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

[Patrick H]

The wikipedia entry is here, but is fairly rudimentary. May 1850, around Clear Lake, North of San Francisco against Pomo Natives

 

[Lusty Murfax]

The hero or devil question appears to have been answered on the first page of the thread.

 

[Patrick H]

I appear to have been befuddled by technology in my own post #21. My bad. Please press on, everyone! I will try to do better next time!

 

[archieclement]

Could use puppet, sadist, conspiracist , fanatic, or failed military commander to describe him

His biographer summed it up well

"Yet his decision to declare war on Missouri was based upon neither military nor political necessity. Even without his efforts, it is doubtful Missouri would have ever seceded, despite her governors efforts to the contrary. And in securing the Missouri River, Lyon had provided all that was needed to protect the state from future invasion, if the federals chose to fortify it. However Lyon chose to not stop there

Perhaps most dramatic were the effects of Lyons campaign and Wilson's Creek on the Missouri populace. By polarizing the state, Lyon and Blair provided guerrilla bands with cause celebre for which they subjected large areas of Missouri to three years of rampant bushwhacking, sniping, hit and run raiding, arson, and murder. The truest meaning of civil war was nowhere more apparent then in Missouri. Men such as Q, Anderson, and Todd gained notoriety by unleashing bloody attacks upon Unionist residents, while jayhawkers like Lane and Jennison led retaliatory raids that often equaled their rivals in destructive fury. Missouri, more then any other state , suffered the nightmare of internecine warfare which as Lyon had predicted, touched every man, woman and child living there in some way during the next three years and beyond. And more then any other single individual, Nathaniel Lyon bore responsibility for this fratricidal tragedy."

Not surprising he doesn't get a lot of love from Missourians, while others were trying to preserve peace, they were scheming for a war to further their careers...….

 

[Patrick H]

Could use puppet, sadist, conspiracist , fanatic, or failed military commander to describe him

His biographer summed it up well

"Yet his decision to declare war on Missouri was based upon neither military nor political necessity. Even without his efforts, it is doubtful Missouri would have ever seceded, despite her governors efforts to the contrary. And in securing the Missouri River, Lyon had provided all that was needed to protect the state from future invasion, if the federals chose to fortify it. However Lyon chose to not stop there

Perhaps most dramatic were the effects of Lyons campaign and Wilson's Creek on the Missouri populace. By polarizing the state, Lyon and Blair provided guerrilla bands with cause celebre for which they subjected large areas of Missouri to three years of rampant bushwhacking, sniping, hit and run raiding, arson, and murder. The truest meaning of civil war was nowhere more apparent then in Missouri. Men such as Q, Anderson, and Todd gained notoriety by unleashing bloody attacks upon Unionist residents, while jayhawkers like Lane and Jennison led retaliatory raids that often equaled their rivals in destructive fury. Missouri, more then any other state , suffered the nightmare of internecine warfare which as Lyon had predicted, touched every man, woman and child living there in some way during the next three years and beyond. And more then any other single individual, Nathaniel Lyon bore responsibility for this fratricidal tragedy."

Not surprising he doesn't get a lot of love from Missourians, while others were trying to preserve peace, they were scheming for a war to further their careers...….

Isn't it true, Archie?

 

[leftyhunter]

Could use puppet, sadist, conspiracist , fanatic, or failed military commander to describe him

His biographer summed it up well

"Yet his decision to declare war on Missouri was based upon neither military nor political necessity. Even without his efforts, it is doubtful Missouri would have ever seceded, despite her governors efforts to the contrary. And in securing the Missouri River, Lyon had provided all that was needed to protect the state from future invasion, if the federals chose to fortify it. However Lyon chose to not stop there

Perhaps most dramatic were the effects of Lyons campaign and Wilson's Creek on the Missouri populace. By polarizing the state, Lyon and Blair provided guerrilla bands with cause celebre for which they subjected large areas of Missouri to three years of rampant bushwhacking, sniping, hit and run raiding, arson, and murder. The truest meaning of civil war was nowhere more apparent then in Missouri. Men such as Q, Anderson, and Todd gained notoriety by unleashing bloody attacks upon Unionist residents, while jayhawkers like Lane and Jennison led retaliatory raids that often equaled their rivals in destructive fury. Missouri, more then any other state , suffered the nightmare of internecine warfare which as Lyon had predicted, touched every man, woman and child living there in some way during the next three years and beyond. And more then any other single individual, Nathaniel Lyon bore responsibility for this fratricidal tragedy."

