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

A popular Democratic politician from Missouri at the turn of the century wrote on Lyon

"There never was in this world a struggle in which time was more the essence of things than in the fight for Missouri. The people were divided into something like three equal parts—one for the Union, another for secession, while the minds of the third were not made up, but were in a plastic condition. This halting, wavering third became decisive of the contest. To control it Blair and his opponents waged a battle royal. If, in the beginning, Blair could have aroused the federal government to a realization of the vast strategic importance of Missouri and to the necessity for early action, his task would have been easy. If, in the beginning, his antagonists could have aroused the Missouri legislature to a comprehension of the situation and could have induced the state authorities to seize the United States arsenal at St. Louis before General Nathaniel Lyon was placed in command, their task would have been easy; but when Lyon appeared upon the scene, their one golden opportunity was gone.—Champ Clark.

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

If the OP will allow me a little room, I would like to offer the following in reference to this incident. I am unable to find an official report by Lyon or any of his commanding officers about what is called the "Clear Lake Massacre", but I did find some internal reports filed prior to the event, that might shed a little light on Lyon's "directive" going into it. The attack in question happened on May 6, 1850 - these internal messages were sent in January and February of 1850. Please forgive me for the spelling - I let a program decipher it and it usually makes some weird mistakes. This post is merely posting historical content, without additional comment, and in reply to the above inquiry.

from Congressional Edition 561
#1
Sonoma, California, January 6th, 1850. Major: I have the honor to report as follows for the information of the commanding general : On the 25th of last month I received information from Mr. Benjamin Kelsey, that his brother Mr. Andrew Kelsey, and a young man named Stone, residing with him, had been murdered on the farm of the former, by the Indians in its vicinity. This farm is situated upon the shore of Clear Lake, about 70 miles from Sonoma. I started on the morning of the 26th, taking with me Lieut. Wilson, 1st Dragoons, and a detachment from the squadron of twenty-two men, for the scene of the murder. After the 1st day's march, anxious to reach the farm as early as Mr. Kelsey, who had set out the day he gave me the news. I separated from the command with a small party and Mr. Carson as guide. On my way out I met the family of Mr. Anderson, who lives about 15 miles below Mr. Kelsey, on the lake, driving in their stock of every description, and abandoning their farm, for fear of an attack from the Indians. I reached Mr. Kelsey's the third day out, about 12 o'clock, the heavy roads preventing us from riding faster, where I found Mr. Kelsey had already arrived with a party of 15 armed citizens, which he had collected. Things were as they had been reported to me. The body of Mr. Stone was found in a vat, covered with hides, and shockingly mangled. The house was robbed of everything it contained, and the rancherias abandoned. We gave the body of Mr. Stone as decent a burial as circumstances will permit. Whilst engaged in this, a party of 12 Indians of the Isla tribe, who live upon the lake, were captured by us, and would undoubtedly have been put to death by Kelsey's party, had not the presence of an officer restrained. them. I moved about two miles from the house to camp accompanied by Kelsey's party, who placed themselves under my orders, taking with me these Indians. Upon examining them they said they had nothing to do with the murder, but knew that two chiefs of the tribe, which lived upon Kelsey's farm, were on an island in the lake, and they could tell us all about it. I then told three of them they must go to this island and bring the two chiefs to me, and that I would retain the remaining nine as hostages for their reappearance, either with these chiefs or a good reason for not bringing them. They said it was good, and started apparently to do so. I then disarmed the remaining nine, and told them sentinels were placed over them to prevent their escape, until the return of these three, and if they attempted it they would be fired into. The three set off, lurked among the chemisal hills, as we afterwards ascertained, until they supposed all quiet, when they gave a signal, and the nine started to their feet and ran. They were promptly fired into by the dragoon and citizen sentinel; and three of their number fell, who died the next day ; during the night Lieut. Wilson arrived with the command at the house, where I joined him the next morning, and we then proceeded to examine the trails of the Indians, and finding many leading south, on the lake, we followed the main one, and found that the Indians had eluded us by getting on an island, about 300 yards from shore. The condition of our horses, want of tools, and in fact there being no timber around us which would float, prevented our rafting to the island. They refused all intercourse with us, although every offer was made them consistent with propriety, if they would give up these two chiefs. I then told them it was their last chance, and they must now look out for the chastisement deserved. They said " it was good if we could catch them." The command then returned to the farm, where after search, the body of Mr. Kelsey was found and buried. He was killed with five wounds, two of arrow wounds. We remained until Mr. B. Kelsey could collect such of his stock as would drive, and escorted him into the settlements. From the information I can get on the subject, there is no doubt but all the Indian tribes upon the lake are more or less concerned in this atrocious murder. They have had heretofore a secure retreat in the islands upon the lake, of which there are several, and use boats made of atule, of which they have a great many. The following plan is respectfully submitted by Lieut. Wilson and myself for the effectual chastisement of these tribes. Two parties of thirty men each, one on the N. E. and one on the S. W. shore of the lake, acting conjointly by signal, can drive them from the country lying on the lake to these islands. If then, two or three boats, capable of carrying ten men each, are put upon the lake at the southern extremity, secretly. they can easily, at night, if managed with caution, surprise them in their rancherias, and cut them to pieces. Mr. Carson says there is a good road by which these boats can be transported upon the running-gear of wagons from Napa to the southern extremity of Clear Lake ; and if, at the same time, a party of fifty strong could be sent up Russian River, (the head of which is near the northern extremity, and forms another retreat for these Indians,) they would completely be hemmed in. I mention numbers, because from the best authorities, the tribes on the lake can raise from four to six hundred warriors, and those oft Russian River much more. I have made this report thus long, that the General may have all the information that I can obtain. I must take this opportunity of mentioning to the commanding general the valuable services of Mr. Moses Carson, who, when a march was made through this country by Capt. Smith, 1st dragoons, in September, volunteered his services as a guide, refusing any remuneration from the U. States for them, and when he learned of this scout, came and offered them to me, upon the same terms, which I most gladly accepted. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, (Signed) J. W. DAVIDSON, 1st Lieut. 1st Dragoons, Commanding. Major E. R. S. CANDY, Asst. Adj. Gen. Monterey, Cat

