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

[archieclement]

No I accept when authors and historians make no mention of an account, they have indeed dismissed it, ussually for credibility reasons.

Again your major works or histories on planter house meeting citing Conant over or instead of Snead? His biographer didn't, nor did Castel, or Shalhope. Nor did Monaghan in War in the West. Nor does multiple Missouri histories.

I assume you have read books on the subject or the principles? I have read biographies or accounts of 4 of the 6 present....... and all cite Snead. Off hand know 4 of the 5 don't cite Conant.

Note 5 is because have two bios of Price, as well one of Lyon and Snead. Have read but don't own Claiborne Fox Jackson's bio as well, so its the one I can't definately say didn't include Conant's account, but I don't remember it including it.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No I accept when authors and historians make no mention of an account, they have indeed dismissed it, ussually for credibility reasons.

Again your major works or histories on planter house meeting citing Conant over or instead of Snead? His biographer didn't, nor did Castel, or Shalhope. Nor did Monaghan in War in the West. Nor does multiple Missouri histories.

As I said, I suspect that many writers weren't aware of the Conant account.

One interesting part of that newspaper article is this:
"It was proposed by Governor Jackson that they should go into a correspondence, which General Lyon disapproved , as their views were widely apart, and such a course would not make matters any better ; but he was willing each one should briefly put down his views and let them be published . To such a statement Governor Jackson was not disposed to agree."

So Jackson would not publish his views discussed at this meeting, but Lyon would, and did, through Conant. And Snead was a journalist, and even he did not publish his views on this meeting until decades later. I think that says something about the opposing sides at this meeting. One side wanted transparency. The other side wanted secrecy.

 

[archieclement]

Hmmmmm It was published during the war.......in the city in question.........within the time frame in question.........yet remained a secret? This conspiracy theory gets better all the time

BTW I assume you know Snead was in the field after the meeting, and rather unable to sit around a city giving newspaper interviews......or is this another key part of the conspiracy

 

[DanSBHawk]

Hmmmmm It was published during the war.......in the city in question.........within the time frame in question.........yet remained a secret? This conspiracy theory gets better all the time

No, because Lyon and Conant published it. Not Jackson and Snead.

 

[DanSBHawk]

I have read some articles of Joan Stack before and have never seen her assert Snead's account as false......she has suggested it's been uncritically accepted......however that is certainly not asserting it's in fact false at all though. But perhaps there is some piece of hers I haven't read.

Here's one found by searching. A comment on a blog post.

The Bull Run of the West | Timeless

“Better, sir, far better, that the blood of every man, woman, and child within the limits of the state should flow, than that she should defy the federal government,” swore Union Gen. Nathaniel Lyon to Missouri governor and Confederate sympathizer Claiborne Fox Jackson during negotiations to...

blogs.loc.gov

Joan Stack​

One caveat: the description of Lyon's meeting with Gov. Jackson and Gen. Price that opens the blog entry comes from Thomas Snead's 1886 account of the meeting some 25 years after the event. Snead was a confederate apologist and an aid to both Jackson and Price. He had a vested interest in implying that Lyon and the federals initiated aggression in Missouri.​

​

In 1861, however, many blamed GOV. JACKSON for starting the fight (he committed the first act of war by burning federal railroad bridges after his meeting with Lyon). On June 12, 1861, as you rightly point out, the governor made a public proclamation which some called a declaration of war. He asked Missourians to "defend" the state against the federals. Since Snead is the only source for the often repeated Lyon "quote" —"This means war," I have my doubts about whether the Union general (who believed he was dutifully defending Missouri against a traitorous governor) ever uttered those words.​

 

[archieclement]

No you alleged however it was somehow secret in that four independent historian authors postwar never where aware of it.........that is excluding Snead's account.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No you alleged however it was somehow secret in that four independent historian authors postwar never where aware of it.........that is excluding Snead's account.

No I alleged that based on Conants account, Jackson did not want to put his views on paper and publish them, implying he did not want them public.

 

[archieclement]

Here's one found by searching. A comment on a blog post.

The Bull Run of the West | Timeless

“Better, sir, far better, that the blood of every man, woman, and child within the limits of the state should flow, than that she should defy the federal government,” swore Union Gen. Nathaniel Lyon to Missouri governor and Confederate sympathizer Claiborne Fox Jackson during negotiations to...

blogs.loc.gov

Joan Stack​

One caveat: the description of Lyon's meeting with Gov. Jackson and Gen. Price that opens the blog entry comes from Thomas Snead's 1886 account of the meeting some 25 years after the event. Snead was a confederate apologist and an aid to both Jackson and Price. He had a vested interest in implying that Lyon and the federals initiated aggression in Missouri.​

​

In 1861, however, many blamed GOV. JACKSON for starting the fight (he committed the first act of war by burning federal railroad bridges after his meeting with Lyon). On June 12, 1861, as you rightly point out, the governor made a public proclamation which some called a declaration of war. He asked Missourians to "defend" the state against the federals. Since Snead is the only source for the often repeated Lyon "quote" —"This means war," I have my doubts about whether the Union general (who believed he was dutifully defending Missouri against a traitorous governor) ever uttered those words.​

Do blog blurbs counts as a major or established work to you.....

