Criticism, Art and Theory in 1970s

Britain: The Critical War (British Art:

Histories and Interpretations since
1700) 1st Edition Jj Charlesworth
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/criticism-art-and-theory-in-1970s-britain-the-critical-w
ar-british-art-histories-and-interpretations-since-1700-1st-edition-jj-charlesworth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Why is that art?: aesthetics and criticism of

contemporary art Barrett

https://textbookfull.com/product/why-is-that-art-aesthetics-and-
criticism-of-contemporary-art-barrett/

European Art and the Wider World 1350 1550 Art and its
Global Histories 1 1st Edition Christian

https://textbookfull.com/product/european-art-and-the-wider-
world-1350-1550-art-and-its-global-histories-1-1st-edition-
christian/

Autotheory as Feminist Practice in Art, Writing, and

Criticism 1st Edition Lauren Fournier

https://textbookfull.com/product/autotheory-as-feminist-practice-
in-art-writing-and-criticism-1st-edition-lauren-fournier/

Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering, Fourth

Edition: Volume 3A: Chemical and Biochemical Reactors
and Reaction Engineering R. Ravi

https://textbookfull.com/product/coulson-and-richardsons-
chemical-engineering-fourth-edition-volume-3a-chemical-and-
biochemical-reactors-and-reaction-engineering-r-ravi/
Explorations in Cinema through Classical Indian
Theories: New Interpretations of Meaning, Aesthetics,
and Art Gopalan Mullik

https://textbookfull.com/product/explorations-in-cinema-through-
classical-indian-theories-new-interpretations-of-meaning-
aesthetics-and-art-gopalan-mullik/

Art Since 1900 Modernism Antimodernism Postmodernism

Hal Foster

https://textbookfull.com/product/art-since-1900-modernism-
antimodernism-postmodernism-hal-foster/

Grand illusions : American art and the First World War

1st Edition Lubin

https://textbookfull.com/product/grand-illusions-american-art-
and-the-first-world-war-1st-edition-lubin/

Democratising Beauty in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Art

and the Politics of Public Life Lucy Hartley

https://textbookfull.com/product/democratising-beauty-in-
nineteenth-century-britain-art-and-the-politics-of-public-life-
lucy-hartley/

A Little History of Art Little Histories 4th Edition

Mullins

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-little-history-of-art-little-
histories-4th-edition-mullins/
‘JJ Charlesworth has tackled a generation of polemics and
personalities through the prism of art criticism in the 1970s. Artists,
museums, galleries, writers, collectors and publics: this “critical war”
concerns us all.’
—Sarah Wilson, Courtauld Institute of Art
Criticism, Art and Theory in
1970s Britain

A critical study of the life of art criticism in the 1970s, this volume
traces the evolution of art and art criticism in a pivotal period in
post-war British history.
JJ Charlesworth explores how art critics and the art press
attempted to negotiate new developments in art, faced with the
challenges of conceptualism, alternative media, new social
movements and radical innovations in philosophy and theory. This is
the first comprehensive study of the art press and art criticism in
Britain during this pivotal period, seen through the lens of its art
press, charting the arguments and ideas that would come to shape
contemporary art as we know it today.
This book will be of interest to scholars working in art history,
British cultural history and history of journalism.

JJ Charlesworth is an art critic, writer, lecturer and editor at

ArtReview magazine.
British Art: Histories and
Interpretations since 1700
Series Editors: Pamela Fletcher, Bowdoin College
Andrew Stephenson, University of East London

This series exists to publish new and rigorous scholarship of the

highest quality on British art after 1700.

Mass-Observation and Visual Culture

Depicting Everyday Lives in Britain
Lucy D. Curzon

The British School of Sculpture, c.1760-1832

Edited by Jason Edwards and Sarah Burnage

Visual Culture in the Northern British Archipelago

Imagining Islands
Edited by Ysanne Holt, David Martin-Jones, and Owain Jones

Artangel and Financing British Art

Adapting to Social and Economic Change
Charlotte Gould

Victorian Artists’ Autograph Replicas

Auras, Aesthetics, Patronage and the Art Market
Edited by Julie F. Codell
British Art and the Environment
Changes, Challenges and Responses Since the Industrial Revolution
Edited by Charlotte Gould and Sophie Mesplède

Illustration in Fin-de-Siècle Transatlantic Romance Fiction

Kate Holterhoff

Eighteenth-century Engravings and Visual History in Britain

Isabelle Baudino

Criticism, Art and Theory in 1970s Britain

The Critical War
JJ Charlesworth

For more information about this series, please visit:

www.routledge.com/British-Art-Histories-and-Interpretations-since-
1700/book-series/ASHSER4020
Criticism, Art and Theory in
1970s Britain
The Critical War

JJ Charlesworth
Designed cover image: Richard Hamilton, The Critic Laughs, 1971–72, electric
toothbrush, false teeth, presentation case, 24 x 27 x 16 cm. © R. Hamilton. All
Rights Reserved, DACS 2023

First published 2024

by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2024 Taylor & Francis

The right of JJ Charlesworth to be identified as author of this work has been

asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.