#2 I wonder if this is from "the" J Hooker?
HEADQUARTERS, THIRD DIVISION, Benicia, February 26th, 1850. Brev. Brig. Gen. BENNET RILEY, Comdg. 10th Mil Department. GENERAL : I am directed by the general commanding the division to say, in answer to several communications relative to the establishment of posts in the 10th military department, that in his report to the head-quarters of the army, ……….. The general desires that the commanding officer be instructed to ascertain positively the exact tribe that is guilty, which, in regard to the murders at Clear Lake, is not difficult, as there are witnesses at hand ; to attack them at once wherever he finds them, and to pursue them as long as he is able, without proposing or attempting any parley or communication with them ; to inflict such a blow on them as will intimidate them and others and prevent like offences, and to prefer letting individuals escape to making them prisoners ; and not on any account to allow any citizens or others who may be present to take any captives to bring away as prisoners. This will only be a. pretence for getting servants about their ranchos. The quartermaster at the depot at Benicia is directed to furnish every thing in his department necessary, and for the expedition to Pitt River a large supply of provisions has been sent to the post on Bear Creek. The future tranquility of the borders and security from Indian aggressions requires that the first attempt to punish Indian murders should be effectual and thorough. Lenity now would be the extreme of cruelty to both parties. With respect, your obedient servant, (Signed) J. HOOKER, Assistant Adjutant General.

#3
HEADQUARTERS, THIRD DIVISION, Benicia, February 27th, 1850. Brev. Lieut. Col. W. G. FREEMAN, Ast. Adjt. General, Head-Quarters of the Army. COLONEL: Since my letter by the last mail on the 18th instant, nothing of interest has occurred in this division, except the murder of three more persons by the Indians near Clear Lake. As soon as the season will permit the movement, a detachment will be sent to punish them. They are more numerous than was supposed, and can oppose with 700 men ; we can scarcely assemble 100. I have disapproved of the establishment of a post at La China, east-ward from Los Angeles, which General Riley ordered without referring to me. The transport sent to convey the supplies for it was lost, having been sent to San Pedro, where there is no harbor or shelter, and the prevailing winds in the winter on shore, the stores were fortunately landed before the vessel was wrecked. The troops intended by General Riley to occupy La China are now very much out of the way, and will be so for many weeks. By "General Orders, No. 57, Adjutant-General's Office, War Department," I perceive that Brevet Major Emory, topographical engineer, is ordered to report to General Riley. I presume from this that a senior officer of that corps is ordered to report to the division head-quarters, where Lieut. Williamson is now on duty, an excellent young officer, but junior to all others of the corps in the division. Returns, as far as they can be obtained complete, will be forwarded by this mail. Your obedient servant, (Signed) PERSIFER F. SMITH, Brev. Maj. General Comdg.

