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

[Patrick H]

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.

Excellent summary, @Booner!.

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.

Another excellent summary, with a nice profile of General Harney, too. Thanks, @mofederal

 

[archieclement]

Excellent summary, @Booner!.

Another excellent summary, with a nice profile of General Harney, too. Thanks, @mofederal

If so many people hadn't suffered from his blind ambition, it would be almost funny. He schemes thinking every time the Dept of the West would be offered to him..........yet in Washington it was apparently give it to anyone but him......

 

[Patrick H]

Nancy Chapman Jones lived in a house which still stands just a few miles west of Boonville. She was a prolific letter writer, and many of her wartime letters to her daughter survive. I will attach a transcribed collection of the letters in PDF form. Of course, they are all interesting, but the letters most relevant to our thread begin on page 11 with her letter of June 15, 1861. She describes the Planters House meeting as she understands it and the preparations to resist Lyon and Blair. It is very easy to see the civilian point of view that the state was being invaded. She also says her husband (she calls him "Mr. Jones") is still a union man, but now he wants a union with the Confederacy.

In her next letter, of June 25, she describes Lyon's occupation of Boonville. He has suppressed the free press (other accounts say by breaking the newspaper press itself and scattering the type in the Missouri River.) She is thus forced to rely on rumor. She describes the battle that has just occurred, and some of its aftermath. It is clear that no one fully realizes the horror that is about to visit Missouri, but Lyon and Blair are already hated by many.

 

[Patrick H]

This morning, an opinion was expressed in another thread that Lyon's comments at the Planter's House meeting appear to have been rhetorical. When he shouted "THIS MEANS WAR!", there was nothing rhetorical about it. He, indeed, created an immediate state of war in Missouri. Whether he was authorized to do this (he wasn't) matters not. Whether a Captain can declare war (a Captain cannot) matters not. Lyon did it. He did it in a fit of rage, as he did so many rash actions. @Booner and I discussed this, along with Lyon's Camp Jackson actions and his St. Louis massacre actions just the other day. We both believe that Blair goaded or at least manipulated Lyon into a lot of these actions with the attitude of: "Take whatever action you feel is appropriate and I'll clean up the paperwork later."

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

Just saying pto Confederate posters love to point out that it is unfair to judge slave owners based on 21st Century standards of morality. By the same token one can do the same for Lyon. The other point is both the Union and the Confederate Armies massacred Indian civilians and yes we have sources. Therefore both sides lived in a glass house.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

This morning, an opinion was expressed in another thread that Lyon's comments at the Planter's House meeting appear to have been rhetorical. When he shouted "THIS MEANS WAR!", there was nothing rhetorical about it. He, indeed, created an immediate state of war in Missouri. Whether he was authorized to do this (he wasn't) matters not. Whether a Captain can declare war (a Captain cannot) matters not. Lyon did it. He did it in a fit of rage, as he did so many rash actions. @Booner and I discussed this, along with Lyon's Camp Jackson actions and his St. Louis massacre actions just the other day. We both believe that Blair goaded or at least manipulated Lyon into a lot of these actions with the attitude of: "Take whatever action you feel is appropriate and I'll clean up the paperwork later."

Not sure how one can equate suppressing a rebellion with a general war in the population of the whole state of Missouri.
It is not even clear that Lyon ordered his men at St Louis to fire onto a mob that attacked them with at least one fire arm and rocks.
Union soldiers fired into mobs at Baltimore, St.Louis , New York City and I am not aware of any soldiers being arrested and held for court martial. Union soldiers may very well have fired into other mobs during the Civil War. Maybe someone familiar with Nineteenth Century can point out the military regulations that Lyon violated at St Louis. Per the Leiber Code it appears Lyon's men did no wrong defending themselves in St.Louis.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Nancy Chapman Jones lived in a house which still stands just a few miles west of Boonville. She was a prolific letter writer, and many of her wartime letters to her daughter survive. I will attach a transcribed collection of the letters in PDF form. Of course, they are all interesting, but the letters most relevant to our thread begin on page 11 with her letter of June 15, 1861. She describes the Planters House meeting as she understands it and the preparations to resist Lyon and Blair. It is very easy to see the civilian point of view that the state was being invaded. She also says her husband (she calls him "Mr. Jones") is still a union man, but now he wants a union with the Confederacy.