ISBN: 978-1-138-48080-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-72524-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-06198-8 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781351061988

Typeset in Sabon
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
To my parents, Françoise and Joe
Contents

List of figures
Acknowledgements

Introduction

1 Towards the new art: The artist as theorist in Studio

International, 1967–1970

2 Art criticism in the alternative press, 1971–1973

3 Looking for the subject: Peter Fuller and the new critics, 1970–
1976

4 Young conservatives: From ONE to Artscribe, 1973–1976

5 The first ‘crisis of criticism’, 1976–1979

Bibliography
Index
Figures

1.1 Cover of Studio International, January 1966,

Vol. 171 No. 873.
1.2 Cover of Studio International, January 1969,
Vol. 177 No. 907.
1.3 Studio International, April 1969, Vol. 177 No.
910 (cover).
2.1 Cover of INK, 1 September 1971.
2.2 Peter Wollen, ‘Surreallism’, 7 Days No. 11,
Wednesday 12 January, 1972.
2.3 Laura Mulvey, ‘You Don’t Know What Is
Happening, Do You, Mr. Jones?’, Spare Rib,
February 1973. Graphic designer: Kate Hepburn.
2.4 Laura Mulvey, ‘The Hole Truth’, Spare Rib,
November 1973. Graphic designer: Rose Verney.
3.1 Cover of ‘Critic's Choice’, exhibition catalogue,
March 1973.
3.2 Cover of Synthesis, Issue 1, 1969.
3.3 Peter Fuller, ‘What's a Poor Artist to do?’, 7 Days
No. 7, 8 December 1971.
3.4 Studio International, September/October 1976,
Vol. 192 No. 983 (cover).
4.1 Cover of ONE, No. 1, October 1973.
4.2 John Hoyland, ‘A Letter the Guardian Wouldn’t
Publish’, ONE No. 5, November 1974.
4.3 ‘Slab’, Artscribe Issue 1, January-February 1976.
4.4 Cover of Artscribe Issue 1, January-February
1976.
5.1 Cover of Studio International, February 1978,
Vol. 194 No. 989.
Acknowledgements

This book started with a doctoral thesis undertaken at the Royal

College of Art and I gratefully acknowledge the support of the
AHRC's doctoral award, without which the period of research for that
thesis would not have been possible. At the Royal College, my
thanks go to Jonathan Miles, Martina Margetts, the late Al Rees and
Lucy Soutter for their enthusiasm and support for the thesis.
Profound thanks go to Neil Mulholland, whose earlier research into
British art in the late 1970s and early 1980s was a key reference
point, and whose encouragement and insight helped shape the
original project.
I am grateful to critics and artists who gave me their opinions,
recollections and insights in the course of my research: Andrew
Brighton, Richard Cork, Matthew Collings, Caroline Tisdall, Barry
Martin, James Faure Walker, Adrian Searle, John Stezaker and John
Blandy. My thanks also go to my colleagues at ArtReview magazine,
whose 70-year archive was an invaluable reference.
The reproductions included in the book were supported by a
publication grant from the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British
Art, which I gratefully acknowledge. My thanks go to those who
have kindly given permission for the various reproductions: Barry
Martin, Laura Mulvey, Marsha Rowe, Penelope Slinger, James Faure
Walker, the Studio Trust, the Estate of Peter Fuller, Anthony Barnett
and the Barry Amiel & Norman Melburn Trust, and the Estate of
Richard Hamilton. Special thanks go to Isabella Vitti and the editorial
staff at Routledge for their professionalism and encouragement in
bringing this book to publication.
Lastly, my gratitude goes to my wife, Jennifer Thatcher, for her
support and encouragement throughout the long period this book
was put together.
This book is dedicated to my parents, Françoise and Joe.
Introduction
DOI: 10.4324/9781351061988-1

