Couple Historical Quibbles

[KillCalvalry]

Great game, but just in the initial playing, I had a couple questions on historical quibbles.

First, loyalty in St. Louis is 95% REB. Historically, St. Louis was solidly Unionist. Yes, significant Reb minority, but definitely a Union majority. I think 70% Union would be more accurate, but easily more than 5%. In particular, St. Louis had a large German immigrant population, and German immigrants were overwhelmingly Unionist.

The other item is an abstraction; CSS Manassas. It's the first operational ironclad on the Mississippi by either side. Historically, this particular ship was pretty limited; only 1 gun, and whlie pretty invulnerable, it wasn't as combat capable as CSS Arkansas or others.

Anyway, 2 minor ones so far, but thought I would point them out

[RebelYell]

Maybe use Lincoln election results to set the regions loyalties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860#Cartographic_gallery

[Ol' Choctaw]

St Louis had pretty strong Confederate sympathies prior to occupation. The troops brought in to arrest the State Guard Militia were Germans, who were very unpopular in the city and my have contributed to the riot. The city also had a large Irish population which was not pro Union.

As RebelYell points out, most loyalties are based on the 1860 election.

As to CSS Manassas. It was a radically different design. It showed its effectiveness in two battles. The game has limited models also.

The effectiveness of Ironclads is not based on the number of guns anyway. Monitors had only one or two guns, where as the CS ships mostly carried considerably more. It was its design. Manassas was low in the water, had sloped armor and a forward firing gun. She broke the Union blockade at Head of Passes, fought in the battle for the forts and even followed the fleet when it ran past. She turned out to be much more of a factor in the battle than the CSS Louisiana with her 16 guns.

[RebelYell]

Maybe some events like the St.Louis massacre takes the loyalty up in every region of the map too much.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Yes, but there is also a chance that the St. Louis Massacre won't happen. 10% chance really. Then the CS force pool is decreased and the Union increased.

Also, CSS Manassas is not as strong as other Ironclads.

[KillCalvalry]

I get the point on 1860 election; St. Louis county though voted for Lincoln. In fact, it was the only county in a slave state outside W. Va that did so. Douglas, another Unionist candidate, finished a close 2nd. The secessionist candidate Breckinridge got less than 10%. Over half the votes that Lincoln received in the entire state of MO came from St. Louis county.

St. Louis was definitely Unionist

[Ol' Choctaw]

You do know that the working class was not enfranchised to vote in that election?

Jews and Catholics were not in the mix. It was primarily Protestant, propertied white men.

Northern German Protestants were the largest group of Union supporters. The Old Missouri Natives, the Irish and southern German Catholics along with the Jewish community were on the other side of the issue. 43% of the population of St. Louis was non voting Irish, who were overwhelmingly southern sympathizers.

So, for St. Louis in particular, voting alone does not tell the whole story.

[KillCalvalry]

You do know that the working class was not enfranchised to vote in that election?

Jews and Catholics were not in the mix. It was primarily Protestant, propertied white men.

Northern German Protestants were the largest group of Union supporters. The Old Missouri Natives, the Irish and southern German Catholics along with the Jewish community were on the other side of the issue. 43% of the population of St. Louis was non voting Irish, who were overwhelmingly southern sympathizers.

So, for St. Louis in particular, voting alone does not tell the whole story.

Perhaps, though I would submit that many Union supporters weren't enfranchised either. But there's no way it's 95% Reb or even majority Reb. In order for that to be close, there would have to be at least 800,000 Southern Catholic sympathizers in the city to outnumber the Lincoln and Doulgas voters (and their wives) to get to that ratio.

The game has alot of things right, but this particular one is wrong.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Perhaps, though I would submit that many Union supporters weren't enfranchised either. But there's no way it's 95% Reb or even majority Reb. In order for that to be close, there would have to be at least 800,000 Southern Catholic sympathizers in the city to outnumber the Lincoln and Doulgas voters (and their wives) to get to that ratio.

The game has alot of things right, but this particular one is wrong.

Those who could not vote (non property owners and non protestant religious faiths) were overwhelmingly pro southern. They needed their jobs and any prospect of freeing Blacks was a threat to them.

