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

[Lusty Murfax]

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

Again, what rebellion? Please cite evidence that Missouri was in a state of rebellion. It wasn't and documentation has been provided by other posters exhibiting proof Missouri officials were reaching out to the Federal authorities in order to ensure peace before Lyon attacked Boonville.

Earlier, a post you authored indicated that Lyon and Blair suppressed rebellion by Missouri before they could rebel. Now you also appear to indicate there was a rebellion, which Lyon acted to suppress. Which is it? Was there an actual rebellion or was one merely planned? Please cite your sources.

 

[Patrick H]

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

Actually, Lefty, Archie was not deliberately misquoting you. Archie and I were both confused by statements you made previously.

In your own post #226, you wrote: "The Confederacy threatned young men with death if they did join the Confederate Army..."

In your own post #254, you wrote: "...the Confederacy threatned young men in Missouri with death if they did not join the Union Army."

 

[archieclement]

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

Why? You haven't shown where the constitution states a state cant opt out nor have you shown where a state cant form a militia or that a militia isn't expected to defend itself or its state....…. nor have you shown a willingness to provide sources for any of your nonsense claims that you've been repeatedly asked for, by several people....until you do...….you probably shouldn't start asking others to do what you never do.....

 

[archieclement]

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

actually it was what you said, if you look you can see what your now claiming to have said......isn't what you actually said.... Another member suggested you misspoke on the MSG, however since then you just continue to double down on what is a blatantly false assertation with no sources, so its hard to not take your nonsense at face value at this point.

Yes it was a false statement of yours as you worded it, but no more false then the MSG was in the CSA.....and you continue with that claim despite still providing no sources...and that you've been corrected by multiple people.

You seem to think just saying whatever, enough times will make it true, or perhaps some hapless soul will believe it. Because you have continually refused to give sources despite being asked multiple times by multiple people..... I have asked for sources for 4-5 of you statements now, and waited days with no response...….so frankly don't ask me to provide a courtesy to you, that you never extend to others.

I was told "I already said I cant do research until the weekend. " however its the weekend and still no sources....…..

 

[Patrick H]

It is very interesting to read E.F. Ware's account of campaigning into southwest Missouri with Lyon. So much of the action takes place in my home town and my home county. For example, he recounts marching along the Georgetown road through a plantation southwest of Pilot Grove. I know the current owner (a descendant of the original owner) and mentioned that Ware called the plantation by name. She apparently had generations-old oral history of the march. She told me that the local children threw green apples at the soldiers as they marched past.

Shortly after this, Ware recounts how the soldiers' opinion of Lyon began to change:

"There are those who say that General Lyon did not use profane language. As I had a brief controversy with him once along the road I know that he sometimes did. We, the people, always put our dead heroes on a pedestal and give them virtues which they did not have. Our regiment formed a great dislike to Lyon upon this day. We never liked him much anyway, and just now he seemed cross and crabbed and to be finding fault with something, --said he would not put us in the front any more."

The Iowa volunteers were being chastised for something petty. They had great unit pride, as soldiers often do. They had previously admired a company of Lyon's regulars who would not give them much respect. They had been placed in the lead of the march that morning and had set out to prove their worth to the regulars by showing them up. The regulars had been unable to keep up with them all day, and Lyon had frequently sent orders forward for the Iowans to halt until the others could catch up. Lyon was personally embarrassed.

 

[leftyhunter]

Actually, Lefty, Archie was not deliberately misquoting you. Archie and I were both confused by statements you made previously.

In your own post #226, you wrote: "The Confederacy threatned young men with death if they did join the Confederate Army..."

In your own post #254, you wrote: "...the Confederacy threatned young men in Missouri with death if they did not join the Union Army."