Criticism, Art and Theory in 1970s Britain: the Critical War examines
the history of British art criticism during the uncertain years from
1968 to 1976, a period in which ideas about art, who could write
about art, and the publications in which it could be written about
changed radically. In the wake of the cultural and political upheavals
catalysed by the events of May 1968, a wave of new theoretical,
political and philosophical approaches was taken up by artists and
writers throughout Western Europe and North America. These
developments would come to challenge the then-established
relationship between who made visual art and who wrote about it,
pitting the art and criticism which had taken shape during the post-
war years against writers and artists increasingly conversant with
these more radical critical and theoretical perspectives. Meanwhile,
the economic and social crises that beset Britain during the 1970s
undermined the market for contemporary art, with serious
consequences for the culture and economy of art criticism found in
the established art press. In this fluid and unpredictable moment,
writing about art was no longer the monopoly of art critics and
specialist art magazines, as new publications and writers, reflecting
magazine's staging of the critical debates over the reputation of the
American critic Clement Greenberg, and the form of modernist
criticism he had come to represent; alongside this, the critical
themes that preoccupied both critics and artists, about the
development of science, of aesthetic and visual technologies and the
effects of consumer culture, began to sideline the more exclusive
form of the modernist critical text, with its hermetic relationship to
specific forms of painting and sculpture. Meanwhile, the growing
uncertainty over the authority of the critical text and the editorial
form of criticism (the critic pronouncing on the art) showed up in the
magazine's increasingly frequent publication of unmediated critical
material; the artist's statement, the interview conversation and the
artist-authored critical text. Before long, the idea of art as something
nominated and explained by the artist would present the possibility
of art that required no mediation, and therefore no criticism –
replaced instead by the conceptual artist's meta-critical or theoretical
reformulations of art's ontological and epistemological status, as
witnessed in published contributions by Joseph Kosuth, Victor
Burgin, Art & Language and others.
What the extreme nominalist approach of these early
conceptualist writings highlighted was how subjective experience
could be framed by theoretical frameworks – in linguistic philosophy
and psychology – which tended to objectify it. Meanwhile, even
artists supposedly closely associated with formalist approaches to
the art object – sculptors associated with London's St Martins School
of Art, for which discursive reflection was an important aspect of
studio pedagogy – became self-critical of their reliance on the
language of the criticism they themselves employed, and the
eventually circular relationship between the object and the critical
terms of the discourse brought to it. Their response, however, was
to opt for a withdrawal from the mediation of language to a position
where the ‘self-evidence’ and autonomy of the artwork would be
privileged over subjective reflection and artistic intervention.
Where Chapter 1 looks at the critical and artistic conflicts of
interest that occur with a prestigious and institutionally well-
connected specialist art magazine, Chapter 2 follows the more
precarious activity of critical writing on art in the underground and
radical press in London between 1971 and 1973: the short-lived
counterculture weekly INK, the New Left publications Black Dwarf,
Red Mole and the weekly 7 Days, and the pioneering feminist
magazine Spare Rib.
All of these made attempts to cover visual art as part of their
broader political and cultural agendas. While based on very different
cultural and political perspectives, what links these publications is
their coverage of the arts and mass culture as subjects for political
analysis and intervention. While marginal to the culture of specialist
art magazines, these publications present early attempts at
articulating new theoretical approaches to visual art and visual
culture: 7 Days publishes art and film criticism by Peter Wollen and
Laura Mulvey, in which the background influence of the film studies
journal Screen, in its editorial turn to French Structuralism, is
apparent, while psychoanalysis became a key reference point for the
early feminist art criticism to appear in Spare Rib, offering a platform
for Mulvey's psychoanalytically driven art criticism. Between these
publications, the chapter finds points of contact between the critics’
broader theoretical agendas and particular works, to observe how
artworks are incorporated into, or otherwise remain resistant, to the
critic's use of theory as an interpretative tool. Each publication offers
a different configuration of that encounter, in which the editorial
scope of the publication determines the extent to which close
criticism of artworks is balanced against more systematic theoretical
claims.
While Chapter 2 discusses visual art criticism as it appeared in
publications that shared positions marginal to the established critical
economy of art, Chapter 3 shifts the focus to the writing of one
critic, Peter Fuller, whose prolific output in both specialist and
generalist publications during the first half of the 1970s makes him a
significant example of a new generation of young art critics who
became prominent in those years. Placing him in the context of his
peers, among them the newspaper critics Richard Cork and Caroline
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Lyon, as well as Colonel Blair, were equally blind to the advantages
of this movement, and could not be made to see how the
Government or the State of Missouri could be benefitted by a
surrender of the field to the secessionists. Jackson and Price, finding
their negotiations altogether vain, and under a previous arrangement
that they were not to be arrested or interfered with before the 12th,
returned to Jefferson City on the same night, and prepared for an
immediate hostile demonstration. General Lyon, convinced that the
only effective treatment demanded by the occasion consisted in an
instant arrest of the conspirators, if possible, started up the river,
and occupied Jefferson City on the 15th, the place having been
abandoned by the rebels. On the 16th, he started in pursuit of Price
and Jackson, and on the 17th landed about four miles below
Booneville, where their forces were collected, and had resolved to
make a stand.
 BATTLE OF BOONEVILLE.

June 17, 1861.

