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

[leftyhunter]

Seriously?

"Although their methods were robbery, arson, murder-terrorism-they believed that they were noble American revolutionaries fighting for the liberation of Missouri from the Yankee invader and his lowly Missouri minions. They were the defenders of helpless women and children. They were the blood avengers for their brothers and comrades and civilian supporters killed by the Federals. They were free men on the hunt for justice, killing evil bad principled men in the name of traditional American liberty. They would obliterate the enemy, every last devil, or die in glory"

Michael Fellman Inside War...……...no mention of just being motivated to torment unionists, perhaps you'll provide that passage

You need to read his introduction. Civilans were fair game for the guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

 

[mofederal]

After his death, Lyon's body was placed in a wagon and taken to the rear, to a field hospital. A sergeant not recognizing the man in the captain's uniform had it removed from the wagon so the wounded could be removed from the battlefield. Upon it's discovery by a MSG Lt., he had it sent to Price's HQ., It was taken to the Ray House by a Dr. S. H. Melcher, a surgeon of the 5th Mo., it was the only structure he knew of nearby. It was placed on a bed in the front room at the Ray House, where it was examined. From it went on it's other journey to Springfield. I for one have trouble believing anything Schofield says, read his citation for the MOH, no one really witnessed his actions at Wilson's Creek, and there is a theory that he approved his own medal when he commanded the Army. It is very questionable.

 

[archieclement]

You need to read his introduction. Civilans were fair game for the guerrillas.
Leftyhunter

Obviously you need to read the book, I or he never said they weren't.....however its not their motivation and how they viewed themselves, there is a difference...….

And its not "Those who became guerrillas did so to torment Unionists." if you had actually read Fellmans book you'd know that is disingenuous as to their motivation. Nor is your "quote" from the introduction, I imagine its not even in the book...…..

Fellmans inside war takes a scholarly approach and doesn't have such biased partisan nonsense in it...….you'd know that if you'd ever read it..... and theres chapters about the Union doing the exact same things

Here's how he actually ends his introduction...…"my subjects were neither heroic nor contemptible but ordinary people trying to sort out personal and cultural experience in an overwhelmingly stressful situation"...…...hmmm sounds nothing like your implied summation....

If want to quote the book do so, but quote the actual book and not your fanciful renditions that have nothing to do with the book

 

[archieclement]

Its not a question of the Younger brothers previously joining the Union affiliated milita. It's a matter that their father was not a secessionist but after his murder by Redlegs the brothers joined Quantrill.
Leftyhunter

???? Cole had already enlisted in the MSG, many unionists did as they felt Lyons conduct illegal, But he didn't switch sides at his fathers death, It just reinforced that the union had became a corrupted version of its former self that he wanted no part of, hard to fault him, when good Union men are being gunned down by Union troops to cover up their robberies and misconduct

 

[Booner]

Its not a question of the Younger brothers previously joining the Union affiliated milita. It's a matter that their father was not a secessionist but after his murder by Redlegs the brothers joined Quantrill.
Leftyhunter

Where do you come up with this stuff?
To the best of my knowledge, Cole Younger, nor any of his brothers, were ever members of any "Union affiliated Militia" nor a member of the Missouri State Guard (sorry Archie).
His father (Henry Washington Younger), was a union man, in the sense that he wasn't for succession, but he was a southern man to the core, as Cole said of his family and father, "naturaly we were Southerners in sympathy and fact." Cole's mother was Bursheba Fristoe, of Independence, Mo. Her maiden name may ring a bell with some readers, as I have pointed out on many occasions that better than 35-40 percent of Quantrill's "core" guerrillias were all related, most of which through ties with the Fristoe family.

Henry Younger had a contract with the U.S. Gov. for mail delivery in Jackson County, Mo. and was one of the weathiest men in that part of the state. He owned a large herd of horse for that mail delivery, but they were stolen by ks. jayhawkers, as well as as meechandism from a store the Younger's owned. Henry went to Kansas City to meet with the State Militia to see if anything could be done, and on his way home was murdered about a mile outside of Westport, Mo. by Mo. State Militia, under the command of Capt. Irvin Walley, in July of 1862. This is the event that led Cole at age 17 or18, along with his cousin, John Jarrette, to join Quantrill, as one of Q's earliest recruits, later that fall. Cole's next youngest brother, Jim, didn't join Q until 1864. Cole's other brothers Bob and John, were too young to fight in the war. (But Bob was old enough to rob banks by 1876).

I agree that Q and other guerrillias waged war against Union civilians, it's one reason why the guerrillia war in MO. is sometimes referred to as the "Household War."

The book, "The Story of Cole Younger, by Himself" is available on line.
I, by no means believe everything he says; I'm sure there is a fair amount of bias in his writing, and he sometime gets his dates wrong, but he was in his 60's, after he got out of prison, but it's fairly typical of the reminiscent writing of the period.

