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

[Bee]

To be fair Lyon was not the first or last U.S. military officer to direct his men to kill unarmed civilians. Also Confederate forces on occassion did the same.
Leftyhunter

Mighty close to a Tu quoque fallacy, here (Latin for "you, also") For all who kill unarmed civilians, they are to be held accountable for it under their individual circumstances (have we not heard enough of this regarding the Lawrence Massacre?)

Today, we are speaking of Lyon, so that we shall examine the life and times of Lyon.

 

[leftyhunter]

Mighty close to a Tu quoque fallacy, here (Latin for "you, also") For all who kill unarmed civilians, they are to be held accountable for it under their individual circumstances (have we not heard enough of this regarding the Lawrence Massacre?)

Today, we are speaking of Lyon, so that we shall examine the life and times of Lyon.

To be fair many of our posters say we can't make moral judgements of slave owners based on 21st Century standards of morality. Based on U.S. Army policy of the Nineteenth Century killing unarmed Indian civilians was unfortunately acceptable.
Can any one name a U.S. Army Officer who was court martialed for killing Indian civilians?
I did not mention the Lawrence Massacre in my post. I was merely pointing out that based on contemporary nineteenth century U.S. Army protocal Lyon violated no rules by killing unarmed Indian civilians.
Leftyhunter

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

While researching this topic I found another prominent general (William S. Harney) from my home state of Tennessee who served in the Union. Why exactly was he replaced from command? It says on Wikipedia (don't how true it is) that he kept MO from seceding, so I don't why Frank Blair would replace him with Nathaniel Lyon.

 

[E_just_E]

Based on U.S. Army policy of the Nineteenth Century killing unarmed Indian civilians was unfortunately acceptable.

Do you have references of any official US Army regulations that indicate that killing unarmed Indian civilians was "acceptable"?

 

[leftyhunter]

Do you have references of any official US Army regulations that indicate that killing unarmed Indian civilians was "acceptable"?

My point was that killing unarmed Indian civilians was not an issue in the 19th Century. I am not aware of any prosecutions for such acts in the 19th Century. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong. Unfortunately the U.S. and the Confederate Armies condoned such behavior.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

While researching this topic I found another prominent general (William S. Harney) from my home state of Tennessee who served in the Union. Why exactly was he replaced from command? It says on Wikipedia (don't how true it is) that he kept MO from seceding, so I don't why Frank Blair would replace him with Nathaniel Lyon.

T.J. Stiles book " Jesse James last rebel of the Civil War " Vintage Civil War Library covers that topic. I won't be home for a while and will try to reread Stiles book by Wednesday.
From what I gathered Blair thought a more aggressive stance against the secessionists was required. Has you can tell Blair and Lyon are controversial figures in Missouri Civil War History.
Leftyhunter

 

[diane]

Thank you for the clarification, Diane. A long time back, on the way up to Ferndale, the elder muttered that we need to stop on our way through Clear Lake and pay our respects to the massacred (he wanted me to see the placard and know where this massacre had happened). I did not know what he was referring to, but we may be passing that way again in the next month or so.

You've heard of Indian Island at Eureka, where they pretty much wiped out the Wiyots? Bloody Island was very much the same place - ceremonial. That's what all the Pomo were doing there and why the death toll was so high - fish spawning Big Time. I've never really heard Lyons' version of things but that he chose the island because he knew every Indian in central California would be on it there's no doubt. One thing is certain - Lyons never regretted it at all. As in other nasty events, people outside his control joined the dragoons and committed some of the worst offenses. Lyons saw it as justice, even after he discovered the wrong Indians had been punished. As far as he was concerned, if they hadn't killed the psycho ranchers they did something else they hadn't been caught for!

 

[archieclement]

While researching this topic I found another prominent general (William S. Harney) from my home state of Tennessee who served in the Union. Why exactly was he replaced from command? It says on Wikipedia (don't how true it is) that he kept MO from seceding, so I don't why Frank Blair would replace him with Nathaniel Lyon.

Basically because Blair was trying to do a power grab for himself, he thought he would be appointed the commander if he schemes against Harney for removal, but Lyon was, then Fremont who Blair also schemes against, during this period there's correspondence between him and Jesse confirming the goal was to try to get the command for himself.