The game starts out at about 50-50 and the reaction to the St Louis Massacre drives it down. Use of the RGDs and leaders with Occupier will bring that back up. It is not a matter of it always being 95% pro South. It was not so much anti Union feeling as it was the violation of Missouri’s Neutrality by the Federal troops.

[veji1]

I don't know how it is in CW2 but I remember finding the support %s to be way too dynamic in AACW. It should really stay quite static, or evolve really slowly in one direction based on the length of occupation.

[KillCalvalry]

I hate to keep replying Ol Choctaw, and I understand your point. But if there was that much Southern sympathy, why didn't they enlist in the Confederate army? The Union army enlisted alot more Missourians than the Rebs did. I'm not disputing the heavy Southern support, particularly in Southern MO (which voted for Breckinridge). But even unionist Northern MO didn't vote for Lincoln. (mostly Douglas, some Bell)

Ultimately, the St. Louis Massacre didn't so much as change attitudes, as much as harden them. What secessionists saw as a slaughter of legally gathered civilians protesting government overreach, Unionsts saw as the restoration of law and order from an unruly mob.

And no doubt Catholics were discriminated against, but alot more ultimately found their way into the Union army than the Confederate. And Irish/German Catholics were generally opposed to slavery.

[Ol' Choctaw]

There were several Militia Regiments for St Louis its self. Most predated the war and took part in bleeding Kansas. The Washington Blues was one of them, the others I have forgotten ATM.

I think that 2 or three of them are what formed Kelley’s Irish Brigade.

As you said it hardened attitudes and troops had to protect the Germans from everyone else.

They did oppose slavery for Christian reasons, but they still didn’t want blacks to take their jobs and the Irish, as always supported those they saw as the underdog. As to why South German Catholics supported the south, I have no clue. Perhaps it was out of spite for the North Germans.

There is not much that makes sense about the war from today’s viewpoint. They saw things differently.

There were many abolitionist that felt the war was wrong and supported the CSA a right and legal to secede , and the Union as wrong to try and prevent it. Many were killed, to include a few South Germans who were mistaken for the other group.

At the beginning St Louis was a holey mess. It quieted down during the fall and winter, when they saw no Confederates were coming and most became Unionist, at least outwardly.

[Le Ricain]

You do know that the working class was not enfranchised to vote in that election?

Jews and Catholics were not in the mix. It was primarily Protestant, propertied white men.

Northern German Protestants were the largest group of Union supporters. The Old Missouri Natives, the Irish and southern German Catholics along with the Jewish community were on the other side of the issue. 43% of the population of St. Louis was non voting Irish, who were overwhelmingly southern sympathizers.

So, for St. Louis in particular, voting alone does not tell the whole story.

I am afraid that you got your numbers mixed up. In the 1860 census, the largest ethnic group in St Louis was the German population (33%). The Irish community was 19%. You are correct that the Irish supported the Confederacy. The primary reason was that the dominant group, the Germans, were pro-Union.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Yes, I fear my percentage of Irish came from an earlier date. Germans had become the larger group. This caused a terrible backlash, however. Anti-German feelings were quite high.

Also what percentage of South Germans vs. North Germans there were is not clear. Most of these were Anti slavery .

But the issue is more complex. Most of the population opposed the North Germans to such a degree that it influenced their loyalties and were likely to take the opposing side. Further, Antislavery did not always mean pro Union even in the German community.

John Wimer, recent past Mayor of St Louis, was a free soiler and abolitionist. He spoke out against Lyon’s handing of the troops and the massacre, was promptly arrested, he escaped and joined the Confederates as a colonel. He was killed in battle.

Missouri had been firmly for staying in the Union prior to the St Louis Massacre. Sterling Price was pro Union. But Missouri was neutral. The arrest of the State Guard was seen as a violation of that. The massacre and continuing violence by the troops pushed many over the edge. A peace agreement was reached and then violated by the Federals. Naturally this made for a deep divide.