 

[leftyhunter]

Where do you come up with this stuff?
To the best of my knowledge, Cole Younger, nor any of his brothers, were ever members of any "Union affiliated Militia" nor a member of the Missouri State Guard (sorry Archie).
His father (Henry Washington Younger), was a union man, in the sense that he wasn't for succession, but he was a southern man to the core, as Cole said of his family and father, "naturaly we were Southerners in sympathy and fact." Cole's mother was Bursheba Fristoe, of Independence, Mo. Her maiden name may ring a bell with some readers, as I have pointed out on many occasions that better than 35-40 percent of Quantrill's "core" guerrillias were all related, most of which through ties with the Fristoe family.

Henry Younger had a contract with the U.S. Gov. for mail delivery in Jackson County, Mo. and was one of the weathiest men in that part of the state. He owned a large herd of horse for that mail delivery, but they were stolen by ks. jayhawkers, as well as as meechandism from a store the Younger's owned. Henry went to Kansas City to meet with the State Militia to see if anything could be done, and on his way home was murdered about a mile outside of Westport, Mo. by Mo. State Militia, under the command of Capt. Irvin Walley, in July of 1862. This is the event that led Cole at age 17 or18, along with his cousin, John Jarrette, to join Quantrill, as one of Q's earliest recruits, later that fall. Cole's next youngest brother, Jim, didn't join Q until 1864. Cole's other brothers Bob and John, were too young to fight in the war. (But Bob was old enough to rob banks by 1876).

I agree that Q and other guerrillias waged war against Union civilians, it's one reason why the guerrillia war in MO. is sometimes referred to as the "Household War."

The book, "The Story of Cole Younger, by Himself" is available on line.
I, by no means believe everything he says; I'm sure there is a fair amount of bias in his writing, and he sometime gets his dates wrong, but he was in his 60's, after he got out of prison, but it's fairly typical of the reminiscent writing of the period.

I never ever stated that the Younger's served in any military or paramilitary capacity for Union. I merely stated that their father was not pro Secessionist and the murder of his father by apparently MSM not Redlegs caused tje boys to join the bushwackers.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

???? Cole had already enlisted in the MSG, many unionists did as they felt Lyons conduct illegal, But he didn't switch sides at his fathers death, It just reinforced that the union had became a corrupted version of its former self that he wanted no part of, hard to fault him, when good Union men are being gunned down by Union troops to cover up their robberies and misconduct

No Unionists joined the MSG. The MSG was a Confederate military unit from day one.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

No Unionists joined the MSG. The MSG was a Confederate military unit from day one.
Leftyhunter

Boy your track record at being incorrect is amazing. The MSG was a legally raised state militia by a duly elected sitting US state government, had nothing to do with the CSA at all. Cite any major historian who doesn't make that distinction or claims it was CSA. Many MSG members went on to serve the Union. As some 20K MSG never served the CSA at all

Cant help but notice your "claims" are getting way head of your provided sources, as you've provided none....….you imply your citing a book such as Fellman's…..who never stated what you did however at all...……

Fellmans book does give guerrilla motivations and how how they viewed themselves.....and no where does he does say a glib it was "just to torment Unionists"

You have every right to give your "opinion" however don't imply its fact or what other authors claim if you cant give references...……. I at times will give my opinion. Frankly when it comes to MSG, MO CSA, or guerrilla numbers anything anyone gives is "opinion" as all acknowledge many records and muster rolls don't survive

Perhaps you should buy a guide to Missouri Confederate Units. while interesting reads to themselves, they all will note they don't include MSG as they were strictly a state organization never in CSA service.....

 

[Patrick H]

Not silly most of the time Quantrill and other guerrillas waged war against civilians. That is the nature of insurgency warfare.
Leftyhunter

You're going to have to list some verifiable source material for this claim. Frankly, I don't think you can. As you start reading documented accounts of Quantrill's and other guerrillas' actions, you'll see that they were almost always against militias, garrisons, army patrols, and so forth. There's no doubt that some banks were also targeted in garrison towns. Some of these guys went renegade during the summer of 1864, but even the hated Anderson's most notorious activities that summer were the murders and fights at Centralia, at Rawlings Lane, at Goslin's Lane, and Fayette--all against military. Some of his men raided Danville, Missouri (a small garrison town) in retaliation for the rape of the Berry sisters by militia men. Buildings sheltering soldiers there were burned. Railroad depots in neighboring towns were burned (Price had ordered him to attack the railroad "as far east as practicable".) Anderson then went to Glasgow and pistol whipped Benjamin Lewis nearly to death--An act of pure renegade viciousness as far as I am concerned. But there is no evidence that Anderson spent most of his time waging war against civilians.

