Golden Thread Nathaniel Lyon: Hero, Devil, or both?

[leftyhunter]

?

In other words the MSG never fired a shot against Confederate troops just Union troops.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Thanks, but repeating your claim doesn't provide an answer to my question.

In regards to the rest of your post, everything from my research shows that Missouri was not in rebellion at the time Lyon began his campaign against the state. In previous threads I've asked what your opinion is based on and after multiple pages the only responses I received were the same claims repeated as fact. I'm still not buying it and to be honest, I'm really not interested in going down that road again unless you are willing to provide sources.

My opinion is based on reading Leslie and Stiles who pointed out the secessionists were perparing to sieze the aresnal at St.Louis and also perparing for a general uprising.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lusty Murfax]

In other words the MSG never fired a shot against Confederate troops just Union troops.
Leftyhunter

Confederate troops didn't invade the State or enter it without first cooperating with State authority. Your argument is nonsense.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

My opinion is based on reading Leslie and Stiles who pointed out the secessionists were perparing to sieze the aresnal at St.Louis and also perparing for a general uprising.
Leftyhunter

What was their evidence. Did they provide documentation? No court ever convicted the Missourians of stealing or attempting to steal Federal property. Therefore, there was no such offense. If you know of any such judicial action, please provide documentation.

 

[leftyhunter]

Confederate troops didn't invade the State or enter it without first cooperating with State authority. Your argument is nonsense.

Federal troops don't need state permission to supress a rebellion. Unless you can provide case or statutory law to support your assertion that federal forces did anythi g wrong in Missouri then your argument is nonsense.
Leftyhunter

 

[mofederal]

One thing which changed the situation somewhat in Missouri was the installment of General John C. Fremont as head of the Department of the West on July 1, 1861. He did not reach St. Louis until July 25. He had an impact on Lyon, but only a small one. As we are mostly speaking of Lyon, Fremont was only a brief player in Lyon's life. Still it is something to consider on the short time Lyon was under his command. Fremont would only commanded the department until November 2nd.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Federal troops don't need state permission to supress a rebellion. Unless you can provide case or statutory law to support your assertion that federal forces did anythi g wrong in Missouri then your argument is nonsense.
Leftyhunter

What rebellion? Can you provide evidence, excluding the authors of the novel you continually cite? Were there any criminal convictions of the rebels, or were they just arrested on the whim of local Federal authority, like at Camp Jackson by Lyon and Blair? Please provide links to your evidence.

 

[Patrick H]

E.F. Ware was first an Iowa militia man, and then a private soldier in Company E of the First Iowa Infantry. He wrote a wonderful memoir that is very easy to read and is full of excellent detail. It describes life in his youth, the political situation (as it was understood in Iowa) leading up to the war, and then his actual experiences during the war.

After a period of drilling and training, his unit moved south into Missouri and toward the Missouri River by various means of transportation. He describes his first view of Boonville and of Lyon as follows:

"We reached the Missouri river opposite Boonville and a ferry-boat came and took us aboard. The river was high and bank-full. We could see tents across the river among the trees below Boonville back of the river upon the hill. It was the Cooper County Fair Groud. A large stone-quarry had been opened on the river-bank, and about an acre of level stone uncovered. It was a shipping-point for stone on barges to St. Louis. The river had risen to within six inches of this level ledge of rock. There were two men alone at its edge watching our boat come across. We rounded near them; one had blue army pants, a linen coat and a black felt hat; it was Lyon. The other was dressed in citizen's clothes with an army cap, and he stooped and dipped a long black bottle into the raging Missouri. While he churned the bottle up and down, he watched us and turned up his face ever and anon to talk with Lyon, who was gazing at us through a field=glass. Some employee of the boat gave out the information, and the news circulated, 'The man with a hat is Lyon.' I wanted to know who the other was, and I finally foound out from the pilot; it was Frank P. Blair, a most brave and capable Union man. He soon became a general and one of our idols. I have often wondered what was in that bottle."

I will be posting excerpts from this memoir from time to time, but I encourage you to read it. It is available in its entirety, for free, right here:

http://cdm.sos.mo.gov/cdm/compoundobject/collection/shscivilwar/id/6658/rec/15

 

[leftyhunter]

What was their evidence. Did they provide documentation? No court ever convicted the Missourians of stealing or attempting to steal Federal property. Therefore, there was no such offense. If you know of any such judicial action, please provide documentation.

Indeed they do. No court order is necessary for federal troops to supress a rebellion. If those harmed by federal troops in Missouri thought they suffered harm from Lyon's actions then they could bring a lawsuit against the federal government.
There was a lawsuit that forced the Union Army to free a captured MSG officer and the judge did order that officer freed. If memory @SMI Dave posted it.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Federal troops don't need state permission to supress a rebellion. Unless you can provide case or statutory law to support your assertion that federal forces did anythi g wrong in Missouri then your argument is nonsense.
Leftyhunter

Please provide links to your assertion. Otherwise, we will consider it mere opinion. I am still waiting on the evidence of those court convictions of the leaders of the rebellion for actions committed prior to Federal intervention in Missouri's affairs.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Indeed they do. No court order is necessary for federal troops to supress a rebellion. If those harmed by federal troops in Missouri thought they suffered harm from Lyon's actions then they could bring a lawsuit against the federal government.
There was a lawsuit that forced the Union Army to free a captured MSG officer and the judge did order that officer freed. If memory @SMI Dave posted it.
Leftyhunter

Again, this is nothing more than opinion. Can you cite documentary evidence for your assertions? I am not talking about legal actions dealing with matters that occurred long after the affairs discussed here. Please provide your evidence.

 

[leftyhunter]

Please provide links to your assertion. Otherwise, we will consider it mere opinion. I am still waiting on the evidence of those court convictions of the leaders of the rebellion for actions committed prior to Federal intervention in Missouri's affairs.

Your the one with the burden of proof that there is a legal concept known as " invasion of a state by the federal government". Your the one who claims the federal government had no right to supress a rebellion.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

A state can not negotiate if it can or can not allow federal troops to transit or station themselves where ever they are needed to repress a rebellion. The MSG was called upon to fight federal troops lawfully engaged in repressing a rebellion.
Lyin was absolutely right when he pointed that out to Govenor Jackson and former Govenor Price.
There is no such thing as neutrality in a Civil War .
The Confederacy threatned young men with death if they did join the Confederate Army and the Union drafted men into either the militia or Union Army.
A civil war is always about makung a choice of fight or flight. There is no such thing as neutrality.
Leftyhunter

Wow you've never heard of the Price-Harney Truce, not only could they negotiate, but they did and an agreement was signed. And no charges were ever filed against Harney for exceeding authority either. Blair used his Tennessee heritage to question his loyality in having him replaced, however Harney was never charged or found to be disloyal, it was just an unfounded accusation.

Wow your still wrong again as Missouri was never in rebellion until attacked. repeating the same false claims doesn't make them any truer...…..Missouri hadn't seceded, it had had attacked no one, it had done nothing to constitute rebellion.

Your legal source for there's no such thing as neutrality in a Civil War? In fact we recognize conscientious objection on moral grounds .Though I admit as this point I don't expect you to provide any, as you haven't for any of the other nonsense you've been asked to provide sources for...…. In fact in my lifetime states have to elected to opt out of federal policies, without some claim of "rebellion"

 

[leftyhunter]

Again, this is nothing more than opinion. Can you cite documentary evidence for your assertions? I am not talking about legal actions dealing with matters that occurred long after the affairs discussed here. Please provide your evidence.

Unless you can cite

Wow you've never heard of the Price-Harney Truce, not only could they negotiate, but they did and an agreement was signed. And no charges were ever filed against Harney for exceeding authority either. Blair used his Tennessee heritage to question his loyality in having him replaced, however Harney was never charged or found to be disloyal, it was just an unfounded accusation.

Wow your still wrong again as Missouri was never in rebellion until attacked. repeating the same false claims doesn't make them any truer...…..

Your legal source for there's no such thing as neutrality in a Civil War? In fact we recognize conscientious objection on moral grounds.

Contentious Objection only applies to indviduals who are drafted. Even then they can be ordered to serve in a non combatant capacity.
I already have posted in past threads from Bruce Nikols that the Confederacy threatned young men in Missouri with death if they did not join the Union Army. For practical purposes neutrality is not an option in a Civil War.
There is no counstional provision for a state to remain neutral if the federal government is suppressing a rebellion.
So far no poster has posted where in tje Counstitution or in case law this mysterious legal concept of " federal invasion of a state" or " a state right to remain neutral in the suppression of a rebellion".
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Noted once again, no sources other then your "claims" and convoluted response...…..

Seriously why would Confederacy be forcing men to join the Union army?...….your claims keep becoming more laughable...….

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Your the one with the burden of proof that there is a legal concept known as " invasion of a state by the federal government". Your the one who claims the federal government had no right to supress a rebellion.
Leftyhunter

You sir, have made definitive statements in several posts without citing your source or indicating that it was merely your opinion. I have asked you to provide evidence for your statements. Others have made similar requests. You have failed to even make a minimal effort. If you prefer not to provide documentation, that is your choice.

 

[archieclement]

I already have postedin past threads from Bruce Nikols that the Confederacy threatned young men in Missouri with death if they did not join the Union Army.

Seriously? The confederacy was recruiting for the Union?...…. Guessing no source for this whopper either...….

Whats next? Lyon was getting inside information from Micky Mouse?

 

[archieclement]

You typed it out? Wow. Many thanks.

We'll, I'm embarrassed.
It was SWMODave who typed it out. I see that now. Most excellent, Dave.
Dave many thanks and my apologies for not seeing it earlier.

Shame on you Archie for taking the credit.

Sorry for misunderstanding, I posted it would take a better typer then me and provided the source, was joking with Mofederal what a notorious bad typer I am, and thought it was clear it was reason I didn't do it myself.

For the most part the proclamation seems accurate, certainly reflects how it was seen by many at the time.

 

[leftyhunter]

Seriously? The confederacy was recruiting for the Union?...…. Guessing no source for this whopper either...….

Whats next? Lyon was getting inside information from Micky Mouse?

You are deliberately misquoting me. I stated that I have posted in the past from Bruce Nikols book that young men in Missouri were threatned with death if they did not join the Confederate Army.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

You sir, have made definitive statements in several posts without citing your source or indicating that it was merely your opinion. I have asked you to provide evidence for your statements. Others have made similar requests. You have failed to even make a minimal effort. If you prefer not to provide documentation, that is your choice.

I know the Counstitution does not state that a State may opt out of supporting the federal government in suppressing a rebellion. Show where a state is sovereign and has the right to form a milita to fight federal troops.
Show that a state can dictate what federak troops can or can not do to supress a rebellion.
Leftyhunter