The enemy were exceedingly well posted, having had every

advantage in the selection of their position. They occupied the
summit of the ground, which rises upward from the river in a long
slope, and were prepared to give the loyal troops a warm reception.
General Lyon opened a heavy cannonade against the rebels, who
retreated and dispersed into the adjacent wood, where, hidden by
bushes and trees, they opened a brisk fire on his troops.
Arriving at the brow of the ascent, Captain Totten renewed the
engagement by throwing a few nine-pounder explosives into their
ranks, while the infantry filed oblique right and left and commenced
a terrible volley of musketry, which was, for a short time, well replied
to. The enemy were posted in a lane running towards the river from
the road along which the army of the United States were advancing,
and in a brick house on the north-east corner of the junction of the
two roads. A couple of bombs were thrown through the east wall of
that house, scattering the rebels in all directions. The well-directed
fire of the German infantry, Lieutenant-Colonel Schaeffer, on the
right, and General Lyon’s company of regulars and part of Colonel
Blair’s regiment on the left of the road, soon compelled the enemy to
seek a safer position. They clambered over the fence into a field of
wheat, and again formed in line just on the brow of the hill. They
then advanced some twenty steps to meet the Federal troops, and for
a short time the artillery was worked with great rapidity and effect.
Just at this time the enemy opened fire from a grove on the left of
Lyon’s centre, and from a shed beyond and still further to the left.
 General Lyon halted, faced his troops about, and bringing his
artillery to bear, opened fire on the rebels, and after a short
engagement, killed thirty-five and took thirty prisoners, while the
remainder fled in all directions, leaving many of their guns on the
field. This accomplished, the General moved forward and took
possession of the town. Neither General Price nor Governor Jackson
were on the field of battle, though the latter was a spectator, and took
an early opportunity to withdraw.
On the 17th of June, Colonel Boernstein was appointed Military
Governor at Jefferson City, including Cole and the adjoining
counties, the Governor and officers of the State having fled. Colonel
Boernstein, on being questioned as to how long he should remain,
replied, “I don’t know, perhaps a year; so long as the Governor
chooses to stay away. I am Governor now, you see, till he comes
back!” His idea of freedom of speech and the press he expressed
freely, like this: “All people zall speak vot dey tink, write vot dey
pleazhe, and be free to do any tink dey pleazhe—only dey zall speak
and write no treason!”
The loyal people of the State now entered with zeal into the work
of defence. Union Home Guards were organized at Hannibal,
Herman, Rolla, Potosi, and many other places, and troops stationed
at various points, of which two thousand five hundred kept guard
over the Hannibal and St. Joseph, and one thousand over the North
Missouri railroad; three thousand took their position also at Rolla,
on the south-west branch of the Pacific railroad.
At Booneville, on the 18th, General Lyon issued a proclamation, in
which he exposed the misrepresentations of the conspirators. The
views they had endeavored to inculcate, that the United States would
overrun the State with “military despotism,” and “destroy State
rights,” were pronounced false—the glaring inconsistencies of the
secessionists exposed,—and all malcontents solicited to return to
their allegiance to the old flag.
On the same day, eight hundred Union Home Guards, under
Captain Cooke, at Camp Cole, were surprised and routed by a body of
rebels from Warsaw. Twenty-five were killed, fifty-two wounded, and
twenty-three taken prisoners. The rebel loss was forty-five killed and
wounded. At this time, Colonel Siegel, General Sweeney, and Colonel
Brown, with their commands, were in the south-western part of the
State, keeping the insurgents at bay.
General Price and Jackson were employed in raising all the
turbulent elements of the State, and rallying followers to their
standard. They were also greatly inspirited in their labors by the
rumor that Ben. McCulloch was approaching with eight or ten
thousand men to aid them in the overthrow of the government. On
the 3d of July, General Lyon left Booneville with two thousand men,
for the south-west. General Sweeney, who was in command of the
south-west expedition, at Springfield, published a proclamation to
the people, inviting them to remain loyal, and warning all rebels to
disperse, take the oath of allegiance, and escape the penalties of their
lawless career.
 BATTLE OF CARTHAGE.

July 4, 1861.

Colonel Siegel arrived at Springfield on the 23d of June, and there

learned that the rebel troops, under Jackson, were making their way
southwardly through Cedar county. He immediately proceeded with
his command, numbering over a thousand men, and a small field
battery, towards Mount Vernon, for the purpose of intercepting him.
On arriving at that point, he learned that General Price, in command
of one thousand two hundred of the State troops, was encamped at
Neosho, the county seat of Newton county, situated in the south-west
corner of the State. His object there was to prevent Jackson going
south, or Price going north. He appears to have decided to move
southwardly and capture Price if possible, and afterwards attend to
the Governor.
As he neared Neosho, on the 30th, the reports began to come in of
the strength of Price, until his force was swelled to thirty-five
hundred men, including Arkansas volunteers. The inhabitants
expressed their welcome for Colonel Siegel, and detailed the most
pitiable accounts of the oppression of the rebel soldiers.
On the 1st of July, the entire force entered the town without
opposition, and encamped there, the enemy having retreated.
On the 2d, Colonel Siegel, learning that the forces of Price, Rains
and Jackson had united at Dry Fork Creek, eight miles from
Carthage, and having communicated with and received orders from
Brig.-Gen. Sweeney, proceeded at once to attack them. He took up
his line of march on the 3d, and on the morning of the 4th came
upon the enemy, who were in great force.
 The Federal command was about one thousand two hundred
strong, including part of Colonel Salomon’s regiment. They met the
enemy in camp on an open prairie, three miles beyond Dry Fork, and
after approaching within eight hundred yards, took position. The
artillery was placed in the front; two six-pounders on the left, two six
and two twelve-pounders in the centre, and two six-pounders on the
right.
The fight commenced about half-past nine, the balls and shells of
the enemy flying over the Union troops, and exploding in the open
prairie.
At eleven o’clock the rebel twelve-pounders were silenced, and
much disorder visible. About two o’clock the enemy’s cavalry having
attempted to outflank the Federal troops, they fell back upon their
baggage trains to prevent their capture, Colonel Siegel changing his
front. Proceeding in their retreat without serious casualty, they
reached Dry Fork Creek, where eight hundred rebel cavalry had
concentrated to cut them off; but a cross-fire of canister and
shrapnell soon broke their ranks, and they fell into wild confusion.
Thence the Federal troops proceeded toward Carthage. Just before
entering the town, Siegel posted three companies at Buck Creek,
while the residue, in two columns, made a circuit around the town,
the artillery pouring in a well-directed fire on the pursuing enemy.
Night was approaching as the retreating army passed through
Carthage, while the rebel horsemen withdrew to the woods on the
Mount Vernon road.
Colonel Sigel, notwithstanding the great fatigue of the day—his
men having been in action nearly twelve hours, and suffering
severely from the heat and from lack of water—ordered his men to
press on in retreat from Carthage. A forced march was made to
Sarcoxie, in the south-east corner of Jasper county, (Carthage being
the county seat,) a distance of twelve or fourteen miles. There they
went into camp at three o’clock Saturday morning. In the afternoon
of the next day, the retreat was continued to Mount Vernon, in
Lawrence county, sixteen or eighteen miles east of Sarcoxie, where
Siegel took a stand, and where his headquarters were located.
The Union loss was thirteen killed and thirty-one wounded; while,
according to the most reliable accounts, the loss of the enemy could
not have been less than three hundred in killed and wounded, and
forty-five prisoners.
 BATTLE AT MONROE, MO.