Not surprising he doesn't get a lot of love from Missourians, while others were trying to preserve peace, they were scheming for a war to further their careers...….

What biography is the above?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Battlefields.org has a brief biography of Lyon and points out that Lyon was promoted for gallantry in the Mexican-American War and saved Missouri for the Union.Anothe biography points out that Lyon was once court martialed for brutality against an enlisted man but was not dismissed from the army. Lots of brief biographies on Lyon just goggle "Lyon Civil War".
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

What biography is the above?
Leftyhunter

theres only 2 in depth and only one modern...I used the modern recent researched one by Christopher Phillips. You should love it, he's a KS professor
Isn't it telling Q has more bio's then Lyon?

 

[leftyhunter]

Everyone who leads armed forces in killing 400 unarmed civilians, mainly women and children, like Lyon did in the Bloody Island Massacre, cannot be called a "hero", no mater what he did later in life.

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

 

[leftyhunter]

theres only 2 and only one modern...I used the modern recent researched one by Christopher Phillips

Do you have a title maybe I might buy it some day .
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Imagine you can google it, as there's only been one in the last 140 yrs or so.

 

[Andy P.]

A few years ago, I heard that another Lyon bio was in the works; was not informed as to the author. Never heard another word about it. Phillips' biography is pretty good, but he tries very hard to psychoanalyze Lyon, and I'm not entirely certain that he was successful in doing so. Personally, I think he went a little over the top. I'd like to see another Lyon bio, but we tend to not get multiple books on a lot of Trans-Mississippi subjects, so it wouldn't surprise me if there never is another one. Plus, it's not sexy. An earlier comment was made about Quantrill having more biographies than Lyon; that's not surprising as guerillas are a sexy topic and they tend to attract more attention than is probably justified. It's all but impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the Missouri guerilla war due to the extreme partisanship (and I personally have little to no interest in the subject), but that doesn't change the fact that there are an overabundance of books on it.

Temporarily ignoring the argument as to whether or not Lyon's actions were justified or even necessary, it's worth pointing out that his campaign in Missouri was very well done, especially comparing him to other U.S. military leaders in the first months of the War. With a relatively tiny force, he seized control of Missouri's transportation infrastructure (railroads and rivers), occupied the state capital city, and pushed much of the fledgling Missouri State Guard to the extreme southwest part of the State. Even the defeat at Wilson's Creek was pure Lyon, and to an extent, accomplished much of what he set out to do. He intended to hurt his enemy enough that his force could retreat from Springfield, and he certainly threw a heavy punch. Although his decision to allow Sigel to make his separate movement in hopes of attempting a double envelopment can, and has been, criticized, it also seems to fit Lyon's aggressive persona. Perhaps it was more than attempting to hurt the Southern army and keep them from pursuing; perhaps it was an attempt at a truly decisive victory. Maybe; maybe not. However, there is no denying the success of the campaign prior to Wilson's Creek.

Going back to the original question of this thread, without Frank Blair, there is no Lyon; at least not to the extent that he does anything of significance in Missouri. I'm not sure I call him a puppet, but anything Lyon accomplished (good or bad) doesn't happen without Blair. Lyon is too much of a dominant figure to be a puppet; if anything, Frank Blair is the facilitator who enables Lyon to act. Remember that the Blairs also championed John C. Fremont, who from a military standpoint lacked basically all of Lyon's aggressiveness.

 

[archieclement]

A few years ago, I heard that another Lyon bio was in the works; was not informed as to the author. Never heard another word about it. Phillips' biography is pretty good, but he tries very hard to psychoanalyze Lyon, and I'm not entirely certain that he was successful in doing so. Personally, I think he went a little over the top. I'd like to see another Lyon bio, but we tend to not get multiple books on a lot of Trans-Mississippi subjects, so it wouldn't surprise me if there never is another one. Plus, it's not sexy. An earlier comment was made about Quantrill having more biographies than Lyon; that's not surprising as guerillas are a sexy topic and they tend to attract more attention than is probably justified. It's all but impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the Missouri guerilla war due to the extreme partisanship (and I personally have little to no interest in the subject), but that doesn't change the fact that there are an overabundance of books on it.