 

[Patrick H]

While researching this topic I found another prominent general (William S. Harney) from my home state of Tennessee who served in the Union. Why exactly was he replaced from command? It says on Wikipedia (don't how true it is) that he kept MO from seceding, so I don't why Frank Blair would replace him with Nathaniel Lyon.

Archie has answered your question, but there will be a lot of elaboration on Blair in this thread, because it is nearly impossible to discuss Lyon without also discussing Blair.

You could think of Blair as Lincoln's operative in Missouri. Blair's father was a founder of Lincoln's political party. His brother was, I believe, Postmaster General. Blair was a Congressman, too. He was very cunning, and he realized that Lyon would be easy to manipulate, while Harney would not. He was jockeying for additional power (he already had immense power due to his connections) and he knew Lyon could be his tool. He needed to keep Harney out of St. Louis and he needed to act when Harney was away.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Basically because Blair was trying to do a power grab for himself, he thought he would be appointed the commander if he schemes against Harney for removal, but Lyon was, then Fremont who Blair also schemes against, during this period there's correspondence between him and Jesse confirming the goal was to try to get the command for himself.

I believe Snead covers this scheme by Blair to remove Harney and replace him with a man loyal to Blair. Harney was a Union man, but he understood the Missourians' revulsion at allowing resources of their State to be diverted and invested into a war against the Southern States. Harney was an honest broker and Blair needed something else.

 

[Andy P.]

Actually he hadn't "With a relatively tiny force, he seized control of Missouri's transportation infrastructure (railroads and rivers)" He had allowed himself to be drawn to an obscure corner of the state, allowing the transportation networks to be threatened,while Price could draw on CSA reinforcements, and while Lyon had abandoned securing the transportation networks by going into an area with none.....

The reason Lyon wasn't reinforced and had been ordered to fall back is very little of the state had been secured. The Hannibal-St Jo wasn't secured. Its estimated about 40,000 served in the MSG, Price only had roughly 7000 at WC.....the bulk of the MSG wasn't in SW MO, but threatening riverboats and the railroads such as the Hannibal St Jo throughout the state

For example the 1st and 2nd Div of MSG accounted for about 10000 men by themselves, whom not a single unit was at WC

Edited MSG Strength compared to what was at WC

1st div 5127 men at WC 0
2nd div 4887 at WC 0
3rd div 2654 at WC 543
4th div 2352 at WC 934
5th div 3415 at WC 0
6th div 4416 at WC 523
7th div 2901 at WC 645
8th div 7609 at WC 2586
9th div 318 men at WC 0

Note NPS doesn't list men for Bledsoes Batt 8th div, so added 60 men as thats Guibors batt strength.

Also assume NPS doesn't include the 2k unarmed as units as the above represents the 5k armed with another 2k Unarmed. would assume bulk of unarmed would be 7th and 8th div as well as that's the divs they had retreated through

Lyon hadn't driven the majority of the MSG to the far corner of the state, as the MSG had never concentrated, the majority of the MSG was operating throughout the state and not with Price. Lyon had secured little. Fremont was trying to actually secure the state, not pursue some little personal vendetta as Lyon was with Jackson/Price

All good points, but agree to disagree on some of it. You make a great point concerning the North Missouri Railroad. However, regarding the MSG units that were NOT with Price, a significant number of those were in north Missouri. Lyon's seizing of places like Boonville and Lexington effectively isolated most of those men north of the River. Obviously, that's not all Lyon's work; the Missouri River has something to do with that. Getting across the river was difficult enough, but Lyon made it harder by occupying obvious crossing locations. Significant numbers of MSG north of the river weren't going to cross in force between Jefferson City and St. Louis. Obviously, the entire river could not be guarded, but Lyon did occupy some places. He would never have had enough men to do more than that. The majority of the men from MSG divisions north of the river did not join Price until Price moved to the Missouri River at Lexington. Another comment was made by someone else that seizing the river wasn't all that hard. Not sure I agree with that at all. Lyon didn't have enough men to do more than occupy a few places, but that was still effective to a great extent.