In her next letter, of June 25, she describes Lyon's occupation of Boonville. He has suppressed the free press (other accounts say by breaking the newspaper press itself and scattering the type in the Missouri River.) She is thus forced to rely on rumor. She describes the battle that has just occurred, and some of its aftermath. It is clear that no one fully realizes the horror that is about to visit Missouri, but Lyon and Blair are already hated by many.

Not sure how a non violent resolution could of been found in Missouri. Other states had inner politicsl violence during the Civil War i.e. Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Western North Carolina, Southern Mississippi, parts of Texas , Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Why shouldn't Missouri have the same?
Leftyhunter

 

[mofederal]

I had read somewhere the Blair in a letter to Jessie Benton Fremont after the war, said that he hoping to gain command of the Department of the West with all of his political maneuvering, which never happened. Colonel Blair for a time was made the commander of the St. Louis Arsenal by Lyon.

 

[Buckeye Bill]

Wonderful thread, Pat!

Bill

 

[Patrick H]

Nancy Chapman Jones lived in a house which still stands just a few miles west of Boonville. She was a prolific letter writer, and many of her wartime letters to her daughter survive. I will attach a transcribed collection of the letters in PDF form. Of course, they are all interesting, but the letters most relevant to our thread begin on page 11 with her letter of June 15, 1861. She describes the Planters House meeting as she understands it and the preparations to resist Lyon and Blair. It is very easy to see the civilian point of view that the state was being invaded. She also says her husband (she calls him "Mr. Jones") is still a union man, but now he wants a union with the Confederacy.

In her next letter, of June 25, she describes Lyon's occupation of Boonville. He has suppressed the free press (other accounts say by breaking the newspaper press itself and scattering the type in the Missouri River.) She is thus forced to rely on rumor. She describes the battle that has just occurred, and some of its aftermath. It is clear that no one fully realizes the horror that is about to visit Missouri, but Lyon and Blair are already hated by many.

@Boonslick just informed me that the PDF didn't seem to attach to my post, so I'll provide a link to the exact web page where you can click in and begin reading the letters:

http://www.mogenweb.org/cooper/Military/Jones_Letters.pdf

 

[Patrick H]

Per the Leiber Code it appears Lyon's men did no wrong defending themselves in St.Louis.

The Lieber Code didn't exist until 1863. However, I agree that there is no evidence that
Lyon ordered his men to fire into the mob. In fact, his men might have simply panicked and reacted as they did. Lyon's brash action was in taking the men prisoner and then parading them through the city as he did. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Lyon did order his men to fire. We will never know for sure.

 

[Patrick H]

Not sure how one can equate suppressing a rebellion with a general war in the population of the whole state of Missouri.

We have discussed this previously.
Missouri was not yet in rebellion (although it's clear that Jackson was agitating for secession.) Lyon was not suppressing a rebellion. He flew into a rage during talks aimed at buying time for all tempers to cool down. He shouted his words clearly: "THIS MEANS WAR!" I imagine even Blair was a bit shocked at that, but it got the ball rolling so he could maneuver toward furthering his own ambitions.

 

[Patrick H]

Not sure how a non violent resolution could of been found in Missouri.

I agree with your sentiment on this one. There was too much division in Missouri. Some form of violence was probably inevitable, but it might have been delayed. Missouri wasn't going to secede. A convention on that matter had already rejected secession, but Jackson would have spoiled for a fight sooner or later.

 

[archieclement]

Just saying pto Confederate posters love to point out that it is unfair to judge slave owners based on 21st Century standards of morality. By the same token one can do the same for Lyon. The other point is both the Union and the Confederate Armies massacred Indian civilians and yes we have sources. Therefore both sides lived in a glass house.
Leftyhunter

They aren't they same frankly, saying it's not fair to condemn someone for what was legal in their day, is not saying it wasn't morally wrong by today's standard.....one can easily find 19th century law defining it was legal.