Missouri is deeply complex. It had tried to be neutral as Kentucky did and wanted the Federal Government out. Lyon and Frank Blair conspired in secret to arm pro Republican militia and arrest the State Guard. And Lyon conspired against his commander, declared war on Missouri and broke a peace agreement made by his commander.

Things could have turned out much different.

[Le Ricain]

It is important to remember the role played by Governor Jackson in trying to take Missouri out of the Union. He conspired with Missouri banks to secretly divert funds from the banks to maintain the Missouri Volunteer Militia. These funds had not been authorised by the Missouri legislature. His decision to have the MVM conduct manoeuvres at Fort Jackson, located near to St Louis was seen as a first step to seizing the St Louis Arsenal.


I am unaware of Lyon conspiring against his commander, General Harney. It was Congressman Frank Blair that lobbied Lincoln to have Harney replaced. However, I am aware of Price's and Jackson's failure to uphold the terms of the Price-Harney Truce, which required the MVM to protect Missouri Unionists from abuses. Jackson's continued negotiations with the Confederacy, the failure of MVM/MSG to protect Missouri Unionists and provisions in the Missouri Military Bill that violated the truce agreement forced Lincoln to replace Harney with Lyon. The elevation of Lyon effectively ended the Price-Harney Truce agreement.

The tragedy in Missouri could have been avoided, but the blame for it can not be put all on the Unionists.

[Ol' Choctaw]

History does not present it in such a pro Union fashion as you do. I will try to present it from an objective view of the past. Or maybe more a Missouri perspective.

The war in Missouri did not have to happen.

Most of the blame for that can go to Senator Blair and ample left over for Captain Lyon.

Jackson did want control of the arsenal, that is true but I am unaware of any overtures toward the Confederacy prior to the “Camp Jackson Affair”. It was more that Blair feared him taking the state out.

I want you to have a perspective on what was going on.

When the deep south seceded Missouri took a stance of armed neutrality. The citizens of the state overwhelmingly supported this stance.

Blair, with help from the Lincoln administration, sought to secure Missouri for the Union and use it as a springboard to attack the south.

You can attribute the direct causes of secession to party politics and the news media of the day.

During the Presidential race even Democratic candidate, Stephan A. Douglas, played on the fears of the South by stating, "Mr. Lincoln advocated boldly and clearly a war of section, a war of the North against the slave States--a war of extermination to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall be subdued, and all the States shall either become free or become slave." (9 July 1858, Chicago, IL) While Southern newspapers, all of them pro-Democrat,* picked up every word of Douglas' warning, none of them printed Lincoln's rebuttal to the contrary.

The Republican Banner and Nashville Whig on 25 October 1859 regarding the Brown raid railed, "...that the "irrepressible conflict" proclaimed by Seward, was the direct cause of the outbreak, and the Republican party are responsible for retaining Seward at the head of their councils. Instead of repudiating Brown and his fanatical followers as the Republican party all do, they can only vindicate their party with success, by repudiating Seward and all those who proclaim sentiments calculated to fire the minds of fanatics."--THE "IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT." (note while this paper was called the "Republican Banner", it was of Democrat sentiments.)* Southern papers also claimed Seward was one of the conspirators that funded the John Brown raid. So it seems Seward, who Lincoln would select as part of his cabinet, may have been feared as much as* Lincoln himself.

For the upper South, while the fear of abolitionist instigated violence was always a concern,* it was generally believed that secession would not fix that problem. After all, abolitionist could always overrun their borders and unlike the deep South, they had no border States to buffer the northern threat. Due to this close proximity to the North, the upper South sought to remain a part of the United States. As long as the Federal government respected State sovereignty they could live with Abraham Lincoln being President.*
After the lower South seceded, Lincoln made the call for Federal troops to invade the lower South. Worse yet, Lincoln wanted the loyal Southern States to contribute troops and assist with the invasion. It was Stephen Douglas' premonition of a "war of extermination" coming true.* Following Lincoln's April 1861 call for troops, the States of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia seceded. Although Missouri vacillated with varying sentiments, Gov. Claiborne Fox Jackson replied to the President, "Sir:--Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional and revolutionary; in its object inhuman & diabolical. Not one man will Missouri furnish to carry on any such unholy crusade against her Southern sisters.