You will cite the Lawrence raid with some justification, but there were military objectives associated with Lawrence, too. Further, it is a reasonable assumption that many (perhaps most) of the able bodied males in that town were assigned to militias. In fact, I'd love to see a study of the victim's names (which are known) cross-referenced with militia rolls (which must exist somewhere.) In any event, the Lawrence raid does not constitute "most of the time" in Quantrill's career. It was one morning--one horrific morning for that town.

Now, I think we should get back to discussing Lyon.

 

[Patrick H]

The MSG was a Confederate military unit from day one.

Wrong.

This is your opinion, but it's incorrect. The MSG was not mustered into the Confederate army until 1862, and even then only a portion went into regular Confederate service. If you mean to say that the MSG was mostly southern in culture, I could cut you some slack, but they were NOT a Confederate military force. They were a large state militia organization.

 

[Booner]

I never ever stated that the Younger's served in any military or paramilitary capacity for Union. I merely stated that their father was not pro Secessionist and the murder of his father by apparently MSM not Redlegs caused tje boys to join the bushwackers.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE

So you didn't write this?

In war people are known to switch sides the Younger Brothers being a good example.......
Leftyhunter

Or this?

Its not a question of the Younger brothers previously joining the Union affiliated milita. It's a matter that their father was not a secessionist but after his murder by Redlegs the brothers joined Quantrill.
Leftyhunter

I'm just pointing out that you made two previous posts that counterdict your statement.

 

[leftyhunter]

I'm just pointing out that you made two previous posts that counterdict your statement.

No I did not point them out.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Wrong.

This is your opinion, but it's incorrect. The MSG was not mustered into the Confederate army until 1862, and even then only a portion went into regular Confederate service. If you mean to say that the MSG was mostly southern in culture, I could cut you some slack, but they were NOT a Confederate military force. They were a large state militia organization.

They fired on federal troops that makes them Confederate.
Leftyhunter

 

[4th-MSM]

They fired on federal troops that makes them Confederate.
Leftyhunter

I'm curious how that makes them Confederate (especially considering that Federal Troops were on the offensive after the meeting in St. Louis)?

Using that reasoning, wouldn't that also make Missouri a Confederate state by default since the MSG was formed as the official militia of the state after the MVM was disbanded?

 

[Patrick H]

They fired on federal troops that makes them Confederate.
Leftyhunter

Nope. That's your opinion, but it's incorrect. They were Missouri State Troops. Culturally, they tended to be southern, because so many of the families migrated from Virginia and Kentucky. But they weren't Confederate until they officially mustered into the Confederate army. Even then, they didn't all go into Confederate service. The MSG was scattered in units all over the state, and I think it's likely there were some members who never fired on a federal.

Lefty, I'm cutting you a lot of slack on this because the MSG was comprised of so many men who grew up in southern culture. But your argument is fallacious: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("After this, therefore because of this.") In other words, "They fired on federal troops that makes them Confederate just doesn't hold water.

 

[archieclement]

They fired on federal troops that makes them Confederate.
Leftyhunter

Rather then just doubling down on absurd claims, perhaps you should provide some sources or historians who share your view. You've been asked repeatedly and continually provide nothing, is it safe to assume at this point you have none? See little reason to not avail yourself to your "library" you claim to have on the Missouri war...… Which of those authors claim the MSG was CSA from day 1?

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Rather then just doubling down on absurd claims, perhaps you should provide some sources or historians who share your view. You've been asked repeatedly and continually provide nothing, is it safe to assume at this point you have none? See little reason to not avail yourself to your "library" you claim to have on the Missouri war...… Which of those authors claim the MSG was CSA from day 1?

He claims to have a library on the war in Missouri? It might be better to ask him why he doesn't use it.

 

[leftyhunter]

Rather then just doubling down on absurd claims, perhaps you should provide some sources or historians who share your view. You've been asked repeatedly and continually provide nothing, is it safe to assume at this point you have none? See little reason to not avail yourself to your "library" you claim to have on the Missouri war...… Which of those authors claim the MSG was CSA from day 1?

I already said I cant do research until the weekend. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck its a duck. When the MSG fires in U.S. troops then they are in fact Confederate troops. They can call themselves whatever they want but it doesn't change the fact the MSG was a Confederate military orginization.
Leftyhunter

 

[archieclement]

Noted you've provided nothing, contrary to every book wrote on the subject..... as I expected with a blatantly false claim.

*Edited*

One day you'll argue if someone isn't charged with something it must mean it didn't happen, then others as today you're saying if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck....even though you know no legal charges had been made against the MVM or the MSG as to somehow being illegal in any way. It's very erratic......

 

[DanSBHawk]

Good Lord.

Perhaps he should have said "allied" with the confederates, or "affiliated" with the confederates, or "sympathetic" to the confederate side. People are nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking.