediately after as a direct effect of that riot.

Since Lyon played such a central figure in the early war events in Missouri, I would be willing to extend the thread time-line limit out to Lyons death, as I think one can show a direct cause-effect relationship.

This thread is about the MAY 11, 1861.-Riot in Saint Louis, Mo. I look forward to your posts on the subject.

May I take this opportunity to point out that you have not responded to my post to you (pg 27, #538)? I made that post to you in the interests of historical accuracy. Thank you.

QUOTE="Booner, post: 1644190, member: 14638"]Actually, the Riot in St. Louis, and the "Camp Jackson Affair" which started it all, occurred on the 10th of May. The original post which started this thread is about an incident that Lyon telegramed Washington about the day after the massacre, (some minor fighting had continued for a few days after the massacre).
I pointed what Lyon's telegram, (the original post of this thread), referred to in a later post.

Perhaps you, as moderator, can make a change to the title of the thread to "MAY 10, 1861.-Riot in Saint Louis, Mo." so we have our date correct?[/QUOTE]
 
Actually, when I made my comment, I was thinking of the post you made in # 535. In my mind, your post and the title of the thread established the timeline, which would include the events which lead up to the Riot, and anything that happened immediately after as a direct effect of that riot.

Since Lyon played such a central figure in the early war events in Missouri, I would be willing to extend the thread time-line limit out to Lyons death, as I think one can show a direct cause-effect relationship.



May I take this opportunity to point out that you have not responded to my post to you (pg 27, #538)? I made that post to you in the interests of historical accuracy. Thank you.

QUOTE="Booner, post: 1644190, member: 14638"]Actually, the Riot in St. Louis, and the "Camp Jackson Affair" which started it all, occurred on the 10th of May. The original post which started this thread is about an incident that Lyon telegramed Washington about the day after the massacre, (some minor fighting had continued for a few days after the massacre).
I pointed what Lyon's telegram, (the original post of this thread), referred to in a later post.

Perhaps you, as moderator, can make a change to the title of the thread to "MAY 10, 1861.-Riot in Saint Louis, Mo." so we have our date correct?
[/QUOTE]
As moderator I decline.

As member, why not start yourself an new thread, they are free.
 
I got yo go to eork soon so I will just address one point. Glover may have a legal argument that Lyon's attack on Camp Jackson was illegal. In order for Glover to prove that his assertion is correct a court must concur with his assertion. If Glover filed a civil lawsuit that stated that those killed or injured in the attack on Camp Jackson were entitled to monetary damages then Glover would be right. Did Glover file any lawsuits?
Unless we have proof of a court issuing a ruling against the federal government for the actions undertaken by Glover then we just have legal opinion not fact.
Leftyhunter

Your missing the point of what I said.
Glover had all these legal arguments against what Lyons wanted to do at Camp Jackson. To get Glover's approval, Lyon agreed to take a Marshal with a writ of replevin to give to Frost. But as soon as he left the meeting he let his true intention known to an aid when he said, "I have something better than Writs; I have powder and ball." He wasn't concerned about the legalities of what he intended to do. He was more concerned in breaking up and punishing the men of Camp Jackson.
 
As moderator I decline.

As member, why not start yourself an new thread, they are free.[/QUOTE]

I've done a few, when I get sometime I'll do some more. I've got a few ideas, but I tend to write very lengthy posts when I do a thread. What I really need to be doing is getting moved into my house.

And please believe me, I'm not trying to be a PITA about changing the date on the thread topic.
 