Temporarily ignoring the argument as to whether or not Lyon's actions were justified or even necessary, it's worth pointing out that his campaign in Missouri was very well done, especially comparing him to other U.S. military leaders in the first months of the War. With a relatively tiny force, he seized control of Missouri's transportation infrastructure (railroads and rivers), occupied the state capital city, and pushed much of the fledgling Missouri State Guard to the extreme southwest part of the State. Even the defeat at Wilson's Creek was pure Lyon, and to an extent, accomplished much of what he set out to do. He intended to hurt his enemy enough that his force could retreat from Springfield, and he certainly threw a heavy punch. Although his decision to allow Sigel to make his separate movement in hopes of attempting a double envelopment can, and has been, criticized, it also seems to fit Lyon's aggressive persona. Perhaps it was more than attempting to hurt the Southern army and keep them from pursuing; perhaps it was an attempt at a truly decisive victory. Maybe; maybe not. However, there is no denying the success of the campaign prior to Wilson's Creek.

Going back to the original question of this thread, without Frank Blair, there is no Lyon; at least not to the extent that he does anything of significance in Missouri. I'm not sure I call him a puppet, but anything Lyon accomplished (good or bad) doesn't happen without Blair. Lyon is too much of a dominant figure to be a puppet; if anything, Frank Blair is the facilitator who enables Lyon to act. Remember that the Blairs also championed John C. Fremont, who from a military standpoint lacked basically all of Lyon's aggressiveness.

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

 

[Lusty Murfax]

To be fair, Lyon didn't have to do much to secure the one major River, the Missouri and one major railroad, the Hannibal - St. Joe. There were no battles in northern Missouri. The Union controlled all the river boats and trains. They also enjoyed the services of well armed and better trained regiments from Iowa and Illinois and these troops were well positioned to drop down to occupy northern Missouri. Though MSG recruits continued to gather in northern Missouri and attempt to cross the River and follow Price south, there was no organized opposition to the Union north of the River. Meanwhile Lyon basically followed the two sections of mostly unarmed and untrained army of MSG recruits southward to southwest Missouri. The battle near Boonville was little more than a skirmish and Lyon displayed no tactical expertise in his pursuit of Jackson and Price. It really wasn't much of a campaign and Lyon did little more than follow the trail south left by the Missourians. Lyon didn't catch up to them until they had met and joined with McCulloch south of Springfield and were relatively concentrated in strength with artillery support. His two pronged attack doesn't really make sense, if you saw the ground over which Sigel had to approach the field. The main battle was just a slugging match at close range with no maneuver. Lyon stupidly tried to lead at the front and was quickly killed in action. He was probably killed by his own troops. The MSG was armed mostly with short range weaponry.

The MSG was able to arm themselves with modern firearms only by picking up captured or abandoned arms of Sigel's troops they defeated at Carthage and one month later from arms captured from Lyon's troops at Oak Hills. They actually manufactured their own ammunition and cartridge pouches in camp along the line of march from Boonville to Springfield. It is remarkable that the MSG was able to defeat Lyon and Sigel when about one third of their force was completely unarmed and the remainder armed mostly with squirrel rifles and shotguns from home. The MSG received no ordnance of any kind from the Confederacy until just before Elkhorn Tavern.

 

[archieclement]

To be fair, Lyon didn't have to do much to secure the one major River, the Missouri and one major railroad, the Hannibal - St. Joe. There were no battles in northern Missouri. The Union controlled all the river boats and trains. They also enjoyed the services of well armed and better trained regiments from Iowa and Illinois and these troops were well positioned to drop down to occupy northern Missouri. Though MSG recruits continued to gather in northern Missouri and attempt to cross the River and follow Price south, there was no organized opposition to the Union north of the River. Meanwhile Lyon basically followed the two sections of mostly unarmed and untrained army of MSG recruits southward to southwest Missouri. The battle near Boonville was little more than a skirmish and Lyon displayed no tactical expertise in his pursuit of Jackson and Price. It really wasn't much of a campaign and Lyon did little more than follow the trail south left by the Missourians. Lyon didn't catch up to them until they had met and joined with McCulloch south of Springfield and were relatively concentrated in strength with artillery support. His two pronged attack doesn't really make sense, if you saw the ground over which Sigel had to approach the field. The main battle was just a slugging match at close range with no maneuver. Lyon stupidly tried to lead at the front and was quickly killed in action. He was probably killed by his own troops. The MSG was armed mostly with short range weaponry.

