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

[archieclement]

Unless you share t

In your personal opinion 150 plus years latter. My point is that at the time Congress which does concern itsrlf with military and political matters thought Lyon was a Saint.
So in regards to @Patrick H 's OP absolutely per the U.S. Congress Brig. General Lyon was a hero.
Not everyone in 1861 thought that Lyon was a hero but many did.
Leftyhunter

Yes you've established in 1861 owning people and killing civilians was thought normal too.......I won't be basing my opinion on those obviously flawed values and opinions of 1861. But instead form my own opinion, using modern research and biographies and today's values.........thank you.

Perhaps if Congress had realized the battle of Springfield wasn't a success against overwhelming odds, and been a little better advised it was actually a reverse.......... they might not have been so full of praise also

 

[leftyhunter]

Unless you share t

Yes you've established in 1861 owning people and killing civilians was thought normal too.......I won't be basing my opinion on those obviously flawed values and opinions of 1861. But instead form my own opinion, using modern research and biographies and today's values.........thank you.

Perhaps if Congress had realized the battle of Springfield wasn't a success against overwhelming odds, and been a little better advised it was actually a reverse.......... they might not have been so full of praise also

In the book " Wilson's Creek. The Second Battle if the Civil War and the men who fought it"Chapel Hill Press the authors Piston and Hatcher III point out both sides interpreted Wilson's Creek has a victory.
Congressman had access to many newspapers including from the Confederacy. They also could correspond with their colleagues in Uniform.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Half your army routing, the other retreating a hundred miles, while the other army advances to win another victory is quite a success.....

Yes the Union had to try to put lipstick on a pig, because in major battles they were 0-2. And many would view at the time 0-3 after Lexington. They weren't doing a lot to dampen seccessionist fever by losing........

 

[Patrick H]

My point is that at the time Congress which does concern itsrlf with military and political matters thought Lyon was a Saint.

Thought he was a saint? I presume this rhetorical and not a literal belief.

 

[SWMODave]

I defer to Thomas L Snead for an opinion on Nathaniel Lyon. Snead had been a Missourian since 1850, strong secessionist, assistant and aide-to-camp to Governor Jackson, Adjutant General to General Sterling Price, and later member of the Confederate Congress. He met Lyon face to face at the memorable meeting at Planters Hotel, was with the Governor in the retreat from Jefferson City, Boonville, and Carthage - and with Sterling Price and faced Lyon at the battle of Wilson's Creek. Author of "The Fight For Missouri", published in 1886. If you want to understand the start of the Civil War in Missouri, from the Southern point of view, then this is an interesting book to read. Snead was so pro-session prior to the war, that he believed Claiborne Jackson's campaign promise to stay neutral and campaigned for another candidate with his paper. After Jackson won, and identified himself with the secession movement, Snead went to work for him. While older books written by participants always carry with them the risk of bias penmanship, this approach is usually easier to recognize compared to current 'historical works', and they typically have not been 'filtered' by post war movements. Snead had every reason in the book to hate the abolitionist Lyon. Instead, he concluded his book........

"Lyon had not fought and died in vain. Through him the rebellion which Blair had organized, and to which he had himself given force and strength, had succeeded at last. By capturing the State militia at Camp Jackson, and driving the Governor from the Capital, and all his troops into the uttermost corner of the State, and by holding Price and McCulloch at bay, he had given the Union men of Missouri time, opportunity, and courage to bring their State Convention together again ; and had given the Convention an excuse and the power to depose Governor Jackson and Lieutenant-Governor Reynolds, to vacate the seats of the members of the General Assembly, and to establish a State Government, which was loyal to the Union, and which would use the whole organized power of the State, its Treasury, its Credit, its Militia, and all its great resources, to sustain the Union and crush the South. All this had been done while Lyon was boldly confronting the overwhelming strength of Price and McCulloch. Had he abandoned Springfield instead, and opened to Price a pathway to the Missouri; had he not been willing to die for the freedom of the negro, and for the preservation of the Union, none of these things would have then been done.

By wisely planning, by boldly doing, and by bravely dying, he had won the fight for Missouri."

And one comment on an earlier post. How many biographies has anyone here ever read on Harry McGinnis or John "Wes" Harryman? Unless you wrote it yourself and decided not to publish it - no one - they were just a couple of cops, doing their job, who died trying to arrest Bonnie and Clyde at Joplin, MO.