As I stated prior I have been unable to locate actual reports filed by Lyon, Smith or any other officer about May 6th. However, Gen Persifer Smith, who was in command of all US forces in California in early 1850 apparently did file a report, and I did find a segment of it quoted in a couple of books as stating about the Clear Lake Massacre ....."That all the officers in the expedition united in awarding the highest praise to Captain Lyon for his untiring energy, zeal, and skill, and attribute his success to the rapidity and secrecy of his marches, and to his skillful disposition on the ground."
 
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.
Solidly Democrat does not necessarily mean pro Secessionist. As mentioned many times 110k Union soldiers vs 30k Confederate soldier's. The Missouri insurgency did not occur in all counties.
Leftyhunter
 
Solidly Democrat does not necessarily mean pro Secessionist. As mentioned many times 110k Union soldiers vs 30k Confederate soldier's. The Missouri insurgency did not occur in all counties.
Leftyhunter

Seriously? Name 5 counties...…..Missouri has 114, curious which ones had no insurgency or guerrilla activity.…….. curious as to your source for that statement as well...…

Even in St Louis there were safehouses for prisoners escaping Gratiot prison.
 
Last edited:
No but obviously Snead and the Congress of the United States had a different opinion of Lyon. Unlike Philip's they were alive when the aforementioned events occurred.
Leftyhunter

And Phillips had the opportunity to look at 100+ years of information about Lyons that the Congress and Snead never had.

I find it rediculous that you criticize an author you've not read
 
And Phillips had the opportunity to look at 100+ years of information about Lyons that the Congress and Snead never had.

I find it rediculous that you criticize an author you've not read
Also modern biographies tend to be more objective and not subject to the biases of the time.

Like early works on guerrillas, Connelly and Edwards......both equally blatantly biased to their respective sides
 
Gee, Lefty, give up on Lincoln and Congress for opinions on this one. What is your personal, most heart felt opinion of Lyon? My only proviso is that you will need to stand by for my personal opinion of Lyon.
 
And Phillips had the opportunity to look at 100+ years of information about Lyons that the Congress and Snead never had.

I find it rediculous that you criticize an author you've not read
Not a criticism just an observation.
Based on the then current information that Lyon, Snead and the U.S. Congress had Lyon did what was necessary to secure Missouri for the Union. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Leftyhunter
 
Gee, Lefty, give up on Lincoln and Congress for opinions on this one. What is your personal, most heart felt opinion of Lyon? My only proviso is that you will need to stand by for my personal opinion of Lyon.
L Was
Gee, Lefty, give up on Lincoln and Congress for opinions on this one. What is your personal, most heart felt opinion of Lyon? My only proviso is that you will need to stand by for my personal opinion of Lyon.
It's easy to throw stones at someone 150 plus year's latter. We have to look at the dynamics of the early Civil War when it appeared that the Confederacy could sieze Union states. The Confederacy had plans to sieze Missouri.
Bold premptive action was needed by an aggressive army officer. That officer was Lyon.
Yes your entitled to call him all the names in the dictionary but Lyon did what he thought was necessary and Lincoln, Congress and even Snead thought Lyon fulfilled his duty to the United States.
Leftyhunter
 
Seriously? Name 5 counties...…..Missouri has 114, curious which ones had no insurgency or guerrilla activity.…….. curious as to your source for that statement as well...…

Even in St Louis there were safehouses for prisoners escaping Gratiot prison.
We covered that subject on another thread. There were only a limited number of Union troops in Missouri and they were not in every county.
Leftyhunter
 