The MSG was able to arm themselves with modern firearms only by picking up captured or abandoned arms of Sigel's troops they defeated at Carthage and one month later from arms captured from Lyon's troops at Oak Hills. They actually manufactured their own ammunition and cartridge pouches in camp along the line of march from Boonville to Springfield. It is remarkable that the MSG was able to defeat Lyon and Sigel when about one third of their force was completely unarmed and the remainder armed mostly with squirrel rifles and shotguns from home. The MSG received no ordnance of any kind from the Confederacy until just before Elkhorn Tavern.

Hannibal St Jo was broken at battles of Monroe Station a month before WC and again at Battle of Shelbina a month after WC, bridges were being burned and track disrupted quite frequently, there were at least 3 US army Generals up here trying to catch Mart Green, Gen Pope, Hurlbut, and Sturgis. One of em complained Green ran like a deer and doubled back like a fox, so they weren't all that successful. Even US Grant was in the field for a bit against Green

Here Green only engaged small garrisons to acquire arms for his troops. but the Federals could hardly ignore large units moving at will throughout the state to focus on the far corner with little infrastructure.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Hannibal St Jo was broken at battles of Monroe Station a month before WC and again at Battle of Shelbina a month after WC, bridges were being burned and track disrupted quite frequently, there were at least 3 US army Generals up here trying to catch Mart Green, Gen Pope, Hurlbut, and Sturgis. One of em complained Green ran like a deer and doubled back like a fox, so they weren't all that successful.

Was not aware of those battles/skirmishes over in northeast Missouri, though I have heard of Green. My point was that Lyon was not a tactical genius and did little to secure the State.

 

[archieclement]

Was not aware of those battles/skirmishes over in northeast Missouri, though I have heard of Green. My point was that Lyon was not a tactical genius and did little to secure the State.

Green with a force of 2000 fought a skirmish with Home guard at Athens 5 days before WC...…...322 miles to Lyons rear... so much for Lyon driving the MSG out of the state...they were still on the Iowa line not the Arkansas line

sidenote- cannonballs from Athens skirmish did land in Iowa

 

[mofederal]

Lyon was a fanatic and he treated his men with brutality. He was an unpopular commander who did not inspire loyalty. He was an offensive minded fighter, and would attack despite the odds against him as he did at Wilson's Creek. He was personally brave.

Dr. William A. Hammond who knew Lyon at Fort Riley, Kansas, described him as: "...intolerant of opposition, prone to inject the most unpopular opinions at time and places when he knew they would be unwelcome; easily aroused to a degree of anger that was almost insane in it's manifestations; narrow minded, mentally unbalanced, and yet with all of this, honest to the core, truthful..., intelligent, generous to a fault with those he liked, absolutely moral, attentive to his duties, a strict disciplinarian, and he was one to trust in emergencies with absolute confidence that he would always do what he said he would do, even though he gave up his life for constancy." That was Lyon, love or hate him, he was all of that and possibly more. A complex character in a complex state of affairs in Missouri.

 

[Patrick H]

Green with a force of 2000 fought a skirmish with Home guard at Athens 5 days before WC...…...322 miles to Lyons rear... so much for Lyon driving the MSG out of the state...they were still on the Iowa line not the Arkansas line

sidenote- cannonballs from Athens skirmish did land in Iowa

I've got to say this is the first I've heard of this and it's very interesting!

 

[Bee]

Bloody Island is a hill now - used to be an island - at Clear Lake in California. Here is a link to a fairly accurate account of what happened there and why. Even sadder, Lyons annihilated an innocent band of Pomos who had nothing to do with the Kelsey/Stone killings. And, I might add, there weren't two men in California who needed killin' more than this pair! (Kelsey is the namesake for the town of Kelseyville on Clear Lake.)

http://www.chrisanddavid.com/clearlakemassacre/

ps
Recent studies (the article is about 15 years old but still basically accurate) have shown the total killed was actually nearer 600.

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.