Missouri river

[atlantis]

Missouri suffered a true civil war in all its cruelty. So what role did the Missouri river play. Was it a dividing line in the state between secessionist/unionist. Did it aid in the union victory in the state. If the confederates had secured control of the state south of the river how would that have impacted the war.

 

[archieclement]

No to a dividing line, northern Missouri was probably more pro south then the southern part. But northern Missouri is also more conducive to agriculture.

It aided the north primarily as a transportation line.

If they had occupied up to a Missouri river line, it would have bought them time if nothing else, and delayed Union naval efforts, As the Eads yards were south of the Missouri.

 

[Patrick H]

@archieclement has provided a good answer to the original question. I will add that it was a very formidable physical barrier to anyone wishing to cross. It could be forded in a few places, but those places were easily guarded, as were ferry boats. Skiffs could cross, but were likely to make landfall a mile or so downstream of the point where they started out. The current is about 5 MPH, and the river carried a lot of washed out trees and other debris, making it a very hazardous proposal to try to swim it. Colonel Joseph Porter tried to get his large army of recruits across, but was frequently thwarted by pro union militias. They operated for a long time as a very large guerrilla band as a result, but finally managed to cross and get to Arkansas. Finally, if you look at a slave population map of Missouri from before the war, you will see the counties bordering the Missouri River colored in darkly, forming a horizontal line across the state that points directly at Kansas. It is easy to see why Kansans were alarmed at the prospect of slavery being imported to their state, and it's easy to see why the counties bordering the Missouri River were called "Little Dixie." I sourced the attached map from this web site. I believe it originally came from the Library of Congress.

 

[Borderruffian]

Many of the larger slave holders were North of the river, so some of the support for dis-union there was higher. But there were slave holders through out the state but the MVR was the highest area because of tilable rich soil. In reality over reaches by Unionist government had more to do with the the tenor of the war.

 

[Borderruffian]

@archieclement has provided a good answer to the original question. I will add that it was a very formidable physical barrier to anyone wishing to cross. It could be forded in a few places, but those places were easily guarded, as were ferry boats. Skiffs could cross, but were likely to make landfall a mile or so downstream of the point where they started out. The current is about 5 MPH, and the river carried a lot of washed out trees and other debris, making it a very hazardous proposal to try to swim it. Colonel Joseph Porter tried to get his large army of recruits across, but was frequently thwarted by pro union militias. They operated for a long time as a very large guerrilla band as a result, but finally managed to cross and get to Arkansas. Finally, if you look at a slave population map of Missouri from before the war, you will see the counties bordering the Missouri River colored in darkly, forming a horizontal line across the state that points directly at Kansas. It is easy to see why Kansans were alarmed at the prospect of slavery being imported to their state, and it's easy to see why the counties bordering the Missouri River were called "Little Dixie." I sourced the attached map from this web site. I believe it originally came from the Library of Congress.
View attachment 405255

Since you mentioned Joe Porter the book " with Porter in Nortern Missouri " by Mudd gives a pretty good account of the time as guerrillas up to about the battle at Moores Mill even mentions One Armed Alvin Cobb I'm sure you've read it just putting it out there for those that haven't..
After Price advanced North from Wilson Creek some MSG units Lyon managed to trap North of the river by controlling the Navigation did get south during the battle/siege of Lexington.

 

[Booner]

I have always found the settlement of MO. very fascinating, and of course, the MO river plays a very central role in that regard.
Around 1805, a series of salt licks were discovered in the central part of the state along the river. Salt, being very important for the preservation of food, was a very valuable commodity at the time. The sons of Daniel Boone began began boiling this brine water down to obtain the salt and shipped it down river to St. Louis, and their salt operation gave this area the name of "The Boonslick," (Boones's Lick). A road opened up from St. Charles, Mo to this region. By 1810, the Fed. Gov. had obtained treaties with the dominate Indian tribe, (the Osage), and the area began to be settled. The war of 1812 disrupted this settlement process, but after the war was over, immigration into the "Boonslick" region boomed. In the center of this area, the town of Franklin was founded in the Mo river bottoms, and within a few years, Franklin became the fastest growing town in MO., (until the MO. river flooded out the town a few years later). This pattern of settlement continued, first westward along the river, and then expanding to the north and south from the river. By the 1830's, the area along the river was pretty well settled, and the rest of the state began to fill in. The river also provided shipping points for the areas further west. The Santa Fe trail originated from Franklin in 1826, but as more people settled westward along the river, these shipping points, the Oregon Trail, the Pony Express, etc. also moved to the western boundary of the State. One of the largest industries on the states' western border was that of freighting to points further west, and this would not have been possible without the river until the railroad was built in the 1850's.