Nitpicking. The Confederacy had recruiters that gathered up young men in Missouri. Some went willingly some who did not were threatned with death. I can once again post Bruce Nikols in this subject.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

actually it was what you said, if you look you can see what your now claiming to have said......isn't what you actually said.... Another member suggested you misspoke on the MSG, however since then you just continue to double down on what is a blatantly false assertation with no sources, so its hard to not take your nonsense at face value at this point.

Yes it was a false statement of yours as you worded it, but no more false then the MSG was in the CSA.....and you continue with that claim despite still providing no sources...and that you've been corrected by multiple people.

You seem to think just saying whatever, enough times will make it true, or perhaps some hapless soul will believe it. Because you have continually refused to give sources despite being asked multiple times by multiple people..... I have asked for sources for 4-5 of you statements now, and waited days with no response...….so frankly don't ask me to provide a courtesy to you, that you never extend to others.

I was told "I already said I cant do research until the weekend. " however its the weekend and still no sources....…..

Again, what rebellion? Please cite evidence that Missouri was in a state of rebellion. It wasn't and documentation has been provided by other posters exhibiting proof Missouri officials were reaching out to the Federal authorities in order to ensure peace before Lyon attacked Boonville.

Earlier, a post you authored indicated that Lyon and Blair suppressed rebellion by Missouri before they could rebel. Now you also appear to indicate there was a rebellion, which Lyon acted to suppress. Which is it? Was there an actual rebellion or was one merely planned? Please cite your sources.

When Camp Jackson was established Lyon and Blair knew not to wait for the secessionists to act first. In a fight he who throws the first punch ofyen wins.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

When Camp Jackson was established Lyon and Blair knew not to wait for the secessionists to act first. In a fight he who throws the first punch ofyen wins.
Leftyhunter

And he who throws the first punch is the attacker and the one who commits assault in such an analogy and the other party free to defend itself ....... i actually agree there...…

Using your little analogy since you choose it, there's several that have pointed out Missouri wasn't in rebellion, as it had threw no punches. and now you yourself are saying Blair/Lyon threw the first sucker punch...….OK......

 

[Patrick H]

Nitpicking. The Confederacy had recruiters that gathered up young men in Missouri. Some went willingly some who did not were threatned with death. I can once again post Bruce Nikols in this subject.
Leftyhunter

Lefty, I am trying to make you understand that inaccurate remarks and unsubstantiated statements cannot be accepted as fact. It's perfectly fine to have opinions--even when they are ungrounded--but you must state them as opinion. I'm trying to keep my thread re-directed to discussions of Lyon.

 

[Booner]

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.......

No sir, the misunderstanding was completely mine. I was doing three things at once and I failed at multi-tasking.

Again, thanks to SWMODAVE for typing it out. The man must be a machine to be able to type so fast.

 

[leftyhunter]

@archieclement ,
Edited.
you have not provided any documentation to show that Confederate guerrillas operated in all counties in Missouri.
" Although guerrilla warfare exsisted throughout much of the state , most of the incidents occurred in Northern Missouri".
www.thomaslegion.net/missouricivilwarhistory.html.
I had thread a few years ago which @Patrick H partcipated in I did cite a map which I can't find. No evidence though of guerrillas in all Missouri counties.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

@Patrick H and @archieclement ,
Yeah no doubt the primary target of the CSA guerrillas was to torment civilians. I can't post the whole chapter but chapter Two from " The Inside War really covers that subject in detail. Yes Fellman is fair and balanced and yes the Union Army committed war crimes as well. I have pointed out in countless posts the Union Army did not wage the ideal COIN campaign in Mo but then again no worse then CSA COIN. Actually the U.S. Army has never not committed war crimes against civilians in any COIN conflict and that puts them more or less on par with any other army in the world.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Edited.
@Lusty Murfax ,
There us no such thing as neutrality in a civil war at least not in Missouri.
See "Guerrilla Warfare in Missouri 1862 " Bruce Nichols p.43
" Sadly many men found themselves in guerrilla bands through desperation or the reality of having no real choice in the manner. In southeast Missouri, guerrilla chiefs luke the Reverend Tim Reeves conscripted able bodied men into partisab service under actual threat of death".
Leftyhunter

 

[Lusty Murfax]

I saw your alleged source. You aren't taking this serious. Are you sure you don't want to cite Wikipedia, instead? Here is the Author's introductory page describing this source.

http://www.thomaslegion.net/intro.html

Home of American Civil War Homepage



Greetings!