Blair and Lyon had secretly raise a Republican militia and armed them with equipment taken from the Arsenal, without the knowledge or permission of Harney.

Federal troops were to leave Missouri and turn over their facilities to the state.

In March some secessionists fortified a house and raised a secessionist flag. The “wide awakes” (Republican militia) clash with them but the state troops keep the sides separated.

On the day after the shelling of Ft Sumter a mob of pro-secessionists broke into Liberty Arsenal and declared it state property. The cannon sized there were sent down to Camp Jackson.

In the interim of waiting for federal troops to leave Gov. Jackson is becoming more of a southern sympathizer. (hard to fallow that a governor would lose patients with the Federal Government)
In May, General Harney is out of town.
It is said that Jackson planed to use the militia to take the Arsenal.(He sure didn’t have enough to do the job) Lyon moves the remaining arms across the river. He then dresses as a woman and spies on the camp. He finds only 100 men. A company and the 4 guns from Liberty. The next day he and Blair take 6,000 (German Republican Militia) men and surround the camp, arresting them for possession of federal property.
The crowd was upset that the State Militia was arrested, not southern sympathizers. Massacre ensues, 28 men, women, and children are killed, 50 plus wounded. Several days of anti-German rioting ensue in which around 100 more die.

The day after the massacre the state legislature votes Jackson broad powers and the State Guard is created. By this time it is fair to say that Jackson is a southern sympathizer, openly. He writes to Davis and asks for cannon.

Harney returns and brokers a peace with Price returning the men and the guns.

Union troop hold St Louis, the state says they will keep Unionists safe.

Blair is outraged. He and Lyon work to have Harney replaced by Lyon.

When Harney is replaced Lyon discards the peace and prepares to march on the capitol in Jefferson City. In a last ditch effort Price and members of the Governors staff meet with Lyon. (Hard to believe for rabid secessionists)

How ever long the meeting took, Lyon abruptly ends it by shouting:
"Rather, than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter however important, I would see you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman, and child in the State, dead and buried!" Then after pausing, "This means war. In an hour of my will call for you and conduct you out of my lines." Lyon, then spun "around on his heel, he strode out of the room, his saber clanking." That began the war in Missouri.

Likely he meant it too. He was promoted to Captain for another massacre.

[Mickey3D]

The war in Missouri did not have to happen.

I don't know all the details about the Missouri (on which you have a very impressive knowledge) but I strongly believe it is an illusion to think a state could have stayed outside the war when all others were ablaze.

You are describing nothing else than the strong forces at work to bring the state into the abyss. If it wasn't for Jackson, Lyon, Price, Blair, ... something or someone else would have set the state to fire.

As soon as a war starts, it creates a kind of momentum and attractive forces prohibiting any mid-position : unfortunately there is no more place for accomodating mind in war.

[Ol' Choctaw]

To an extent I agree with you. We have the benefit of hindsight. The State Convention voted 98 to 1 for their armed neutrality. They did not wish to leave the Union, nor did they wish to fight against other southerners. If it had not been Blair, perhaps some other ambitious politician could have contrived it.
Jackson himself may have done so, however unlikely that may have been. Not because he lacked the will but more because he lacked any support up to that point.

[Le Ricain]

I am afraid that you are incorrect in your timeline. Jackson did not request cannon from the Confederacy after the St Louis massacre. It was the arrival of the requested cannon in Missouri that triggered Lyon's attack on Camp Jackson. The cannon had been requested four weeks earler.

The role of Governor Jackson in taking Missouri into war can not be discounted. More than any other man, not Blair, not Lyon, Jackson was instrumental in thwarting the will of the people of Missouri and attempting to take the state out of the Union.