The people who immigrated into the Boonslick area were largely from the states of KY, TN, & VA., and they brought their Southern culture with them. The cash crops they raised were tobacco and hemp, which were sent first to St. Louis and then down to the markets New Orleans. So not only was this region "Southern" in culture, but had strong economic ties with the south. As the settled area along the MO river began to grow, it gained another name, that of "Little Dixie," which shows the southern culture of the area. The political and economic power in the state were also centered along the river, and again, Southern in nature. In the late 1840's, this pattern began to change with a heavy immigration of German settlers into the state, but they tended to settle around St. Louis and the surrounding area, but they were very much pro-Federal in their political views. It's interesting to note that the farther west one goes along the river, the more "southern" the political views of the population.

More directly to the OP's Question-
When the war broke out and Gen. Lyon won the First Battle of Boonville on June 17, 1861, he used the MO river to rapidly move his troops to the center of the state and by winning the battle, forced the MO State Guard all the way down to the Southwest corner of the state. By winning the battle, Lyon was able to keep control of the river which kept the lines of communications, supplies, and troops to and from the western forts open. But more importantly, by controlling the river, Lyon split the southern support in the state in two, which had the dual effect of denying the movement of southern supporters (troops) north of the river from joining MSG south of the river, and driving the political leadership of the state ( the "Little Dixie" region), far away from their base along the river.

 

[Borderruffian]

I have always found the settlement of MO. very fascinating, and of course, the MO river plays a very central role in that regard.
Around 1805, a series of salt licks were discovered in the central part of the state along the river. Salt, being very important for the preservation of food, was a very valuable commodity at the time. The sons of Daniel Boone began began boiling this brine water down to obtain the salt and shipped it down river to St. Louis, and their salt operation gave this area the name of "The Boonslick," (Boones's Lick). A road opened up from St. Charles, Mo to this region. By 1810, the Fed. Gov. had obtained treaties with the dominate Indian tribe, (the Osage), and the area began to be settled. The war of 1812 disrupted this settlement process, but after the war was over, immigration into the "Boonslick" region boomed. In the center of this area, the town of Franklin was founded in the Mo river bottoms, and within a few years, Franklin became the fastest growing town in MO., (until the MO. river flooded out the town a few years later). This pattern of settlement continued, first westward along the river, and then expanding to the north and south from the river. By the 1830's, the area along the river was pretty well settled, and the rest of the state began to fill in. The river also provided shipping points for the areas further west. The Santa Fe trail originated from Franklin in 1826, but as more people settled westward along the river, these shipping points, the Oregon Trail, the Pony Express, etc. also moved to the western boundary of the State. One of the largest industries on the states' western border was that of freighting to points further west, and this would not have been possible without the river until the railroad was built in the 1850's.

The people who immigrated into the Boonslick area were largely from the states of KY, TN, & VA., and they brought their Southern culture with them. The cash crops they raised were tobacco and hemp, which were sent first to St. Louis and then down to the markets New Orleans. So not only was this region "Southern" in culture, but had strong economic ties with the south. As the settled area along the MO river began to grow, it gained another name, that of "Little Dixie," which shows the southern culture of the area. The political and economic power in the state were also centered along the river, and again, Southern in nature. In the late 1840's, this pattern began to change with a heavy immigration of German settlers into the state, but they tended to settle around St. Louis and the surrounding area, but they were very much pro-Federal in their political views. It's interesting to note that the farther west one goes along the river, the more "southern" the political views of the population.

More directly to the OP's Question-
When the war broke out and Gen. Lyon won the First Battle of Boonville on June 17, 1861, he used the MO river to rapidly move his troops to the center of the state and by winning the battle, forced the MO State Guard all the way down to the Southwest corner of the state. By winning the battle, Lyon was able to keep control of the river which kept the lines of communications, supplies, and troops to and from the western forts open. But more importantly, by controlling the river, Lyon split the southern support in the state in two, which had the dual effect of denying the movement of southern supporters (troops) north of the river from joining MSG south of the river, and driving the political leadership of the state ( the "Little Dixie" region), far away from their base along the river.