The number of biographies a person has written about them has absolutely nothing to do with their being right or wrong, only who we, as a society, decide to make famous.

 

[leftyhunter]

Thought he was a saint? I presume this rhetorical and not a literal belief.

If one go' s by the Congressional Proclamation then yes he is.
If one go's by his over all military record not so much i.e. killing unarmed Indian civilians and beating an enlisted man almost to death.
Was Lyon the right man at the right time to defeat secessionists attempts to join Missouri to the Confederacy?
Per the U.S. Congress the answer is absolutely yes. President Lincoln and General Scott did not appear to question Lyon's actions unless someone can show they did. The fact that Lyon was promoted from captain to Brig. General certainly implys they had no issues with Lyon's actions.
Has far as modern day historians opinions on Lyon not sure on the consensus.
Did Lyon fulfill his duties as a U.S. Army Officer?
If the answer is that the Congress of the United States praised him in a proclamation, no adverse actions from the President or General Scott the the answer must be an unequivocal yes.
That does not make Lyon a Saint no;just an excellent army officer per the Congress of the United States.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

I defer to Thomas L Snead for an opinion on Nathaniel Lyon. Snead had been a Missourian since 1850, strong secessionist, assistant and aide-to-camp to Governor Jackson, Adjutant General to General Sterling Price, and later member of the Confederate Congress. He met Lyon face to face at the memorable meeting at Planters Hotel, was with the Governor in the retreat from Jefferson City, Boonville, and Carthage - and with Sterling Price and faced Lyon at the battle of Wilson's Creek. Author of "The Fight For Missouri", published in 1886. If you want to understand the start of the Civil War in Missouri, from the Southern point of view, then this is an interesting book to read. Snead was so pro-session prior to the war, that he believed Claiborne Jackson's campaign promise to stay neutral and campaigned for another candidate with his paper. After Jackson won, and identified himself with the secession movement, Snead went to work for him. While older books written by participants always carry with them the risk of bias penmanship, this approach is usually easier to recognize compared to current 'historical works', and they typically have not been 'filtered' by post war movements. Snead had every reason in the book to hate the abolitionist Lyon. Instead, he concluded his book........

"Lyon had not fought and died in vain. Through him the rebellion which Blair had organized, and to which he had himself given force and strength, had succeeded at last. By capturing the State militia at Camp Jackson, and driving the Governor from the Capital, and all his troops into the uttermost corner of the State, and by holding Price and McCulloch at bay, he had given the Union men of Missouri time, opportunity, and courage to bring their State Convention together again ; and had given the Convention an excuse and the power to depose Governor Jackson and Lieutenant-Governor Reynolds, to vacate the seats of the members of the General Assembly, and to establish a State Government, which was loyal to the Union, and which would use the whole organized power of the State, its Treasury, its Credit, its Militia, and all its great resources, to sustain the Union and crush the South. All this had been done while Lyon was boldly confronting the overwhelming strength of Price and McCulloch. Had he abandoned Springfield instead, and opened to Price a pathway to the Missouri; had he not been willing to die for the freedom of the negro, and for the preservation of the Union, none of these things would have then been done.

By wisely planning, by boldly doing, and by bravely dying, he had won the fight for Missouri."

And one comment on an earlier post. How many biographies has anyone here ever read on Harry McGinnis or John "Wes" Harryman? Unless you wrote it yourself and decided not to publish it - no one - they were just a couple of cops, doing their job, who died trying to arrest Bonnie and Clyde at Joplin, MO.

The number of biographies a person has written about them has absolutely nothing to do with their being right or wrong, only who we, as a society, decide to make famous.

Outstanding research! If Snead, President Lincoln, General Winfield Scott and the Congress of the United States thought Lyon was doing his job then that should be good enough for everyone.
Was Lyon a nice guy? No but he was the right man at the right place.
Leftyhunter

 

[Patrick H]

If one go' s by the Congressional Proclamation then yes he is.
If one go's by his over all military record not so much i.e. killing unarmed Indian civilians and beating an enlisted man almost to death.
Was Lyon the right man at the right time to defeat secessionists attempts to join Missouri to the Confederacy?
Per the U.S. Congress the answer is absolutely yes. President Lincoln and General Scott did not appear to question Lyon's actions unless someone can show they did. The fact that Lyon was promoted from captain to Brig. General certainly implys they had no issues with Lyon's actions.
Has far as modern day historians opinions on Lyon not sure on the consensus.
Did Lyon fulfill his duties as a U.S. Army Officer?
If the answer is that the Congress of the United States praised him in a proclamation, no adverse actions from the President or General Scott the the answer must be an unequivocal yes.
That does not make Lyon a Saint no;just an excellent army officer per the Congress of the United States.
Leftyhunter