As to whether or not Lyon was drawn into the unimportant southwest part of the State, that's debatable and may be colored a bit by hindsight. In my opinion, after Boonville, he went after the portion of the MSG that was concentrated or starting to concentrate. Was it the right thing to do? If he could have trapped the MSG divisions in western Missouri between his force and Sigel's, it probably was. Since it didn't work, maybe it wasn't. Lyon was aggressive as we know, and it just doesn't fit his personality to think defensively. I'm just not convinced that any other options, based on what Lyon knew at the time, were all that viable to him.

I think you're giving Fremont too much credit for having much of a plan at all.

This is a great discussion, by the way. Good stuff to think about.

 

[Patrick H]

Some of our readers might find this link helpful. It starts with the political prelude to the 1st Battle of Boonville and carries through to the aftermath. Just click on the "next" button at the bottom of each screen. One of the details that most interested me was the discussion of Lyon disembarking his troops from three river boats at a spot across the river from Rocheport. He obviously had guides with local knowledge along with him. The site includes a driving tour of the battle, too. All of these locales are very well known to those of us who live here, but might as well be on the planet Mongo to most of you. I think this link will be both interesting and helpful:

http://www.thecivilwarmuse.com/index.php?page=prologue-6

 

[BigMuddy]

Can any one name a U.S. Army Officer who was court martialed for killing Indian civilians?

John Chivington for Sand Creek. He was court martialed but since he was no longer in the military he could no longer be punished and no criminal charges were ever brought against him. An Army judge, however, publicly stated that Sand Creek was "a cowardly and cold-blooded slaughter, sufficient to cover its perpetrators with indelible infamy, and the face of every American with shame and indignation."

Dan

 

[leftyhunter]

John Chivington for Sand Creek. He was court martialed but since he was no longer in the military he could no longer be punished and no criminal charges were ever brought against him. An Army judge, however, publicly stated that Sand Creek was "a cowardly and cold-blooded slaughter, sufficient to cover its perpetrators with indelible infamy, and the face of every American with shame and indignation."

Dan

Interesting that at least Chivington was tried but apparently by resigning he suffers no consequences for his actions.
I don't have a biography of Lyon so I don't know what punishment if any Lyon received for whatever he did to a private and how Lyon got a pass for massacreing Indians.
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

While researching this topic I found another prominent general (William S. Harney) from my home state of Tennessee who served in the Union. Why exactly was he replaced from command? It says on Wikipedia (don't how true it is) that he kept MO from seceding, so I don't why Frank Blair would replace him with Nathaniel Lyon.

It was largely due to the fact that Harney was a southerner and Blair ( first) and Lyons (second) didn't trust him. Harney felt that the arsenal in St. Louis was adequately defended. Blair had Lyons brought to St. Louis to strengthen it's defences. Blair wanted some of the arms (10,000) distributed to the German immigrants, Harney refused to do so. This lead Harney to being recalled to Washington. He came back to St. Louis and allowed the arming of the pro-Blair Germans. He also came back with attitude of cooperation with Blair, but Blair was having none of it.
You have to understand the huge amount of political power the Blair family had in the Lincoln administration. Frank Blair Sr. was one of the founders of the Republican party. Frank Jr. was a newly-elected congressman. His brother, Mongomery, was post master general in Lincoln's cabinent. The Attorney General, Edward Bates, owed his position in the cabinent to the Blair's
Lincoln had his hands full with Union fallng apart and he gave Frank Blair Jr. an unusual amount of power and authority in handling the affairs in Missouri. As an example. Lincoln gave Blair the power to relieve Harney of his command when and if he, (Blair) thought it was time to do so.
What finally cost Harney his command was the Price-Harney Peace Agreement. The Federal Government would control St. Louis, while the Missouri State Guard would control the rest of the state. Blair, Lyons, and the Lincoln administration felt that they had to suppress the rebellion, while Harney was trying to keep it from occuring by letting things cool down.
Harney's fault was he was a moderate man in a time when radicals on both sides where driving the situation. How he was treated by Blair and Lyons (who had a terrible reputation for being insubordinate), was criminal. Harney was relieved of command by Blair, and spent the war at home, and never was disloyal.

Some of us here, myself included, feel that if Harney had had the support of the administration, the war in Missouri would not have been as horrific as it was.