There's a Booneslick road in Montgomery/Callaway County one of Old Daniel's links was in the area. The Boones first settled in St Charles County then pressed west to Montgomery in the Minneola/ Danville areas.

 

[Patrick H]

@Booner hasprovided a superb overview of the role the river played in settlement, trade, industry, and warfare! Nice job, Buddy!

 

[John Winn]

Very interesting. My wife has a branch in her tree who lived in Little Dixie and were some of the first settlers (and successful). A group of the men in their county went out to California in the gold rush but only one made any money and a number died in mining camps. They were all slave owners of some note.

 

[Borderruffian]

Black Bob McCullough and his cousin Red Bob went to California during the rush, from Little Dixie. Made their way back as teamsters. Reckon prospecting didn't " pan " out for them.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

@Booner hasprovided a superb overview of the role the river played in settlement, trade, industry, and warfare! Nice job, Buddy!

But does the air smell better in Missouri or Kansas?

Just asking for a Kansas Jayhawker....

Bill

 

[archieclement]

I have always found the settlement of MO. very fascinating, and of course, the MO river plays a very central role in that regard.
Around 1805, a series of salt licks were discovered in the central part of the state along the river. Salt, being very important for the preservation of food, was a very valuable commodity at the time. The sons of Daniel Boone began began boiling this brine water down to obtain the salt and shipped it down river to St. Louis, and their salt operation gave this area the name of "The Boonslick," (Boones's Lick). A road opened up from St. Charles, Mo to this region. By 1810, the Fed. Gov. had obtained treaties with the dominate Indian tribe, (the Osage), and the area began to be settled. The war of 1812 disrupted this settlement process, but after the war was over, immigration into the "Boonslick" region boomed. In the center of this area, the town of Franklin was founded in the Mo river bottoms, and within a few years, Franklin became the fastest growing town in MO., (until the MO. river flooded out the town a few years later). This pattern of settlement continued, first westward along the river, and then expanding to the north and south from the river. By the 1830's, the area along the river was pretty well settled, and the rest of the state began to fill in. The river also provided shipping points for the areas further west. The Santa Fe trail originated from Franklin in 1826, but as more people settled westward along the river, these shipping points, the Oregon Trail, the Pony Express, etc. also moved to the western boundary of the State. One of the largest industries on the states' western border was that of freighting to points further west, and this would not have been possible without the river until the railroad was built in the 1850's.

The people who immigrated into the Boonslick area were largely from the states of KY, TN, & VA., and they brought their Southern culture with them. The cash crops they raised were tobacco and hemp, which were sent first to St. Louis and then down to the markets New Orleans. So not only was this region "Southern" in culture, but had strong economic ties with the south. As the settled area along the MO river began to grow, it gained another name, that of "Little Dixie," which shows the southern culture of the area. The political and economic power in the state were also centered along the river, and again, Southern in nature. In the late 1840's, this pattern began to change with a heavy immigration of German settlers into the state, but they tended to settle around St. Louis and the surrounding area, but they were very much pro-Federal in their political views. It's interesting to note that the farther west one goes along the river, the more "southern" the political views of the population.

More directly to the OP's Question-
When the war broke out and Gen. Lyon won the First Battle of Boonville on June 17, 1861, he used the MO river to rapidly move his troops to the center of the state and by winning the battle, forced the MO State Guard all the way down to the Southwest corner of the state. By winning the battle, Lyon was able to keep control of the river which kept the lines of communications, supplies, and troops to and from the western forts open. But more importantly, by controlling the river, Lyon split the southern support in the state in two, which had the dual effect of denying the movement of southern supporters (troops) north of the river from joining MSG south of the river, and driving the political leadership of the state ( the "Little Dixie" region), far away from their base along the river.

But conversely by splitting the southern support in two, he by necessity also split the Union effort in two, and by allowing himself be drawn to the far SW corner, he assured not being reinforced.

 

[Frank Watson]

Knowing that Lyon went up to Boonville on steamboats (and even that steamboat Bertram was headed for Montana Territory in 1864), I've rather assumed the Missouri wasn't particularly friendly to navigation, at least part of the year, since no gunboat seems to have come up it in 1864 when Price was marching west along the river. Am I correct?