-Jackson was not a moderate Southerner. In 1854, he had led pro-slavery militias from Missouri into Kansas to attack Abolitionists.
-On Jan 4, 1861, Jackson was sworn in as governor. In his inaugural address he called for a state convention to consider secession.
-The large number of pro-Union men elected to the state assembly in the Nov 1860 election were enough to block Jackson's attempts to arm the state militia.
-In the election for the Missouri State Convention pro-Union delegates out poll pro-Secession delegates by 110,000 votes to 30,000 votes.
-Despite Jackson's address to the convention urging secession, the convention voted on March 21, by a vote of 98-1, to remain in the Union.
-Jackson & MO State Banking Commissioner, Sterling Price, attempt to illegally divert a $500,000 bank loan intended for bond repayment to arming the militia. Scheme was discovered and blocked.
-Four weeks after the convention, on April 17, Jackson ordered MG Daniel Frost, Missouri State Guard, to seize the St Louis arsenal. Also, on this day, Jackson sent envoys to President Davis in Montgomery and to the state of Virginia requesting siege artillery.
-On April 19, Jackson wrote to the Arkansas Convention stating that Missouri should be ready to secede in 30 days.
-On May 8, the requested siege guns, which had been seized from the Baton Rouge arsenal, arrived in St Louis. Their arrival triggers Lyon's attack on Frost at Camp Jackson on May 10.
-Marching back into St Louis, an angry crowd fired on the Federal troops, fatally wounding Cpt Constantin Blandowski. The troops return fire, killing 28 and starting the St Louis riots.
-In May, Jackson with the help of pro-Southern bank managers begins a program of defrauding banks and their investors by illegally transferring money to pay for the Missouri State Guard. The funds are sent to Jackson through 1861.
-On May 21, the Price-Harney Truce is signed.
-On May 30, Harney was replaced by Lyon.

The bank frauds initiated by Jackson and sympathetic bank managers was to have a profound and lasting effect upon Missouri. Beginning in 1863, the federal government began chasing the bank managers through the courts to recover the funds that had been sent to fund the Confederates. The bank managers were of the planter segment of the population. The courts seized their plantations for auction. Such was the extent of these prosecutions, that the Southern planter class disappeared from the Missouri landscape. It has been said that today Missouri is regarded as a mid western state and not a southern state for this reason.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Jackson was pro confederate and former head of the Democratic Party in the state. But he was also delusional if he thought he could take Missouri out of the Union. I also found where he had told Arkansas that Missouri would be ready to secede in 30 days. I found it rather pathetic.

When dealing with the material, there are pro Confederate sources and pro Union ones. I am trying to find that middle ground.

I have found nothing on the banking scandal. Price was a conditional Unionist to the end (Lyon’s declaration of war). I find it plausible but more after the legislature granted him extreme powers, in the wake of the Camp Jackson Affair. How much of it is colored by propaganda or anti southern sentiments during the war, is hard to say.

Pro Union sources say that Lyon was reacting to an arms shipment. Other sources say it was the maneuvers of the state militia marching around St Louis that led to it. The four guns found at camp Jackson were returned to the militia when they were freed. The battery was used at Wilson’s creek and at Pea Ridge, where I think they were abandoned and recaptured by the Union. The guns of that battery were the ones taken at Liberty. They were 6 lb guns.

The guns from Baton Rouge were two 20lb guns. Two other guns of different sizes made up the battery sent by Davis. These were used at New Madrid in the battle of Island #10, where I believe they were recaptured as they were too heavy to drag into the swamps. Many sources claim they were the shipment that arrived May 8th but I don’t see it as well supported. They were not captured at Camp Jackson but do make for a very good story in support of Lyon and the Union cause. Those guns my have been sitting in Memphis on that date.

Missouri was not a cotton state. The plantations there grew hemp and tobacco. Slave holders in Missouri were no less likely to be pro Union as anyone else. Most of the divisions in Missouri came out of the St Louis Massacre and its aftermath.

Anti-German feelings also played a significant part in and around St Louis. The riots were as much or more anti-German as pro Confederate. Nativism and anti-German sentiments went back to the early 1850 and feeling ran deep.

In fairness, I do find that Jackson’s scheming would excite pro Unionists but he was fighting a losing battle. The plan put forward for the siege and capture of the arsenal are grandiose and require thousands of men and many guns. None of this was available to him. If these were indeed his plans, he was dreaming. The arsenal is not the only military installation there. It was part of Jefferson Barracks. On the site was also Benton Barracks. There was at least 2nd Infantry Regiment and various guns defending it. But the odds against him do not make for a good tale, for either side. Had he tried to seize the government, it would have more likely resulted in his hanging, rather than dieing from cancer some months later.

Rather than “Save Missouri for the Union“, it seems to me that Blair and Lyon managed to excite far more southern sympathies than Jackson ever could have on his own, divisions that plagued the state long after the war.

The confiscation of property was much used and abused as much for political reasons and personal grudge as any others. Often it was just a witch hunt. I don’t think that would be a good idea to bring into the discussion.

[Le Ricain]

Reading your post, I think that the only point where we are in disagreement is where the Baton Rouge guns were in on May 8, 1861. Whether the guns were actually present or were just used as a reason to attack is a question that will probably never be answered. It is probably not important in the end. Lyon would have used the guns as an excuse, regardless of the actual truth.

The banking scandal and the resulting elimination of the Missouri Planter Class is covered in the attached, which you might find of interest:

http://www.thebhc.org/publications/BEHonline/2005/geiger.pdf
http://www.international.ucla.edu/economichistory/geiger/mgresearch.pdf

[Gen.DixonS.Miles]

Very compelling works I must say.

[caranorn]

Nope Ol'Choctaw, the 2nd Infantry was not at the barracks. There only was one company (B) of that regiment plus I believe a few raw recruits. At one point during the crisis I believe there also was a battery (F 2nd Artillery) (with or without guns?) present, but iirc it was ordered or otherwise taken out of the equasion at an early time. So I'd expect there were fewer than a hundred armed men in the barracks and at the arsenal before the unionist militia were sworn into service and armed by Lyon. So had Jackson moved on the arsenal at that time he would have had no problem to take over the stocks (and almost certainly without a shot fired)...

[Ol' Choctaw]

There were 6000 Union troops at Camp Jackson. 5000 of those were the German Militia. There were only a few dozen troops under Lyon’s direct command at the arsenal but many at the two barracks. There may also have been a cavalry detachment. Lyon was an officer of 2nd Cavalry which also had a connection with Jefferson Barracks. Notice all the twos connected with it. When Lyon arrived in March 61 his posting was as company commander of Co. B, 2nd Infantry Regiment. Through the influence of Blair he was named commander of St Louis Arsenal.

It makes for a much better story if you only consider the troops at the arsenal though.

When Harney was relived Lyon some how gained the 2nd Infantry, artillery, and cavalry to lead on to Jefferson City.

[oberst_klink]

Oh well, peeps. Here's something that might shed some light on it.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WilsonsC

I can recommend the whole C-SPAN series of lectures, round table discussions, etc.

Klink, Oberst
1st MO. Vols.

[caranorn]

There were 6000 Union troops at Camp Jackson. 5000 of those were the German Militia. There were only a few dozen troops under Lyon’s direct command at the arsenal but many at the two barracks. There may also have been a cavalry detachment. Lyon was an officer of 2nd Cavalry which also had a connection with Jefferson Barracks. Notice all the twos connected with it. When Lyon arrived in March 61 his posting was as company commander of Co. B, 2nd Infantry Regiment. Through the influence of Blair he was named commander of St Louis Arsenal.

It makes for a much better story if you only consider the troops at the arsenal though.

When Harney was relived Lyon some how gained the 2nd Infantry, artillery, and cavalry to lead on to Jefferson City.

9 Missouri regiments (4 of them reserves for in state service only) were raised with the first call for volunteers. So once Lyon started arming and swearing in the militia numbers of Union troops in Saint Louis rose fast, particularly as most of those regiments were at maxium authorised strength. By the way, of those 9 regiments only two could be considered non german...

As to 2nd cavalry, for april all of the companies of that regiment seem to have been west of Missouri, the closest being co. C an K in Kansas, the rest in posts in Nebraska, Utah and New Mexico. I'm not sure of the location of the regimental HQ's (I have the HQ in my file, but no location given for most), though there might have been a depot related to the 2nd cavalry (I assume you mean the original 2nd dragoons later 2nd cavalry and not the original 2nd cavalry and later 5th cavalry) in Saint Louis...