July 10, 1861.

Before daylight, on the morning of the 10th, Colonel Smith, with

about six hundred men of the Sixteenth Illinois Volunteers, while
encamped near Monroe Station, thirty miles west of Hannibal, was
attacked by one thousand six hundred rebels under the command of
Governor Harris. After a successful skirmish with the enemy, Colonel
Smith retired to the Academy buildings for greater security. Here he
was again attacked by an increased force of the rebels, and again
succeeded in repulsing them. Determined on keeping them at bay, he
sent messengers to Hannibal and other places for reinforcements,
while the long-range rifles of his men told with fearful effect on his
besiegers, and rendered two inferior pieces of artillery which they
had brought to bear on him of but little use.
Three companies from Hannibal arrived first to the rescue, with
two pieces of cannon of superior power to that of the enemy, and
Colonel Smith immediately assumed the offensive. Toward evening,
a body of cavalry under the command of Governor Wood, of Illinois,
arrived and fell upon the rear of the enemy, when the struggle soon
ended, and the rebel besiegers fled, with a loss of thirty killed and
wounded, seventy-five prisoners, one gun, and a large number of
horses. Of the Union troops, but four or five were severely wounded
—none killed.
 GUERRILLA BANDS IN MISSOURI.

In consequence of the disorganized condition of society in this

State, bands of armed rebels took occasion to commit depredations
upon the loyal citizens. Skirmishes became frequent, terror took the
place of security, and distrust that of confidence. Men once high in
public opinion and the councils of the nation became leaders in
revolt, and encouraged by their example, the rabble threw off all
restraint, and boldly became banditti.
Brigadier-General Pope was assigned command in northern
Missouri, and from his headquarters at St. Charles, issued a
proclamation, assuring loyal citizens of protection, and threatening
disorganizers and secessionists with severe punishment. The State
Convention assembled on the 22d of July, at Jefferson City, and
passed an ordinance on the 23d by a vote of sixty-five to twenty-one,
declaring the office of President of their body, held by General
Sterling Price, to be vacant, and elected General Robert Wilson, a
firm Union man, in his place. A committee of seven—one from each
Congressional district, was appointed to report what action was
necessary for the State to take in the crisis, and prepare an address to
the people. The report was made, Union in all its bearings, and the
Convention adjourned.
Major-General Fremont arrived at St. Louis on Sunday the 25th,
and assumed military command.
The month of July was prolific in proclamations from the
commanders of the rebel forces as well as of the Federal troops. On
the 30th of July, rebel regiments from Tennessee, Mississippi and
Kentucky, occupied New Madrid, on the Mississippi river, in the
southern extremity of the State, and fortified it, and General Gideon
J. Pillow issued a manifesto, in which he called upon the men of
Missouri to enter his ranks. On the 1st of August, Jefferson
Thompson, not to be outdone in the declamatory department, also
issued a fiery proclamation.
Depredations had become so numerous and troublesome on the
line of the Hannibal and St. Joseph’s railroad, that General Pope
appointed General S. A. Hurlbut to guard it, and divided it into
sections, notifying the people that all who had property and interests
at stake, would be expected to take an active part in their own
protection and security. Citizens were appointed district
superintendents.
The Address of the State Convention was published on the 31st of
the month, and presented the question before the people in a
masterly and able manner. The rebel Lieutenant-Governor, Thomas
C. Reynolds, found refuge under the protection of General Pillow, at
New Madrid, and on the same day, in the absence of Governor
Jackson, issued a treasonable proclamation to the people of the
State.
While these events were transpiring in other parts of the State,
General Lyon had concentrated his forces at Springfield. Although he
had perfect confidence in the bravery and discipline of his troops, he
yet felt his inability to cope successfully with the superior numbers
that he was warned were marching against him, and appealed to
General Fremont to reinforce him. This General Fremont declined to
do, alleging as a reason that his best regiments had been withdrawn
to Washington and Cairo—to important points in the vicinity of St.
Louis and the district under General Pope, that required to be
guarded; and General Lyon and his little handful of brave men were
left to meet, as best they might, the fast accumulating forces of the
enemy who were bent on their destruction.
 BATTLE OF DUG SPRINGS.

August 2, 1861.

General Lyon being thus compelled to act, and relying upon the
steadiness and efficiency of his army and superior artillery, decided
to meet the advancing foe with his small force, rather than retreat
and leave a large district of country exposed to secession ravages. In
order to meet the enemy on an open field he led his army as far south
as Crane Creek, 10 miles below Springfield. The march commenced
at 5 o’clock, on the afternoon of August 1st. The weather was
intensely hot—the baggage wagons were scattered over a distance of
three miles—the march slow, and one of great fatigue; and it was not
until 10 o’clock that the camping ground was reached and the march
ended, only to be resumed on the following morning, under a
burning sun and with but a very scanty supply of water. Slight
skirmishes occurred during the day, but the shells of Captain
Totten’s battery caused a hasty retreat on the part of the rebels. On
the arrival at Dug Springs the advance continued on, while the
skirmishers maintained a brisk fire with the retreating pickets of the
enemy; Captain Steele’s regular infantry taking the lead to the left,
supported by a company of cavalry, the rest of the column being
some distance in the rear. A body of rebel infantry were now seen
approaching from the woods with the design of cutting off the Union
forces. Captain Stanley drew up his cavalry, and opened upon them
with Sharp’s carbines. It was a desperate undertaking to keep the
rebels in check—scarce one hundred Union cavalry against more
than five times that number of the enemy. The rebel infantry kept up
the firing for some minutes, when an enthusiastic lieutenant, giving
the order to “charge,” some twenty-five of the gallant regulars rushed
forward upon the enemy’s lines, and, dashing aside the threatening
bayonets of the sturdy rebels, hewed down the ranks with fearful
slaughter. Captain Stanley, who was amazed at the temerity of the
little band, was obliged to sustain the order, but before he could
reach his company they had broken the ranks of the enemy, who
outnumbered them as twenty to one. Some of the rebels who were
wounded asked, in utter astonishment, “whether these were men or
devils—they fight so?”
The ground was left in possession of the Unionists, strewed with
arms, and the men were seizing the horses and mules that had been
left, when a large force of the enemy’s cavalry were seen approaching
—some three hundred or more. At the instant when they had formed,
in an angle, Captain Totten, who had mounted a six and twelve-
pounder upon the overlooking hill, sent a shell directly over them; in
another minute, the second, a twelve-pound shell, landed at their
feet, exploding, and scattering the whole body in disorder. The third,
fourth, fifth and sixth were sent into their midst. The horsemen
could not control their horses, and in a minute not an enemy was to
be seen anywhere.
The Union loss was four killed and five wounded, one of whom
subsequently died, while that of the enemy was very heavy, fully forty
killed and an hundred wounded.
Having routed the enemy, General Lyon continued his march until
he arrived at Curran, in Stone county, twenty-six miles from
Springfield, where he encamped in order to avail himself of a choice
of position. Here, from information that had been obtained of the
opposing force and movements, a consultation was held with
Generals Sweeney and Sigel, and Majors Schofield, Shepherd,
Conant and Sturgis, and Captains Totten and Schaeffer, when it was
determined to retire towards Springfield. The enemy was threatening
a flank movement, and the necessity of keeping a communication
open with Springfield was apparent to all the officers, and induced
General Lyon to return to that point. An important consideration
was, their provisions had to be transported one hundred miles—the
depot being at Rolla—and the men were exhausted with the excessive
heat, labors and privations of the campaign.
On the 5th of August they encamped at and near Springfield, and
awaited the expected encounter with firm hearts, resolute bearing,
and a determination to do or die.
 SKIRMISH AT ATHENS, MISSOURI.

August 5, 1861.

While General Lyon and his noble associates were preparing to

repel the anticipated attack of the forces of McCullough and Price,
another event occurred that demands attention, and we turn to the
town of Athens, situated on the Des Moines river, twenty-five or
thirty miles from Keokuk, Iowa.
For three or four weeks that portion of Missouri had been in a
state of anarchy. There had been no security for life or property, nor
any effectual efforts made to enforce the laws and restore order.
Actual force had not as yet been resorted to, but the secessionists,
determining to drive the Unionists out of the country, had visited
their houses in squads—insulted the women, and threatened death,
both by the rifle and rope, unless their orders to leave the country
were complied with. Union men and their families, thus kept in a
state of perpetual alarm, in many instances abandoned their homes
and possessions, and obeying the cruel command, left the State.
Some determined men, however, resolved not to be trampled to the
earth without resistance, and formed companies of “Home Guards;”
but they were powerless to protect themselves or friends from
assassination, and being scattered far apart, were almost useless in a
sudden emergency. Day by day the rebels became more bold, until
finally the Unionists went into camp, at the town of Cahokia,
eighteen miles from the Mississippi, in Clarke county, about six
hundred strong, with a brave commander who had seen service in
Mexico. They soon received two hundred and forty stand of arms
from St. Louis, and thus became, in a measure, prepared to protect
themselves and sustain their country’s honor.
 In the mean time, the rebels had formed a camp at Monticello, the
county seat of Lewis county, about thirty miles south of Cahokia,
under Martin Green, a brother of the ex-Senator.
A few days subsequently the Unionists received word that Green
was about to attack them with eight hundred men, and sent to
Keokuk and Warsaw for assistance. Keokuk did not respond, but the
Warsaw Grays, Captain Coster, fifty in number, went over to the
Union camp, though with the intention of acting only on the
defensive; but no enemy appearing, Colonel Moore determined to
rout the prowling bands of secessionists who were hovering around
him, and for three days his men searched in vain to find an enemy to
give them battle. Numerous secessionists were arrested, but
liberated on taking the required oath, and Moore finally marched his
command to Athens. A peace in the vicinity was proposed by the
enemy, with the object of lulling the suspicions of the Union men,
and inducing them to disperse; and through these influences the
Colonel soon found his forces dwindled down to one-half their
original number.
But Green had not been idle. Constant recruiting had increased his
force to nearly fifteen hundred men, and he visited Scotland and
Knox counties, driving out the loyal citizens, insulting and abusing
their families, and committing fearful depredations upon them. At
length it was evident that he was about to attack the Unionists at
Athens, and again they sent to Keokuk for assistance. Seventy of the
militia from that place went up to Croton, a small town on the Iowa
side of the Des Moines river, opposite Athens, but refused to cross.
Moore, however, received reinforcements until his command
reached four hundred, and encamped in the town, awaiting the
moment of action, with his main force stationed on a street parallel
to, and his right and left wings extending to the river.
There and in this order the Federalists were attacked by a force of
from twelve to fifteen hundred men, with no chance of retreat, except
by fording a stream fully three hundred yards in width, and exposed
to a murderous fire. They were without artillery, while the enemy
had an eight-pounder, which was placed on the brow of the hill, in a
position to rake the principal street, while two imitation guns were
placed in sight, intended to inspire a fear, which few men of that
little band were capable of experiencing. The attack opened between
five and six o’clock in the morning. At its very commencement,
Lieutenant-Colonel Callahan, who commanded a company of cavalry
in the rebel ranks, retired across the river and continued his flight
until he reached the Mississippi river at Montrose.
A portion of Moore’s infantry were also seized with a momentary
panic, and fled across the river; but on seeing their companions
stand firm, many returned and took part in the action. About three
hundred only of the Unionists bore the brunt, and firm as regulars,
delivered their fire with coolness and precision.
The fight, regular and irregular, lasted about an hour and a half,
and then Colonel Moore led his centre to a charge, which routed the
enemy, and left him and his brave associates undisputed masters of
the field. The loss of the Unionists was ten killed and the same
number wounded, and that of the rebels fourteen killed and forty
wounded.
 BATTLE OF WILSON’S CREEK.

August 10, 1861.

