Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ldshottie:)

The Mountain Meadows Massacre

Recommended Posts

Man you're late on the draw here, Hottie. This one has already been beat to death over at that other board where you can get cooties. I would provide the link, but I don't want to draw the wrath of the Dunamis. I'm waiting for a really good subject to pop up over there to provide the link, and then take my cyber-keystoke lashing from the Dunamis. <_<

And Albequerque? What are you doing over there? That's like the Mississippi of the West. :P

Share this post


Link to post

That's O.K.; from the viewpoint of THE VICTIMS, it was one-sided also!

Share this post


Link to post

Quote in the article by Paul Hutton:

"One reason so few people know about it is that it was very effectively covered up by the Mormon church"

and

"Frank calls the massacre the greatest act of religious violence on American soil up until the Sept. 11 (2001) terrorist attacks," Hutton said.

As cruel coincidence would have it, the Mountain Meadows executions happened on Sept. 11, 1857.

phaedrus

Share this post


Link to post
That's O.K.; from the viewpoint of THE VICTIMS, it was one-sided also!

That's right. The mean old Mormons never were, and never will be the victims of any cruelty.

Just because some men on the fronteir of Deseret decided to and administer vigilante justice for either a perceived threat or to, as some may have felt, repay old debts, we all get painted with the same brush.

Forgive them for acting on their human desires, just as much as those of us who had relatives that were driven from Missouri in the cold, dead of winter, have forgiven those that caused this injustice. Just as I am sure that those who had relatives at Hauns Mill have let go and let God.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked this quote:

Scott Hutton: "It is one of the hidden chapters of American history," said Hutton, 55, a University of New Mexico history professor since 1985. "It's the story of the only wagon train wiped out in the American West. In loss of life, it's comparable to the Alamo

Wow! Like the Alamo, no less. Apparently this unbiased historian has a little difficulty seeing both sides of an issue. At the Alamo, approximately 180 Americans/Texicans died, perhaps comparable to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But it is estimated that between 600 and 1200 (sometimes more, depending on the source) Mexican soldiers died there, with hundreds more wounded. So, somewhere around 1,000 people died at the Alamo, not to mention the wounded, at least some of whom died later from their wounds. The western historian Hutton must have accidentally forgotten about all of those Mexican conscripts in his estimate.

Share this post


Link to post

aznative:

If I understand you then, what OTHERS do to you...makes it o.k. to do (similar?) to them??? That's lowering our standards to that of those who initiated violence!

that's a 'funny ' thing to hear (from a Christian?) my Bible tells me (in at least 3 places) NOT to return evil for evil....

Romans 12:17

1st Peter 3:8-9

1st Thessolians 5:14-15

are those 'wrong' ...or 'inoperative' now????

Then, there's Matthew 5:

44: "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

46 which reads "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?"

How's your TR? up to date? Maybe the versus I quoted are some that weren't "translated correctly", huh?

Share this post


Link to post

"If what they did where OK"... then why where they ex-d? :P

FYI, It was a baptist minister who lead the Mod to kill the prophet.

John 10

13

Share this post


Link to post

I have already seen a documentary on this. Was not TOO unfair, though it left out a good deal of details.

And the only background music was the new tune for 'If you could Hie to Kolob' or whatever the original tune's name is. I liked it.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the update.

Locally a rare book store has an original copy of Lee's book for about 900.

Think I'll tape the show if I can.

Share this post


Link to post

=="Frank calls the massacre the greatest act of religious violence on American soil up until the Sept. 11 (2001) terrorist attacks,"

They always overlook the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, which was led by Reverend Chivington and claimed the lives of 150-500 (depending on the sources) which were mostly women and children.

Share this post


Link to post

Kevin:

Sand Creek "religious"? That's news to me....

the web (Final arbitor of facts!) says it was a military operation....

Share this post


Link to post
=="Frank calls the massacre the greatest act of religious violence on American soil up until the Sept. 11 (2001) terrorist attacks,"

They always overlook the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, which was led by Reverend Chivington and claimed the lives of 150-500 (depending on the sources) which were mostly women and children.

Is it accurate to characterize Sand Creek as "religious violence"?

I would probably have called it racial - part of a larger governmental effort toward ethnic cleansing.

Share this post


Link to post

kevin:

Where in the world do you get the idea that this was a religious incident????

here's from pbs.org:

Interrogatories propounded to John M. Chivington by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, and answers thereto given by said Chivington reduced to writing, and subscribed and sworn to before Alexander W. Atkins, notary public, at Denver, in the Territory of Colorado.

1st Question. What is your place of residence, your age and profession?

Answer. My place of residence is Denver, Colorado; my age, forty-five years; I have been colonel of 1st Colorado cavalry, and was mustered out of the service on or about the eighth day of January last, and have not been engaged in any business since that time.

2d question. Were you in November, 1864, in any employment, civil or military, under the authority of the United States; and if so, what was that employment, and what position did you hold?

Answer. In November, 1864, I was colonel of 1st Colorado cavalry, and in command of the district of Colorado.

