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

What rebellion? Do you have a source for that assertion? Remember now, it was early May, 1861 when they illegally arrested the trainees at legally authorized Missouri State Militia training camp. It was much earlier than that for their illegal arming of a private paramilitary force from the Federal Arsenal.
Lyon acted because he thought that the Missouri Volunteer Militia was going to arm themselves to fight the United States. Has I pointed out Lyon was not subject to any legal prosecution for his actions.
Leftyhunter
 
Lyon was never arrested for any act he committed in suppressing the rebellion. Lyon and his men fought to protect the U.S. Arsenal on behalf of the United States. Lyon and his men were not attempting to break aeay from the United States.
Pro Confederate posters have argued that Jefferson Davis did not commit treason against the United States because he was never arrested and stood trial and never convicted for treason.
To be fair the same argument would apply to Lyon for his actions in suppressing the rebellion in Missouri.
The Constitution if you read it does allow the military to use force to suppress rebellion.
If Lyon violated the law then the U.S. Army could arrest and court martial Lyon.
That did not happen.
The U.S. Senate had the option of impeaching President Lincoln for not subjecting Lyon to a court martial and not prosecuting Blair in a federal court.
The U.S. Senate did not do so.
Leftyhunter

If your first statement is supposed to count as evidence that Lyon did nothing wrong, then I guess neither did Jefferson C. Davis when he cold-bloodily shot and killed his superior officer William "Bull" Nelson in Louisville the following year; of course that didn't make Nelson any less dead!
 
If your first statement is supposed to count as evidence that Lyon did nothing wrong, then I guess neither did Jefferson C. Davis when he cold-bloodily shot and killed his superior officer William "Bull" Nelson in Louisville the following year; of course that didn't make Nelson any less dead!
One can't be guility of a crime unless one is successfully prosecuted for it.
LeLeftyhunter
 
You need to better prepare, if you intend to join this discussion. WikiPedia is not a source.
You made an assertion that Lincoln , Blair and Lyon violated the law in suppressing the rebellion in Missouri.
You still have not provided any evidence that they have done so.
Leftyhunter
 
You made an assertion that Lincoln , Blair and Lyon violated the law in suppressing the rebellion in Missouri.
You still have not provided any evidence that they have done so.
Leftyhunter
What rebellion? Did the State of Missouri commence a ''rebellion'' prior to the actions of Blair and Lyon. Up to that point Missouri had acted appropriately, entirely within the law. And who said anything about Lincoln's involvement in their conspiracy? I believe my only mention of President Lincoln was in reference to Blair's brother Montgomery serving as a member of his Cabinet.
 
Process maters. Whatever thoughts some believe Gov. Jackson held in his heart, he had not initiated any legal process of secession as of May, 1861. Under Federal law the government could call on the States to provide militia for Federal service. However, this call was limited to a total of 75,000 troops and they could only be called on for three months of service. When Lincoln issued the call in April, 61, the demand he placed on the States was for four regiments, consisting of 1750 men each. The Federal government was not yet authorized by Congress to raise Federal troops and Lincoln was acting under current law when he issued his call for militia from each State. The force raised by Blair and placed under Capt. Lyon was not the State Militia authorized by current law. There was no provision in Federal law for private citizens or lowly ranking Army officers to raise their own militia and there was no authority to arm and supply them from a Federal Arsenal. Additionally, there were no orders to do so prior to arming them. The fact is, these men were traitors to the State of Missouri and were in violation of the current laws of the United States. Both Lyon and Blair acted illegally to circumvent the legal Federal military authority in Missouri, then in the person of General Harney. The actions taken by Lyon and Blair against the State of Missouri were illegal. Missouri's legislature did not vote to secede until October, 1861.
This is what we are disputing your above post. All I asked was what is your source for the statement that Lyon and Blair violated the law. Apparently congress nor the president had any issues with any actions by Lyon or Blair. Neither did the U.S. Attorney General.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions but it is your burden to prove them. So far tou have not nor have tou proved that most Missourians were pro slavery.
Leftyhunter
 
Lyon acted because he thought that the Missouri Volunteer Militia was going to arm themselves to fight the United States. Has I pointed out Lyon was not subject to any legal prosecution for his actions.
Leftyhunter

I'm sorry Lefty. I don't see any sources cited for your claims. Please refer to @unionblue 's directives on posting etiquette.

You have not posted any sources for your legal analysis either. Please note what Union Blue wrote.
Leftyhunter

You made an assertion that Lincoln , Blair and Lyon violated the law in suppressing the rebellion in Missouri.
You still have not provided any evidence that they have done so.
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter,

Tit-for-tat.

I think Lusty is not being evasive or stubborn when asking you for a source for your posts.

Why not try and comply with the request as I am such Lusty will return the favor of providing sources.

Be much more worthwhile than wasting bandwidth over who has NOT provided what, don't you think?

You have done such in the past and done it well. I am sure you can do so again.