 

[Patrick H]

But does the air smell better in Missouri or Kansas?

Just asking for a Kansas Jayhawker....

Bill

There you go...stirring up trouble again.........

 

[Patrick H]

Knowing that Lyon went up to Boonville on steamboats (and even that steamboat Bertram was headed for Montana Territory in 1864), I've rather assumed the Missouri wasn't particularly friendly to navigation, at least part of the year, since no gunboat seems to have come up it in 1864 when Price was marching west along the river. Am I correct?

It wasn't particularly friendly to navigation, and yet steamboats navigated far upstream with regularity. Narrow, shallow draft stern wheelers saw a lot of service on the Missouri, but not to the exclusion of larger sidewheelers. I am not aware of any purpose-built warships ever used on the Missouri, but Lyon did bring artillery with him when he ascended the river in 1861, and he did shell the old fairgrounds at Boonville from one of those boats. Keep in mind that the part of the stream within the state of Missouri is the lower river and has more flow than the upper reaches.

 

[Booner]

But conversely by splitting the southern support in two, he by necessity also split the Union effort in two, and by allowing himself be drawn to the far SW corner, he assured not being reinforced.

Perhaps, by following the MSM all the way down to the southwest corner of the state, Lyon outran his line of supply, which was at Rolla, a 100 miles away over a poor wagon road. He could've, perhaps should have withdrawn closer to Rolls and await for more supplies and troops. Perhaps a more prudent General would have done so. But there was no "stopping" or prudence in Lyon's character; he wanted to punish those Missourians who refused to bow to the authority of the Fed. Government. And loosing the battle of Wilson's Creek and the death of Lyon didn't change the fact that the Union controlled the MO river for the balance of the war with all of the consequences I listed in my original post.

 

[Booner]

After Price advanced North from Wilson Creek some MSG units Lyon managed to trap North of the river by controlling the Navigation did get south during the battle/siege of Lexington.

My family settled about 12 miles northwest of St. Joseph MO. in Andrew county in the late 1840's. After the war broke out, there was a MSM camp, called camp Highly, after the farmer who owned the land, established for a short period in the fall of 1861, a couple of miles from my family's farm. Some of the arms these troops received were taken from the Liberty arsenal in the spring of '61, and lead to the fear that the southerners would do the same to the St. Louis arsenal.
The Union men of this area also had a gathering or training camp not that far away in the next county, (DeKalb). The commanders of these two camps had an informal agreement that, "if you don't attack me, I won't attack you" and each commander kept their word.

When Price laid siege to Lexington, it was these troops of the MSG from Camp Highly that you spoke of that crossed the river to aid Price.

 

[Booner]

Knowing that Lyon went up to Boonville on steamboats (and even that steamboat Bertram was headed for Montana Territory in 1864), I've rather assumed the Missouri wasn't particularly friendly to navigation, at least part of the year, since no gunboat seems to have come up it in 1864 when Price was marching west along the river. Am I correct?

In the USA, I believe more vessels were lost on the MO river than on any other. Some of the vessels lost were of course due to the river, with it's ever changing channels, snags and sawyer's. But the riverboat trade was highly profitable, and a fortune could be made if a vessel could last a full season. Knowing that the life span of a riverboat could very well be short-lived, there were some boats that were put in service that were not that river worthy.

The hay-day of the river boats was the 1850's. The powers that be in Missouri assumed that the river trade would resume to that same level of activity after the war. They assumed wrong. After the war, it was the railroads that supplied the transportation needs of the nation. Chicago, and not St. Louis, became the rail hub of the nation.

To your direct question, I don't know if there was a gunboat available to shadow Price as he moved west along the river. The only two times that Price was actually close enough for a gun boat to do him any damage was the three days that he was in Boonville, and when a portion of his command crossed the river and took the city of Glasgow.

 

[Frank Watson]

Thanks, Booner, Patrick. It was reading about Glasgow a few years ago that made me notice there were no gunboats to interfere with the crossing. There's barely any mention of the Missouri River in the 1864 volume of the official naval records. I haven't ever heard of a gunboat getting up the Arkansas to Little Rock, either, even though there were steamboats in the Indian Territory.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

There you go...stirring up trouble again.........

LOLOLOLOL!!!

Bill