Your missing the point of what I said.
Glover had all these legal arguments against what Lyons wanted to do at Camp Jackson. To get Glover's approval, Lyon agreed to take a Marshal with a writ of replevin to give to Frost. But as soon as he left the meeting he let his true intention known to an aid when he said, "I have something better than Writs; I have powder and ball." He wasn't concerned about the legalities of what he intended to do. He was more concerned in breaking up and punishing the men of Camp Jackson.
It's an interesting question whether ir not Lyon violated any laws. So far no one has written a proper legal argument to show that Lyon did so. Maybe one day someone will.
Leftyhunter
 
Lefty, I think you are trying to create something out of nothing with this legal rant. Some few members might have made legal claims here, but most haven't. I haven't. Heck, I haven't even talked about Blair raising his German home guards or Lyon taking prisoners. I've only questioned his judgement for marching his prisoners through the streets (got bad results, didn't it?) and for overstepping his authority by using the words "This Means War" in the Planters House meeting. That, too, got bad results.

I think he was a pompous, overbearing jerk and I don't like him. I don't need to cite legal precedents to believe he was a jerk. I have already provided evidence to support my opinion that he was a jerk.

If he'd only said: "I will fight you if you try to stop me" it would have saved us pages and pages of useless argument. But he didn't say that. He was too arrogant to say that.
 
Lefty, I think you are trying to create something out of nothing on this legal rant. Some few members might have made legal claims here, but most haven't. I haven't. Heck, I haven't even talked about Blair raising his German home guards or Lyon taking prisoners. I've only questioned his judgement for marching his prisoners through the streets (got bad results, didn't it?) and for overstepping his authority by using the words "This Means War" in the Planters House meeting. That, too, got bad results.

I think he was a pompous, overbearing jerk and I don't like him. I don't need to cite legal precedents to believe he was a jerk. I have already provided evidence to support my opinion that he was a jerk.

If he'd only said: "I will fight you if you try to stop me" it would have saved us pages and pages of useless argument.
Looks like this thread is headed to bed. More complaining about members and imaged affronts than real discussion. Lets say grace over it and it pass in peace.
 
Lefty, I think you are trying to create something out of nothing with this legal rant. Some few members might have made legal claims here, but most haven't. I haven't. Heck, I haven't even talked about Blair raising his German home guards or Lyon taking prisoners. I've only questioned his judgement for marching his prisoners through the streets (got bad results, didn't it?) and for overstepping his authority by using the words "This Means War" in the Pla
aven't seen anyone say he wasn't pompous overbearing jerk, thats pretty much the summation at the end of his biography
Lefty, I think you are trying to create something out of nothing with this legal rant. Some few members might have made legal claims here, but most haven't. I haven't. Heck, I haven't even talked about Blair raising his German home guards or Lyon taking prisoners. I've only questioned his judgement for marching his prisoners through the streets (got bad results, didn't it?) and for overstepping his authority by using the words "This Means War" in the Planters House meeting. That, too, got bad results.

I think he was a pompous, overbearing jerk and I don't like him. I don't need to cite legal precedents to believe he was a jerk. I have already provided evidence to support my opinion that he was a jerk.

If he'd only said: "I will fight you if you try to stop me" it would have saved us pages and pages of useless argument. But he didn't say that. He was too arrogant to say that.

That's pretty much the conclusion at the end of his bio

"Yet his decision to declare war on the state of Missouri was based upon neither military or political necessity."

"And more then any other single individual, Lyon bore responsibility for this fratricidal tragedy"

"Yet Lyons war was more then political extremism, it was a personal vendetta, wrought by a blind hatred of the nations's secessionists that obfuscated all other possible consequences beyond the fulfillment of his own personal vengeance. Instead of saving the state , Lyon actually started a war that otherwise might not have erupted"

"he viewed himself the state's supreme arbiter, and once he got the power to act as such, he would not relinquish it"

Don't seem much of a stretch to draw pompous overbearing jerk from it...........personally I'd probably add weasel due to his continual scheming to try to slander his superiors, whether its Harney or Hagner he's always trying to do an end around, but guess that goes to his pompous nature.........and being a jerk.........
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting these thoughts. I enjoyed reading them very much! I'd like it if you create some threads about the historic events in your area of the state. I have much to learn about SW Missouri.

Thanks! I would be glad to post more threads about events in this area and hope to be able to do so soon. I'm delighted to see lately the increased interest of the war in Missouri.
 
Back
Top