General Lyon having returned to Springfield after his expedition to

Curran, found himself greatly embarrassed by his position, and was
forced by circumstances to determine the question whether he
should, with his inferior force, give battle to the enemy now pressing
upon him, or attempt a retreat to Rolla, encumbered with an
immense train, and exposed to the probability of being compelled to
defend himself at any point on the route where they might see fit to
attack him. Their cavalry force was large, and with this they could by
their celerity of movement cut off his communication and flank him
whenever disposed. His appeals for reinforcements had not been
granted, yet he was daily indulging the hope that he would soon be
furnished a sufficient force to enable him to meet the enemy with a
reasonable prospect of success. The days were passing on, the enemy
was drawing nearer, and General Lyon was compelled to make his
decision. The alternative was before him, either to retreat and leave
the finest section of the State open to the ravages of the enemy, or
make the attempt to expel the foe, even though he might sacrifice his
own army in the effort. On the afternoon of the ninth of August, he
held a consultation with his officers, when after a full discussion of
the question, it was deemed advisable to attack the enemy in his
camp at Wilson’s Creek, nine miles south of Springfield. The attack
was to be made simultaneously by two columns, at daylight on the
following morning, Saturday the 10th; the first under command of
General Lyon and the second under General Sigel.
The rebel leaders were Generals Sterling Price, Ben McCulloch and
Brigadier-General John B. Clark. Somewhat singularly, both parties
had planned an attack at the same hour, but the darkness of the
night induced the rebels to postpone their movement. Their tents
were pitched on either side of Wilson’s Creek, extending a mile east
and south of the road, crossing to two miles west and north of the
same, the creek running nearly in the shape of a horizontal ᔕ. At the
crossing of the Fayette road the hills on each side of the stream are
from two to three hundred feet high, sloping gently on the north, and
abrupt to the south side. The valley is about half a mile wide.
While on the verge of this, his last engagement, General Lyon was
impressed with a sad presentiment—not regarding his own fate—but
a fear for his brave command. A terrible responsibility rested upon
him. With no adequate strength with which to cope with the enemy,
hemmed in and growing weaker every day, his position was both
perilous and painful. Unsupported, with his cry for help passed over,
he saw nothing before him but the barren satisfaction of dying,
bravely performing his duty, and protecting to the last the little army
that he felt to be doomed. With these feelings—sadly bitter they must
have been—this glorious man entered upon his last battle field.
The following day was one of remarkable quiet, and enlistments in
the Springfield regiment went on rapidly. During the afternoon,
Captain Woods’ Kansas cavalry, with one or two companies of
regulars, drove five hundred rebel rangers from the prairie west of
the town, capturing eight and killing two men, without loss on their
part.
At eight o’clock in the evening, General Sigel, with six pieces of
artillery and part of Colonel Salomon’s command, moved southward,
marching until near two o’clock, and passing around the extreme
camp of the enemy, where he halted, ready to press forward as soon
as he should be apprised by the roar of General Lyon’s artillery that
the attack had begun. The main body, under General Lyon, had
moved at the same time, and halted about five miles west of the city,
from whence, after resting, they proceeded again about four miles in
a south-westerly direction, and slept until 4 A. M. on Saturday, the day
of battle.
At five o’clock the pickets of the enemy were driven in, and the
northern end of the valley, with its thousands of tents and camp-
fires, became visible, and this most destructive battle, when the
numbers engaged are considered, commenced. The roar of the
artillery was terrible,—the rattling of the musketballs was like a
storm of great hailstones, and the clash of steel like hammers ringing
on countless anvils.
Riding forward in the thick of the fight, his war-horse bearing him
more proudly than usual that fatal day, General Lyon performed the
work of a dozen heroes. A stern sadness was on his face—a resolute
fire burned in the gray depths of his eyes. Twice was he wounded,
leading on his men, and his war-steed fell under him, pierced to the
heart with a bullet. Those who loved him grew anxious for his safety,
for there was something wonderful in the steady courage that made
him forget the wounds that would have driven another man from the
field.
A member of his staff approached him as he stood by his dead
horse, and seeing blood upon his forehead, asked if he was hurt.
“I think not seriously,” he answered; and mounting another horse,
he plunged again into the terrible melee.
At one time, when the whirlwind of battle was at its height,
General Lyon desired his men to prepare for a charge, and the
Iowans at once volunteered to go, and asked for a leader. On came
the enemy, crushing in their strength, and there was no time for
choice.
“I will lead you,” exclaimed the impetuous and fearless General.
“Come on, brave boys,” said he, as he took his position in the van,
while General Sweeney prepared to lead on a portion of the Kansas
troops, and the serried ranks of glittering deadly steel resistlessly
moved on.
In the very act of leading those valiant men, with his hand uplifted
in an effort to cheer them on, and his noble face turned partly to his
command, but not altogether away from the enemy, a bullet pierced
him, and he fell, regretted not only by his devoted little army, but by
every man, woman and child who ever heard how bravely he fought
for the flag they love.
The battle continued from six until eleven o’clock, with but little
cessation; and then the gallant Unionists, overwhelmed by superior
numbers, were forced to retreat. In good order they accomplished it,
and the enemy made no attempt to follow, though their combined
forces amounted to about 20,000, while General Lyon’s command
did not exceed one-quarter of that number.

DEATH OF GENERAL LYON.

The Federal loss was 223 killed, 721 wounded and 292 missing; the
rebel loss, (McCulloch’s report,) 265 killed, 800 wounded, 30
missing; Price’s report of Missouri troops, 156 killed and 517
wounded.
The death of the brave General Lyon was universally deplored.
Countless were the tributes to his memory, and deep the sorrow
when his body was borne homeward, surrounded with military
honors. From amid the murky smoke and fearful glare of battle his
soul was called home—the flashing eye dimmed—the good right hand
unnerved, and the fiery spirit, that scorned danger and hated
treason, was quenched forever.
 SKETCH OF GENERAL LYON.
Brigadier-General Nathaniel Lyon was born in the State of
Connecticut, in the year 1818, and entered the military academy at
West Point in 1837, where he graduated four years afterwards with
the rank of Second-Lieutenant of the Second Infantry. In February,
1847, he was made First-Lieutenant, and for gallant conduct in the
battles of Contreras and Cherubusco, during the following August,
was breveted Captain. On the 13th of September he was severely
wounded in a most desperate assault, and in June, 1851, was
promoted to a captaincy, which rank he held at the time of the
troubles in Kansas. As has been stated, he was in command of the
Missouri Volunteers at the capture of Camp Jackson, and was for his
well-proven bravery and eminent ability, promoted to the rank which
he held at the time of his death. In personal appearance he was about
five feet and eight inches in height, his frame wiry and muscular. His
hair was long and thick, his whiskers sandy and heavy, and his eyes
of a blueish gray. His forehead was high and broad, with a firm
expression of the lips, and a countenance that indicated an intellect
of no ordinary capacity. He was a strict disciplinarian, endeared to
his soldiers, and universally regretted by the whole country which
followed him to the grave with deep and mournful affection. In his
will, made before he started on his last campaign, he left his entire
property to the country for which he gave his life.