Please.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
You have not posted any sources for your legal analysis either. Please note what Union Blue wrote.
Leftyhunter
Here's what I don't get. @Patrick H has always been able to lend hugely valuable insight to these discussions. No knee-jerk over-reactor, he has Missouri history in all its stark, ugly and barbaric neon-blood-red highlights somewhere in his DNA, apparently, like we Pennsylvanians tend to have Gettysburg. But the ' ugly ' out west was so awful it's either barely a Civil War discussion. If it is, it's made trivial or justified or the entire mess thrown onto Confederate guerillas.

Not getting how his input is somehow invalid because he is a Missourian- hence knows too much?
So, no one else knows anything? :sneaky:
 
Leftyhunter,

Tit-for-tat.

I think Lusty is not being evasive or stubborn when asking you for a source for your posts.

Why not try and comply with the request as I am such Lusty will return the favor of providing sources.

Be much more worthwhile than wasting bandwidth over who has NOT provided what, don't you think?

You have done such in the past and done it well. I am sure you can do so again.

Please.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
With all due respect @Lusty Murfax has not yet provided any sources to support his assertions that Lyon and Blair committed any illegal acts in Missouri or that the majority of Missourians supported slavery.
I did some research and I found a congressional debate about the legality of General Lyons and President Lincoln's policies in Missouri.
It can be found in
"The Congressional Globe the official proceedings of Congress, Published by John C.Rives, Washington D.C. Thirty Seventh Congress 1st session . Saturday July 13, 1861 New Series No.5
Which I found in "The Congressional Globe-p.66 https://books.goggle.com/books?id=skwPAAAAYAJ
Or a simple way to find it is just google " did General Lyon violate the constitution in St Louis.
The debate about Lyons starts on p.64 to about p.70.
Yes Lyons was controversial but President Lincoln and Lyon's commander General Winfield Scott did not seem to have any problem with what Lyon did in Missouri.
Leftyhunter
 
With all due respect @Lusty Murfax has not yet provided any sources to support his assertions that Lyon and Blair committed any illegal acts in Missouri or that the majority of Missourians supported slavery.
I did some research and I found a congressional debate about the legality of General Lyons and President Lincoln's policies in Missouri.
It can be found in
"The Congressional Globe the official proceedings of Congress, Published by John C.Rives, Washington D.C. Thirty Seventh Congress 1st session . Saturday July 13, 1861 New Series No.5
Which I found in "The Congressional Globe-p.66 https://books.goggle.com/books?id=skwPAAAAYAJ
Or a simple way to find it is just google " did General Lyon violate the constitution in St Louis.
The debate about Lyons starts on p.64 to about p.70.
Yes Lyons was controversial but President Lincoln and Lyon's commander General Winfield Scott did not seem to have any problem with what Lyon did in Missouri.
Leftyhunter

Thank you for your research Lefty.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
My friend so far all the only source you have posted is from Wikipedia which per our mutual friend @Lusty Murfax is verbotten to use on your thread.
Leftyhunter
Lefty, look at the bottom of the page of WiKi and notice the resources. That will help all to decide if they are correct or not.
Or post a book where it can be found. I would appreciate if you would stop getting me in the middle of your arguments. You expect others to follow jgg's rule you should too.
 
With all due respect @Lusty Murfax has not yet provided any sources to support his assertions that Lyon and Blair committed any illegal acts in Missouri or that the majority of Missourians supported slavery.
I did some research and I found a congressional debate about the legality of General Lyons and President Lincoln's policies in Missouri.
It can be found in
"The Congressional Globe the official proceedings of Congress, Published by John C.Rives, Washington D.C. Thirty Seventh Congress 1st session . Saturday July 13, 1861 New Series No.5
Which I found in "The Congressional Globe-p.66 https://books.goggle.com/books?id=skwPAAAAYAJ
Or a simple way to find it is just google " did General Lyon violate the constitution in St Louis.
The debate about Lyons starts on p.64 to about p.70.
Yes Lyons was controversial but President Lincoln and Lyon's commander General Winfield Scott did not seem to have any problem with what Lyon did in Missouri.
Leftyhunter
That is all after the fact and you know it. No where do you cite prior authorization for Lyon's actions. Events have a way of providing their own justification. Had Lyon done as he threatened and killed every man, woman and child in the State of Missouri for the cause of Union domination, Lincoln and Scott's opinions would not have been different.
 
That is all after the fact and you know it. No where do you cite prior authorization for Lyon's actions. Events have a way of providing their own justification. Had Lyon done as he threatened and killed every man, woman and child in the State of Missouri for the cause of Union domination, Lincoln and Scott's opinions would not have been different.
Sometimes immediate action is called for. Sometimes one can't wait and proactive actions are called for. Lyons certainly thought this was the case and his superiors did not have a problem with it.
If everyone carried out their rhetorical threats then the world would be different. Lyons didn't kill Missourian do it's a moot point.
Leftyhunter
 
We have two opinions.

1. Lyons was wrong in his actions.
2. Lyons was right in his actions.

More evidence is needed.

IMHO,
Unionblue
Ultimately it comes down to a question of political values. Govenor Jackson and certain congressional elected officials condemned Lyons. On the other hand Lyons superiors did not neither did the U.S. Senate or Congress past a measure to condem Lyons.
Leftyhunter
 
Back
Top