And again she says she has her doubts...that is hardly refuting or proving a known statement false.....its simply an unsupported opinion, that admits with her wording is not conclusive.....

 

[DanSBHawk]

BTW I assume you know Snead was in the field after the meeting, and rather unable to sit around a city giving newspaper interviews......or is this another key part of the conspiracy

Really? For decades, Snead had no access to the mail? And he was in the field all that time? It's doubtful.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Do blog blurbs counts as a major or established work to you.....

And again she says she has her doubts...that is hardly refuting or proving a known statement false.....its simply an unsupported opinion, that admits with her wording is not conclusive.....

And what did I write? Go back and look.

"Joan Stack, the University of Missouri history professor, has noted that she doubts Lyon ever said it."

 

[archieclement]

No matter how many rather false spins you make, it remains Snead's account is the definative account we have, nothing then or today contradicts or refutes it at all.

You, Joan, or whoever can have whatever doubts or opinions you wish........But barring substantiated evidence that refutes it, it remains the best first hand account available, it's why it's always cited.

A person personally having doubts themselves, does not make someone elses account unreliable at all. It reflects more the person doubting then the account that isnt refuted.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No matter how many rather false spins you make, it remains Snead's account is the definative account we have, nothing then or today contradicts or refutes it at all.

You, Joan, or whoever can have whatever doubts or opinions you wish........But barring substantiated evidence that refutes it, it remains the best first hand account available, it's why it's always cited.

A person personally having doubts themselves, does not make someone elses account unreliable at all. It reflects more the person doubting then the account that isnt refuted.

I wouldn't say Snead's account is "definitive" if historians are questioning the reliability.

But people can believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[archieclement]

As I said before I don't take any eyewitness account as 100% gospel, nor do I dismiss it when there's nothing contridicting or refuting it.

In this case, do I believe the wording is 100% accurate? Possibly not.....But do I see any reason to doubt it in substance? No, nor have I seen anyone make much an argument otherwise based on any actual evidence. It's why it's always quoted.

 

[DanSBHawk]

As I said before I don't take any eyewitness account as 100% gospel, nor do I dismiss it when there's nothing contridicting or refuting it.

In this case, do I believe the wording is 100% accurate? Possibly not.....But do I see any reason to doubt it in substance? No, nor have I seen anyone make much an argument otherwise based on any actual evidence. It's why it's always quoted.

And I've provided enough sources and links to back up my doubts about its reliability.

 

[archieclement]

And I've provided enough sources and links to back up my doubts about its reliability.

Which amounts to zero evidence as I have noted repeatedly now. As actual evidence wouldn't be merely doubts....

But your doubts are noted, even if unsubstantiated.....

 

[DanSBHawk]

Which amounts to zero evidence as I have noted repeatedly now.

Yes, you've expressed your opinion repeatedly. No supporting evidence, but a lot of opinion.

 

[archieclement]

Really? What is your evidence...you have presented none.

Snead's account is evidence, as it's a first hand account....You have provided nothing from Conant or Joan that disputes it at all..

But as a side note on I have read bios or accounts of four of the six, Conant is relative nobody and dies during war....but I've always been somewhat surprised there hasn't been a definative bio of Frances Blair Jr....Union general, VP candidate, switched political parties like a chameleon, and during this period in STL was quite a intriguer politically pulling strings, would think would have made fascinating bio.......

 

[DanSBHawk]

Really? What is your evidence...you have presented none.

I provided a link to a contemporary eyewitness account published in the newspaper in 1861. One that is materially different and apparently unknown to those that think Sneads 25-year-old account is verbatim accurate.

 

[archieclement]

I provided a link to a contemporary eyewitness account published in the newspaper in 1861. One that is materially different and apparently unknown to those that think Sneads 25-year-old account is verbatim accurate.

Yes and as I said there's a reason it hasn't been generally accepted, as it's rather uncredible.

As honestly those I know who are rather leniant with Lyon, would concede his actions and pattern of behavior in STL, hardly fits his "being more desirous of peace then any man in Missouri", seems more a self serving PR move if we wish to go just by opinion. As he could have followed the security council advice if he actually desired peace instead of personal glory.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Yes and as I said there's a reason it hasn't been generally accepted, as it's rather uncredible.

And I find your "accepted" version to be unreliable and biased. We'll disagree, but yes I provided evidence.