One can only go by the Congressional Proclamation if one overlooks key factors:
1. Lincoln didn't officially question Lyon's actions because Lincoln was so powerfully influenced by Blair's family.
2. The United States had taken some serious whippings at this point and DESPERATELY needed a hero--even if one had to be manufactured out of cherry picked accomplishments. Congress capitalized on Lyon's death and basically declared him a martyr to the union cause.
3. Lyon violated Civil Law in Boonville, including suppressing the free press and destroying at least one business.
4. Lyon brutalized some of his own men.
5. Lyon's excesses in California were immoral.
6. Lyon's "defeat" of secessionists in Missouri was largely due to the fact that Jackson never had enough support to secede. It was further due to Blair's ability to "cook the books" with Lincoln, with congress, with eastern newspapers, etc.

Lyon a saint?

A hero to some, perhaps, but hardly a saint.

I think his greatest success was getting killed, thus allowing himself to be a candidate for martyrdom by those who needed a martyr at that precise time. Faint praise.

 

[archieclement]

I defer to Thomas L Snead for an opinion on Nathaniel Lyon. Snead had been a Missourian since 1850, strong secessionist, assistant and aide-to-camp to Governor Jackson, Adjutant General to General Sterling Price, and later member of the Confederate Congress. He met Lyon face to face at the memorable meeting at Planters Hotel, was with the Governor in the retreat from Jefferson City, Boonville, and Carthage - and with Sterling Price and faced Lyon at the battle of Wilson's Creek. Author of "The Fight For Missouri", published in 1886. If you want to understand the start of the Civil War in Missouri, from the Southern point of view, then this is an interesting book to read. Snead was so pro-session prior to the war, that he believed Claiborne Jackson's campaign promise to stay neutral and campaigned for another candidate with his paper. After Jackson won, and identified himself with the secession movement, Snead went to work for him. While older books written by participants always carry with them the risk of bias penmanship, this approach is usually easier to recognize compared to current 'historical works', and they typically have not been 'filtered' by post war movements. Snead had every reason in the book to hate the abolitionist Lyon. Instead, he concluded his book........

"Lyon had not fought and died in vain. Through him the rebellion which Blair had organized, and to which he had himself given force and strength, had succeeded at last. By capturing the State militia at Camp Jackson, and driving the Governor from the Capital, and all his troops into the uttermost corner of the State, and by holding Price and McCulloch at bay, he had given the Union men of Missouri time, opportunity, and courage to bring their State Convention together again ; and had given the Convention an excuse and the power to depose Governor Jackson and Lieutenant-Governor Reynolds, to vacate the seats of the members of the General Assembly, and to establish a State Government, which was loyal to the Union, and which would use the whole organized power of the State, its Treasury, its Credit, its Militia, and all its great resources, to sustain the Union and crush the South. All this had been done while Lyon was boldly confronting the overwhelming strength of Price and McCulloch. Had he abandoned Springfield instead, and opened to Price a pathway to the Missouri; had he not been willing to die for the freedom of the negro, and for the preservation of the Union, none of these things would have then been done.

By wisely planning, by boldly doing, and by bravely dying, he had won the fight for Missouri."

And one comment on an earlier post. How many biographies has anyone here ever read on Harry McGinnis or John "Wes" Harryman? Unless you wrote it yourself and decided not to publish it - no one - they were just a couple of cops, doing their job, who died trying to arrest Bonnie and Clyde at Joplin, MO.

The number of biographies a person has written about them has absolutely nothing to do with their being right or wrong, only who we, as a society, decide to make famous.

No argument on the bios point......that was my point however.....society decided to leave Lyon on the scrapheap.

As to the other Sneads view is hardly surprising, he has to put losing Missouri on someone besides faulting Jackson, Price or the CSA, Snead always came across devoted to lost cause to me.

However it ignores union retreated and Price advanced after WC, the fight for Missouri wasn't settled by Lyons death, it wasn't untill Fremont drove Price and the MSG from the state that it was, then Curtis sealed the deal with PR.....