 

[mofederal]

William S. Harney was one of those individuals who was genuinely horrified by the bloody St. Louis riot, which was a result direct of Lyon's actions in the Camp Jackson Affair. Now Lyon was subordinate to Harney, his actions were not authorized by Harney, but rather orchestrated by powerful Republican Frank P. Blair, who saw himself as the new commander of the Department of the West, and savior of Missouri, using Lyon as his primary tool. Harney no doubt knew the complex loyalties of the people in Missouri and wanted to keep the peace within the state.

The Missouri State Legislature responded quickly to the Camp Jackson debacle by reorganizing the militia as the Missouri State Guard, authorizing it to resist "invasion" by Federal troops. Harney, who saw himself as a treaty maker tried to calm the situation by a unique agreement, the Price - Harney Agreement (truce) with State Guard commander Gen. Sterling Price, who was married to Harney's wife's niece. The two agreed the MSG would control most of Missouri, while Federal troops stayed near St. Louis. This deal also involved the true Missouri villain, Missouri Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson. Jackson, who was a secessionist, agreed to swear allegiance to the Union. I have a lot of trouble believing this part as Jackson was only playing for time to build up the state guard. I am sure Jackson about choked on the words.

The Unionist leaders including Republican leader Frank Blair saw this as an unacceptable situation, since Price did little to nothing to prevent pro-Confederate forces from organizing across the state. He was also not interested in protecting any Unionists, who were still the majority in the state. Another factor in this sad state of affairs was Harney's Southern heritage, which brought his loyalty to the Union into question. Although born in Tennessee Harney was in truth nothing but an ardent Unionist. I am sure this played into Blair's hands when he reported this to the Lincoln administration in Washington, who authorized him to replace Harney with Lyon, which Blair did on May 30th. Lyon was not in charge long as Gen. John Fremont was appointed commander of the Department of the West on July 1st. Lyon had upset too many people in the state with his irregular war policies.

Harney was recalled to Washington to discuss the situation, but he was captured by Confederates while en route and offered a command by Confederate General Robert E. Lee. He turned down the offer, but because he was a Tennessean, and fellow Southerner, he was released and allowed to continue on to Washington. Harney remained in Washington and served in various administrative positions. Once it became clear to him that he would not receive an active command, he retired in 1863 and returned to live in St. Louis, Missouri. Blair and Lyon manipulated the situation to their advantage, but at the cost of turning Missouri into a very bloody battleground where paranoia and violence ruled until the war ended.

There is much more to the Harney story, but as this thread is about Lyon in Missouri, I will say no more. If someone wants to start a Harney thread they can, but most of his Army service was before the Civil War and controversial enough. He was seen as an honorable man before the war. He held the respect of many before and after the war. I think he was an old school gentleman, but a realist in war. One has to understand he began his Army career in 1818 under Andrew Jackson.

 

[Booner]

........
I don't have a biography of Lyon so I don't know what punishment if any Lyon received for whatever he did to a private and how Lyon got a pass for massacreing Indians.
Leftyhunter

Lyons biography----D. A m n e d Yankee by Christopher Phillps

In 1842 found guilty of "illegal, arbitrary, and unmilitary conduct" in the punishment of and enlisted man.

1855 arrested twice for "increasingly insubordinate and troublesome behavior and gross dereliction of duty"

In 1860, a court of inquiry was called to investigate Lyons involvement in the stavation death of a enlisted man in his command. Lyons, and the post doctor were to be investigated that their negligence caused the prisoners death. Events in St. Louis took president and the court was never held.

 

[archieclement]

My point was that killing unarmed Indian civilians was not an issue in the 19th Century. I am not aware of any prosecutions for such acts in the 19th Century. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong. Unfortunately the U.S. and the Confederate Armies condoned such behavior.
Leftyhunter

Little puzzled at your comments, are you saying YOU condone such behavior? Or are somehow implying you think we should condone such behavior today.

You say "unfortunately " but seem to be offering it as some excuse that makes it somehow OK.

 

[leftyhunter]

U

Little puzzled at your comments, are you saying YOU condone such behavior? Or are somehow implying you think we should condone such behavior today.

You say "unfortunately " but seem to be offering it as some excuse that makes it somehow OK.

Just saying that in the Nineteenth Century the U.S. Army didn't have a problem with killing Indians. On other threads I posted sources that neither did the Confederate Army.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Still not seeing your point. In the 19th century slavery was acceptable. Women having little rights was acceptable.
Has little to do with saying it's wrong today. Or that they were wrong were back then.