Battle of Backbone Mountain

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explanation - I changed back the article to an older version because somebody who edited it named changed a lot of stuff but didn't seem to know what he was doing or writing about. For example they changed a quote that is at the link to something else that doesn't appear anywear on the internet but then gave a link that shows the old version of the quote he took out. [1] Some other guy also deleted important stuff about Franklin Blair being friends with Lyons and getting Lincoln to support him. All in all it just seemed better to go back to before all those edits as a new starting place. Maybe somebody can glean some good stuff out of them but what I saw typically worsened the article like the examples I gave.

He also deleted a whole bunch of sources in the "evidence" section for no aparant reason. I'm not sure what this guy was thinking but he probably shouldn't edit this article anymore cause he didn't do much productive for it and worsened parts even though he changed it all over the place.

This article contains some very useful information. Unfortunately, the tone is far from neutral. For example it includes inaccurate and heavily biased descriptors such as "St. Louis Massacre." It is also fails to provide a complete picture of events, instead providing the contemporary secessionist views.

The reference sections seems to have been inadvertently deleted in earlier edit wars. This needs to be resurrected. Red Harvest (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be cautious with Quotations from Moore's Confederate Military History as it is not even handed and contains a number of errors. Red Harvest (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the parade through St. Louis cause "outrage"? Was this outrage widely felt, or simply the views of a mobilized group of pro-Southern citizens? General Grant in his Memoirs refers to outrage over being forced to take down their Dixie flag prior to the Camp Jackson incident. If so, the "outrage" referred to in this article would only refer to those citizens with secessionist views. Tvbarn (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the article only talks about the efforts of 'radical republican' groups to gain access to the St. Louis Arsenal (even though there were secessionists groups in St. Louis planning the exact same thing), and then after this effort has succeeded, the Camp Jackson Affair suddenly appears out of nowhere. The reality is that secessionist Governor Claiborne had organized a militia, then deliberately appointed only secessionists as officers of that militia, and then conspired with these secessionist militia leaders to seize the St. Louis Arsenal. Claiborne even arranged for Confederate President Davis to send artillery to help capture the Arsenal. The militia at Camp Jackson had assembled near St. Louis for the specific purpose of assaulting and capturing the Arsenal. This article's PoV is blatantly partisan. Omegastar (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Missouri, like Price, held "conditional Unionist" beliefs at this point, meaning they neither favored secession nor supported the United States warring against the Confederacy.

This is a very, very strong factual statement with no reference or backup whatsoever. For now I have added a "citation needed" tag but if no suitable citation is forthcoming within a short time the statement should simply be deleted as unsupportable.

Bhugh (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

Not really sure how I got dragged into it, but I have taken it upon myself to correct what seems to be pretty glaring issues with a number of entries about the actors and events around Missouri's session, and this one is in deep need of correction.

To begin with, the description of Nathaniel Lyon as "radical republican" is false. Lyon was a Republican to be sure, but the claim he was one of the radicals is highly disputed. He was certainly anti-slavery, but in the Lincolnist vein of merely wanting to contain it to where it already existed, which was on the moderate end of the party. That being said, his experience in Bleed Kansas left him convinced that violence was going brake out after the Secessionists Winter of 1860-61 and was committed to fighting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Lyon#cite_ref-15

The issue of framing Lyon as being a radical, barely constrained by his moderate superiors is also problematicly depicted as being addressed with political connections. While true in one sense, I think it dramatically skews the facts on the ground, as it wasn't just the Blair brothers power alone getting Lyon promoted. Harney had family connections to elites in Missouri, and he and Hagnar both where removed from their posts in part because the Lincoln Administration didn't not trust their Unionist loyalties. Let's remember that the Buchanan Administration was deeply pro-southern and what it considered "moderate" on the issue of slavery is more akin to asking what William Loyd Garrison what "moderate" on the issue of abolition would be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Harney

Next, the claim that "both sides" attempted to seize the St. Louis Arsenal is rather dubious and flattens a very complex series of events. To begin with, it isn't possible for Federal forces to "seize" a Federal Arsenal, anymore than its possible for me to "seize" my car. Missouri did not own, defend, or operate the St. Louis Arsenal, and any claim that the state had the right to do anything with it is legally speaking ridiculous. It was under Federal control and Federal protection, so Federal forces already had it, there was no "seizing" to be done.