That's the curious point of the myth.... If he had retreated where he would have been able to concentrate with forces such as Mulligan to have actually won when he fought......would somehow be worse then fighting, losing, and giving a morale victory to the entire south and end up retreating anyway.....to allow a 2nd defeat to go with the first.....

 

[Booner]

........
Has far as modern day historians opinions on Lyon not sure on the consensus......
Leftyhunter

Let me help you with one biographers' opinion.
Again, from D. A. M. N. E. D. Yankee by Christopher Phillips and his summation of Lyons action from his epiloue. I"ll just hit the highlights;

As Lyon as "savior of Missouri" he says this is misleading. Lyon did defend the St. Louis arsenal. His move against the state capital of the state did give time for a loyal gov. to replace the government of Jackson. However, rather than saving the state, Lyon started a war that otherwise may not have happened.

His declaration of war on MO. was not based on military or political necessity. The author felt that Lyons efforts were not needed as it was unlikely that MO would succeed.

The most dramatic effect of Lyons campaign ending with the battle of Wilson's Creek was that his efforts polarized the state, gave raise to the guerrillia war. "More than any other single individual, Nathaniel Lyon bore responsiblity for this fractricidal tragedy."

Lyon represented a tragedy on an even grander level; he was part of the ascendacy of radicalism on a nation wide scale. Their extremism in words and actions were accepted and encourage by large segments of the population.

Lyons war was more than political extremism, it was a personal vendetta brought on by a blind hatred of secessionist that overwhelmed all of his other personal motivations other than personal vengeance.

And this- Lyon viewed himself as the states supreme arbiter, and once he acguired the power to act as such, he would not relinquish it.

 

[Patrick H]

Let me help you with one biographers' opinion.
Again, from D. A. M. N. E. D. Yankee by Christopher Phillips and his summation of Lyons action from his epiloue. I"ll just hit the highlights;

As Lyon as "savior of Missouri" he says this is misleading. Lyon did defend the St. Louis arsenal. His move against the state capital of the state did give time for a loyal gov. to replace the government of Jackson. However, rather than saving the state, Lyon started a war that otherwise may not have happened.

His declaration of war on MO. was not based on military or political necessity. The author felt that Lyons efforts were not needed as it was unlikely that MO would succeed.

The most dramatic effect of Lyons campaign ending with the battle of Wilson's Creek was that his efforts polarized the state, gave raise to the guerrillia war. "More than any other single individual, Nathaniel Lyon bore responsiblity for this fractricidal tragedy."

Lyon represented a tragedy on an even grander level; he was part of the ascendacy of radicalism on a nation wide scale. Their extremism in words and actions were accepted and encourage by large segments of the population.

Lyons war was more than political extremism, it was a personal vendetta brought on by a blind hatred of secessionist that overwhelmed all of his other personal motivations other than personal vengeance.

And this- Lyon viewed himself as the states supreme arbiter, and once he acguired the power to act as such, he would not relinquish it.

Another excellent summary, @Booner.

 

[leftyhunter]

Let me help you with one biographers' opinion.
Again, from D. A. M. N. E. D. Yankee by Christopher Phillips and his summation of Lyons action from his epiloue. I"ll just hit the highlights;

As Lyon as "savior of Missouri" he says this is misleading. Lyon did defend the St. Louis arsenal. His move against the state capital of the state did give time for a loyal gov. to replace the government of Jackson. However, rather than saving the state, Lyon started a war that otherwise may not have happened.

His declaration of war on MO. was not based on military or political necessity. The author felt that Lyons efforts were not needed as it was unlikely that MO would succeed.

The most dramatic effect of Lyons campaign ending with the battle of Wilson's Creek was that his efforts polarized the state, gave raise to the guerrillia war. "More than any other single individual, Nathaniel Lyon bore responsiblity for this fractricidal tragedy."

Lyon represented a tragedy on an even grander level; he was part of the ascendacy of radicalism on a nation wide scale. Their extremism in words and actions were accepted and encourage by large segments of the population.

Lyons war was more than political extremism, it was a personal vendetta brought on by a blind hatred of secessionist that overwhelmed all of his other personal motivations other than personal vengeance.

And this- Lyon viewed himself as the states supreme arbiter, and once he acguired the power to act as such, he would not relinquish it.

Philips may or may not be correct on his assessment of Lyon ot certainly is different then Congress or Sneed.
We can't know if "Lyon would relinquish power since he was killed at Wilson's Creek. We do know that only the President could appoint a military governor to Missouri.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lusty Murfax]

In the book " Wilson's Creek. The Second Battle if the Civil War and the men who fought it"Chapel Hill Press the authors Piston and Hatcher III point out both sides interpreted Wilson's Creek has a victory.
Congressman had access to many newspapers including from the Confederacy. They also could correspond with their colleagues in Uniform.
Leftyhunter

At Elkhorn Tavern the Missouri Confederates and MSG thought they had won a great victory at the end of the first day. The morning of Day 2 the troops wondered why they were being asked to perform rear-guard action while the remaining Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Indian troops retreated toward Fayetteville. The fact was, Price and his Missourians had won their portion of the battle on day 1, while McCulloch and Pike had lost theirs. To make matters worse, someone had ordered the ammunition train to head south and the Missourians were not re-supplied overnight. During the retreat, Curtis did not follow along closely and failed to initiate battle, so the Missourians retired unmolested. Victory in some cases is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[leftyhunter]

At Elkhorn Tavern the Missouri Confederates and MSG thought they had won a great victory at the end of the first day. The morning of Day 2 the troops wondered why they were being asked to perform rear-guard action while the remaining Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Indian troops retreated toward Fayetteville. The fact was, Price and his Missourians had won their portion of the battle on day 1, while McCulloch and Pike had lost theirs. To make matters worse, someone had ordered the ammunition train to head south and the Missourians were not re-supplied overnight. During the retreat, Curtis did not follow along closely and failed to initiate battle, so the Missourians retired unmolested. Victory in some cases is in the eye of the beholder.

I was referring to the battle of Wilson's Creek which was indeed a Confederate victory although Congress interpreted it has a Union victory. The battle of Pea Ridge or Elk Horn Tavern is a whole different subject.
No doubt Lyon made some critical errors although to be fair many generals on both sides won battles and lost battles. Lyon of course only fought one .major battle in the Civil War.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

Good discussion. However it abstracts from the fact that the St. Louis Republicans were extremely important to the national party. The state of Missouri was divided between Republican, Douglas Democrats who were mostly free soil advocates, Pro Slavery pro Union Bell supporters, and a smaller fraction of Breckinridge supporters. To think that Lyons alone created the conflict or that it could have been avoided, that Fremont did much better, or that Henry Halleck solved all the problems, is advocacy not history.

 

[wausaubob]

The vote in Missouri also does not take into affect that in 1861 about 10% of Missourians were enslaved, and not generally supporters of the Confederacy.

 

[wausaubob]

Whatever happened to Missouri, between 1860 and 1870, the population of Missouri grew from 1,182,012 to 1,721,285. That was a 50.7% increase. Frank Blair became a standard 19th century Democrat and even Carl Schurz was converted to the Democratic party.

 

[Booner]

Philips may or may not be correct on his assessment of Lyon ot certainly is different then Congress or Sneed.
We can't know if "Lyon would relinquish power since he was killed at Wilson's Creek. We do know that only the President could appoint a military governor to Missouri.
Leftyhunter

Have you read the book?

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Good discussion. However it abstracts from the fact that the St. Louis Republicans were extremely important to the national party. The state of Missouri was divided between Republican, Douglas Democrats who were mostly free soil advocates, Pro Slavery pro Union Bell supporters, and a smaller fraction of Breckinridge supporters. To think that Lyons alone created the conflict or that it could have been avoided, that Fremont did much better, or that Henry Halleck solved all the problems, is advocacy not history.

Missouri wasn't that divided, according to the State's voters. However, St. Louis was. Look at the County by County voting in the 1860 election.

http://www.missouridivision-scv.org/election.htm

Lincoln and his Republicans received just barely more than 10% of the State-wide vote. Lincoln received most of his votes from St. Louis Co., though he received just over 50% of the County's vote total. St. Louis was divided evenly, but the State of Missouri was solidly Democrat.

 

[Booner]

Whatever happened to Missouri, between 1860 and 1870, the population of Missouri grew from 1,182,012 to 1,721,285. That was a 50.7% increase. Frank Blair became a standard 19th century Democrat and even Carl Schurz was converted to the Democratic party.

And the population fell by 1/4 between 1860 and 1864, so that would make your percentage of population increase even higher.
It also points out why so much history of the conflict has been lost, the increase in population after the war were in people who where not here during the war.