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.[/QUO
Did Senator Douglas at any time prior to election, or after secession, advocate secession or endorse secession? Most people that voted for Senator Douglas probably were unionists.
Furthermore, liberating Missouri from slavery, and building the first railroad bridge over the Missouri at Kansas City seems to have led to explosive growth in Missouri, including the return of many people who sat out the war in Illinois.
General Lyons suppressed secessionists and rioters. His enemies were known to the federal government and he was promoted.
To the federal authorities he was a hero. To the secessionist he was a monster. But secessionists were a small part of Missouri's future.
Secessionist advocates were supported by rioters. But people with homes and businesses are seldom persuaded to support a political position by rioters.
 
We covered that subject on another thread. There were only a limited number of Union troops in Missouri and they were not in every county.
Leftyhunter

??? you said "The Missouri insurgency did not occur in all counties." implying there wasn't guerrilla activity in counties, I've asked which...….

However this bizarre response of yours, begs which counties were entirely devoid of militia, provide a list of those also.. As the 110,000 you quoted includes militia and pretty sure EMM had units in every county, Though I'll look at your examples otherwise

Make sure though the counties you provide had no Home Guard, EMM, PEMM, or MSM, ot garrison detachments of out of state troops

Both are somewhat unusual claims that should be intrigueing
 
Last edited:
??? you said "The Missouri insurgency did not occur in all counties." implying there wasn't guerrilla activity in counties, I've asked which...….

However this bizarre response of yours, begs which counties were entirely devoid of militia, provide a list of those also.. As the 110,000 you quoted includes militia and pretty sure EMM had units in every county, Though I'll look at your examples otherwise
I have some maps at home which I can post when I have time. I already posted them over a year ago. Maybe on the weekend I can repost them. Most Union regiments assigned to counterinsurgency left sometime in late 1862. The MSM was only authorized to have 10k men. Most Union Missouri regiments were sent out if state. If Unionists wete threatned in every single county then Union soldiers from Missouri would of deserted in mass to come back home and protect their kinfolk.
Leftyhunter
 
??? you said "The Missouri insurgency did not occur in all counties." implying there wasn't guerrilla activity in counties, I've asked which...….

However this bizarre response of yours, begs which counties were entirely devoid of militia, provide a list of those also.. As the 110,000 you quoted includes militia and pretty sure EMM had units in every county, Though I'll look at your examples otherwise

Make sure though the counties you provide had no Home Guard, EMM, PEMM, or MSM, ot garrison detachments of out of state troops

Both are somewhat unusual claims that should be intrigueing

And don't you think when someone make a comment on a thread, they should either defend their comment or retract it?
 
I have some maps at home which I can post when I have time. I already posted them over a year ago. Maybe on the weekend I can repost them. Most Union regiments assigned to counterinsurgency left sometime in late 1862. The MSM was only authorized to have 10k men. Most Union Missouri regiments were sent out if state. If Unionists wete threatned in every single county then Union soldiers from Missouri would of deserted in mass to come back home and protect their kinfolk.
Leftyhunter
If you have counties that no Unionists were threatened, provide them too,

So provide counties no unionists were threatened
counties with zero militia
and counties with zero guerrilla activity
 
If you have counties that no Unionists were threatened, provide them too,

So provide counties no unionists were threatened
counties with zero militia
and counties with zero guerrilla activity
I will post what I have. You have not yet posted any maps to show insurgency existed in every single county in Missouri.
Leftyhunter
 
I will post what I have. You have not yet posted any maps to show insurgency existed in every single county in Missouri.
Leftyhunter
Also should note the MSM peaked at 13k was later reduced to 10k
however also was 2oK Home Guard
Around 52k EMM
also 2 versions of PEMM and some oddball 6 and 3 month units
Over half the 110,ooo you quote couldn't and never did leave the state as they were garrisoning the state......supplemented throughout the war with out of state units, the number of out of state fluctuated throughout the war, however not aware of any period there were none...… IA IL KS CO units would rotate through here

BTW the 110,000 never really existed as a total serving...…..because its counting one person multiple times
 
Last edited:

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top