Unless you have 19th century law saying killing women and children or unarmed civilians was legal, it doesn't equate to something that was legal like slavery. Nor is 19th century applicable to today's standards....

Once again I'll ask, do you find killing unarmed women and children as acceptable? Because repeatedly now when instances have been discussed pre CW with indians, or during CW, your response seems to be to make excuses as if you find it acceptable. If that's your position simply say so, quit hiding behind excuses. If not, no idea why your first response seems to be always to make excuses.

 

[leftyhunter]

They aren't they same frankly, saying it's not fair to condemn someone for what was legal in their day, is not saying it wasn't morally wrong by today's standard.....one can easily find 19th century law defining it was legal.

Unless you have 19th century law saying killing women and children or unarmed civilians was legal, it doesn't equate to something that was legal like slavery. Nor is 19th century applicable to today's standards....

Once again I'll ask, do you find killing unarmed women and children as acceptable? Because repeatedly now when instances have been discussed pre CW with indians, or during CW, your response seems to be to make excuses as if you find it acceptable. If that's your position simply say so, quit hiding behind excuses. If not, no idea why your first response seems to be always to make excuses.

American soldiers killing Indians is certainly not acceptable by 20th Century legal standards. Unfortunately unless one can show otherwise neither the antebellum U.S. Army , the Civil War era Union Army or the Confederate Army had a problem with killing unarmed Indian women or children.
It wasn't right but that's just the way it was.
Post Civil War the U.S. Army often did not have a problem with killing unarmed civilians from Wounded Knee to well beyond that era.
It's not the way I would like it to be but history is not always rainbows and lolipops.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree with your sentiment on this one. There was too much division in Missouri. Some form of violence was probably inevitable, but it might have been delayed. Missouri wasn't going to secede. A convention on that matter had already rejected secession, but Jackson would have spoiled for a fight sooner or later.[/QUOTE
I can definitely agree that in no way shape or form the Union Army waged an ideal counterinsurgency campaign post Wilson's Creek in Missouri. Kansas troops under Lane and Jennison committed various crimes and made things worse as General Hallack acknowledged.
I am not aware of any thing close to an ideal counterinsurgency campaign was waged by either Union or Confederate armed forces.
I will argue in latter posts that Lyon did the best he could with the resources available to him .
What are examples of an ideal counterinsurgency campaign woukd have to be done by PM.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The Lieber Code didn't exist until 1863. However, I agree that there is no evidence that
Lyon ordered his men to fire into the mob. In fact, his men might have simply panicked and reacted as they did. Lyon's brash action was in taking the men prisoner and then parading them through the city as he did. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Lyon did order his men to fire. We will never know for sure.

Based on my readings a drunken man shot a Union officer and another officer told the men to fire . The men did so and the mob dispersed. That pretty much sums up 19th Century riot control techniques.
Leftyhunter

 

[Booner]

The Lieber Code didn't exist until 1863. However, I agree that there is no evidence that
Lyon ordered his men to fire into the mob. In fact, his men might have simply panicked and reacted as they did. Lyon's brash action was in taking the men prisoner and then parading them through the city as he did. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Lyon did order his men to fire. We will never know for sure.

I agree that there no evidence that Lyons ordered his men to shoot into the mob.

There is evidence that Lyons had concerns about using the German contingent of his available troops against the State Militia at Camp Jackson due to their lack of experience, disipline, and language barrier.

 

[leftyhunter]

Was Lyon a hero ? According to the U. S. Congress the answer is an unequivocal yes.
On December 24th 1861, the United States Congress passed a resolution of thanks for the "eminent and patriotic services of the late Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. The country to whose services he devoted his life will guard and preserve his fame as part of it's glory. That the thanks of Congress are hereby given to the brave officers who,under the command of the late general Lyon sustained the honor of the flag and achieved victory against overwhelming numbers at the battle of Springfield Missouri.
Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher. Civil War High Commands, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 2001.
Leftyhunter

 

[Pat Answer]

"... and achieved victory against overwhelming numbers at the battle of Springfield..."

What did Napoleon say about lying like a bulletin?