That being said, Lyon believed that the small Garrison of 40 Federal troops was inadequate to protect it from capture, and with Blair began helping to arm and train a pro-union militia to supplement the Union forces. While it's true this action was not ordered from higher up the chain of command when Lyon began it sometime in late March 1861, these forces also never "seized" the Arsenal, nor had any plans to do so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Lyon#cite_note-Downhour-16

Now, to the real meat of the issue. Hagnar and Harney where recalled becuase of Blair's message, but also becuase Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12th, and another Federal Arsenal in Missouri, the Liberty Arsenal, was attacked on April 20th. Hagnar and Harney were replaced and recalled respectively, because these events lead to orders from Washington for them to organzie a pro Union militia to support Federal forces, orders they did not carry out. By April 23rd, the Wide Awakes where legally organized and armed Federal Militia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_Arsenal#:~:text=The%20St.,Louis%2C%20Missouri.

Moving on the events of the Camp Jackson Affair, we get some just out and out lies by omission.

First and for most, it must be stressed that the Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson had been engaged in secret negotiations with Jefferson Davis since the events of Fort Sumter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claiborne_Fox_Jackson#cite_note-Phillips-8

On May 1st, Jackson order the State Militia to begin mobilizing for "maneuvers", the same State Militia that had already seized the Liberty Arsenal and by May 9th had a shipment of Confederate arms and artilary specifically to help them take the St. Louis Arsenal. They mustered outside of St. Louis, and once Lyon's discovered the Confederate weapons, he surrounded and arrested them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Lyon#cite_ref-15

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Jackson_affair#cite_note-3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Jackson_affair#cite_note-FOOTNOTEParrish1998100-4

The events that followed are deeply contentious and can be argued 100 different ways, but what I think is important is that a Pro-Confederate conspiracy involving the highest Missouri state officials was under way long before the Camp Jackson Affair. While the events forced fence sitters to take sides, the idea it was an example of a radical republican forcing neutral Missourians to defend their state is a wild distortion. For example, Sterling Price had already become a party to Jacksons pro-confederate conspiracy by the time of the Affair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Price

This conspiracy fundamentally changes the way the Harney-Price Truce and resulting negotiations need to be seen. First and formost, the Harney-Price Truce basically restricted Federal troops to St. Louis while letting the new pro-confederate Missouri State Guard move freely through the rest of the state. This, coupled with the now expicite request of both Governor Jackson and General Price for Confederate troops to invade Missouri paints the Truce and the negotiations as a staleing tactic to alow for Confederate forces to move in.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claiborne_Fox_Jackson

The firey quote given form Lyon is accurate, but it's in this context, where he was negotiating over whether or not Missouri would join the Confederacy in fact if not in name that he uttered it. All the notes of Jackson still trying to sound like a Unionist in public have to be seen as nothing but propaganda, as again he was actively seeking for the Confederacy to occupy Missouri for him.

The rest of the article is fine, bit given the massive issues discussed above I will be making extensive edits. Elizabeth Gurely Flyn (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will add sources and citations to the article when I have the time. Elizabeth Gurely Flyn (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems very poorly cited and covers much the same material covered in the Missouri in the American Civil War page. Given the duplication and the much more rigiours content of the later, I propose this in being either deleted or merged. Elizabeth Gurely Flyn (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some good points. The article is in desperate need of sourcing. My take is that this is an interesting enough topic for its own article. There are certainly plenty of reliable sources out there. My inclination would be to improve the sourcing in the article. A merger wouldn’t allow for the level of detail that could be achieved here. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Looks like got work to do lol. Elizabeth Gurely Flyn (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need all the help we can get! Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]