My name is Joe, and I created this personal, educational website, in 2005, because I enjoy researching, studying, and writing about the American Civil War, and as a disabled military veteran who requires daily assistance from my caregiver, the subject is therapeutic.

The short story of this nonprofit site is that I served in the military and am a 100% disabled veteran, so this site gives me encouragement and meaning in life as I continue each day to accept the fact that I lack mobility and am unable to enjoy many of the basic things of life, such as throwing the ball with my son, hiking with my daughters, going on a picnic with my wife, or (honestly) just a simple walk to the curb to check the mail. So the internet, this insignificant site, allows me the single opportunity to channel my energy into a setting of peace and happiness, and not to fall victim to perpetual self-pity and depression.

This website is best viewed with I.E.
While conveying history related material allows me respite, it also serves as a constant reminder to the writer of the scope, the scale, and the magnitude of the four year conflict that was host to some 620,000 deaths. The primary goal of this website is to allow every student, regardless of location, the uninhibited opportunity to freely study the American Civil War.
I am also a student of war and have studied and taught the subject on various levels, so forgive me for being absent the third person introduction or the lengthy list of spectacular accomplishments, but I want you to know that I absolutely appreciate your visit and hope that you enjoy your stay.



Thank you for visiting,
Joe, webmaster ​

 

[archieclement]

@archieclement Edited. you have not provided any documentation to show that Confederate guerrillas operated in all counties in Missouri.
" Although guerrilla warfare exsisted throughout much of the state , most of the incidents occurred in Northern Missouri".
www.thomaslegion.net/missouricivilwarhistory.html.
I had thread a few years ago which @Patrick H partcipated in I did cite a map which I can't find. No evidence though of guerrillas in all Missouri counties.
Leftyhunter

Actually there is evidence of guerrilla activity in every county, every county has a history. Why I asked for specific counties to check......haven't seen a single book on war here claim there were counties exempt, nor have came across one, and you have provided no source for your claim or a county as an example, because it would be easily disprovable. We have many members from throughout the state who could check the validity of a county claim for you.

Edited.

We have access to county and state historical societies and libraries, Edited.

 

[archieclement]

@Patrick H and @archieclement ,
Yeah no doubt the primary target of the CSA guerrillas was to torment civilians. I can't post the whole chapter but chapter Two from " The Inside War really covers that subject in detail. Yes Fellman is fair and balanced and yes the Union Army committed war crimes as well. I have pointed out in countless posts the Union Army did not wage the ideal COIN campaign in Mo but then again no worse then CSA COIN. Actually the U.S. Army has never not committed war crimes against civilians in any COIN conflict and that puts them more or less on par with any other army in the world.
Leftyhunter

Yet another herring and attempt to mislead.....provide the page and actual quote "They just wanted to torment Unionists".......because your interpretation of passages and authors and what they actually wrote haven't jibed at all.

 

[archieclement]

Edited. @Lusty Murfax ,
There us no such thing as neutrality in a civil war at least not in Missouri.
See "Guerrilla Warfare in Missouri 1862 " Bruce Nichols p.43
" Sadly many men found themselves in guerrilla bands through desperation or the reality of having no real choice in the manner. In southeast Missouri, guerrilla chiefs luke the Reverend Tim Reeves conscripted able bodied men into partisab service under actual threat of death".
Leftyhunter

One instance of a minor guerrilla does not address the legality of neutrality or possibility of neutrality at all, and rather tends to ignore there was more who didn't serve then did. For the north only around 2.2 million served out of a population of almost 22 million.......which Is even a little misleading as the 2.2 million counts new immigrants and former slaves enlisted from the south and neither are part of the 1860 22 million figure for the north. Choosing to not serve was a realistic option. For one who frequently quotes other conflicts, you should know our population wasn't that mobilised compared to others, say Germany in WW2 or Israel in 73

Odd page 43 addresses more joined the guerrillas out of being harassed by the Union then by Reeves........odd you left the following part out, surely just an oversight. However Nichols never makes some blanket statement neutrality was immpossible ...so he's not a source for that statement.

Edited.

Personally if going to quote/cite authors getting their name right would help if someone wanted to look up or read the book, not all members here are from Missouri and would know your not even getting the name right. So i will give the correct name if someone is interested in looking. Sue me for thinking of other members.

Edited.

 

[leftyhunter]

One instance of a minor guerrilla does not address the legality of neutrality or possibility of neutrality at all, and rather tends to ignore there was more who didn't serve then did. For the north only around 2.2 million served out of a population of almost 22 million.......which Is even a little misleading as the 2.2 million counts new immigrants and former slaves enlisted from the south and neither are part of the 1860 22 million figure for the north. Choosing to not serve was a realistic option. For one who frequently quotes other conflicts, you should know our population wasn't that mobilised compared to others, say Germany in WW2 or Israel in 73

Odd page 43 addresses more joined the guerrillas out of being harassed by the Union then by Reeves........odd you left the following part out, surely just an oversight. However Nichols never makes some blanket statement neutrality was immpossible ...so he's not a source for that statement.

Edited.

Personally if going to quote/cite authors getting their name right would help if someone wanted to look up or read the book, not all members here are from Missouri and would know your not even getting the name right. So i will give the correct name if someone is interested in looking. Sue me for thinking of other members.

Edited.

Has discussed in another thread of mine only a certain percentage of military age males us actually able to meet basic physical and mental requirements. The 19th Century Prussians could only draft 50% of their military age population which is about what the Union drafted. The Confederacy did draft 85% of their milltary aged males but had quite a problem with desertion and defection.
If any one read Nikols book or any good book about the conflict in Missouri they wluld know both sides forced young men into military service. Yes there were ways to avoid the Union draft and Confederate Conscription but the point remains a state can not be neutral in a civil war.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Has discussed in another thread of mine only a certain percentage of military age males us actually able to meet basic physical and mental requirements. The 19th Century Prussians could only draft 50% of their military age population which is about what the Union drafted. The Confederacy did draft 85% of their milltary aged males but had quite a problem with desertion and defection.
If any one read Nikols book or any good book about the conflict in Missouri they wluld know both sides forced young men into military service. Yes there were ways to avoid the Union draft and Confederate Conscription but the point remains a state can not be neutral in a civil war.
Leftyhunter

And once again he is referring to Nichols, no idea why he keeps misrepresenting his name. Perhaps its a genuine unfamiliarity with the subject, as after being corrected. and admitting he had name wrong, its puzzling he continues to do so.


And note your lack of sources yet once again.....as Nichols makes no claim as to neutrality, and his books repeatedly point out instances of attacks from both sides on civilians who had elected to remain neutral and had not joined neither side....…….

 

[leftyhunter]

And once again he is referring to Nichols, no idea why he keeps misrepresenting his name. Perhaps its a genuine unfamiliarity with the subject, as after being corrected. and admitting he had name wrong, its puzzling he continues to do so.


And note your lack of sources yet once again.....as Nichols makes no claim as to neutrality, and his books repeatedly point out instances of attacks from both sides on civilians who had elected to remain neutral and had not joined neither side....…….

Whatever on the names. My simple point is that in a civil war and especially in Missouri neutrality was never an option. Both sides would force men to fight on their side. Neutrality in a civil war is just a fantasy; its either going to be fight or flight or find an exemption to military service.
Leftyhunter