I don't "exactly read (there or anywhere else) that a ) Chivington was a "Reverened" , or cool.gif acting as ANYTHING other than a military colonel....

Please clarify this for us...

Share this post


Link to post

== I don't "exactly read (there or anywhere else) that a ) Chivington was a "Reverened," or acting as ANYTHING other than a military colonel....

Of course he was a military colonel, and he was also a Methodist minister. This is plastered all over the internet, but since you like pbs.org, here goes:

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/ep.../thisguilty.htm

In Colorado, Union volunteers were recruited to protect the rich mining districts from the Confederates. One of the first to step forward was a big, bearish Methodist minister named John M. Chivington. He was six and a half feet tall, weighed 250 pounds, and sometimes delivered sermons with a revolver resting on the pulpit. Offered a chaplain's commission, Chivington refused. He wanted to fight for the Union, he said, not just pray for it.

One could make the argument that Mountain Meadows was a military action as well. What makes Mountain Meadows "religious violence"? Because a handful of the perpetrators happened to be religious? Sand Creek was not a "battle," nor was it not ordered by the US military.

Many women, children, and elderly were killed as a result of this engagement, which created a feeling of indignation so strong in the East that it prompted a congressional investigation. As a result, Dr. John Evans lost his federal appointment as governor and Chivington's enlistment had already expired that September so he could not be dishonorably discharged. In addition, Colorado's statehood was delayed, a circumstance that became the dominate aspect of Colorado politics in the years following Sand Creek.
http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/chivington.html

Thus, this was hardly a "military action" in the sense that he was just following orders. He made his own orders. It was a massacre ordered by one blood thristy scoundrel who was a Methodist Minister. Period.

"...the Methodist Church sent Chivington to Omaha, Nebraska to escape the tumult of Missouri. He and his family remained in Nebraska until 1860, when he was made the presiding elder of the Rocky Mountain District of the Methodist Church and moved to Denver to build a church and found a congregation. When the Civil War broke out, Colorado's territorial governor, William Gilpin, offered Chivington a commission as a chaplain, but he declined the "praying" commission and asked for a "fighting" position instead... In August of 1864, he declared, "the Cheyennes will have to be roundly whipped -- or completely wiped out -- before they will be quiet. I say that if any of them are caught in your vicinity, the only thing to do is kill them." A month later, while addressing a gathering of church deacons, he dismissed the possibility of making a treaty with the Cheyenne: "It simply is not possible for Indians to obey or even understand any treaty. I am fully satisfied, gentlemen, that to kill them is the only way we will ever have peace and quiet in Colorado...

From "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" written by Dee Brown:

On the morning of November 29, 1864, 600 Cheyenne and Arapahos camped on a bend of Sand Creek were awakened by the sound of charging hooves. Two thirds of these 600 were women and children as the government granted able bodied men to go east and hunt buffalo to feed their hungry families. Only 35 braves were in the camp. This made the ensuing charge all the more frightening for the women, children, elders, and remaining braves.

According to John S. Smith, Colonel Chivington knew these Indians to be peaceful before the massacre. Smith witnessed, as did helpless Indian mothers and fathers, young children having their sex organs cut away. U.S. soldiers mutilated Native American women, cutting away their breasts and removing all other sex organs. After the Massacre, soldiers displayed the women's severed body parts on their hats and stretched them over their saddle-bows while riding in the ranks. The sex organs of every male were removed in the most grotesque manner. One soldier boasted that he would make a tobacco pouch with the removed privates of White Antelope, a respected elder. Conner witnessed a soldier displaying the body parts of a woman on a stick. The fingers of Indians were cut off to get at the rings on them. Connor remembered a baby only a few months old who had been hidden in the feed box of a wagon for protection. When the soldiers discovered the baby some time later, the baby was thrown onto the frozen ground to die. In going over the site the next day, it was noted that every corpse was mutilated in some way, and scalped.

Two other men, Robert Bent and James Beckwourth were forced to ride with Chivington that morning. They recorded similar images. Beckwourth noted that before the massacre, White Antelope (age 75) ran out to meet the soldiers. He came running out to meet the command, holding up his hands and saying Stop! Stop! He spoke in as plain English as I can. He stopped and folded his arms until shot down. Bent remembered seeing the shooting of a little girl carrying a white flag. He also remembered seeing an Indian woman on the ground whose leg had been shattered by a shell. As she lay helpless, a soldier drew his saber, breaking the arm she had risen in defense. She then rolled over on her other side. The soldier did not leave until breaking her other arm with his saber, whereupon he left without killing her. Bent saw a pregnant woman who had been cut open and disemboweled. Her unborn child lay mutilated almost beyond human recognition beside her. Quite a number of mothers were slain; still clinging to their babies. Such was the scene that cold gray morning at Sand Creek, November 29, 1864.

I've heard people say Mountain Meadows was the worst massacre in American history. Hogwash. If they want to add the "religious" qualifier, it is still hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post

ldsh:

Please remember:

a) whether or not BY said for the MMM to be done is (now) a GIANT RED HERRING... If evidence exists (First presidency vault?)...it is being kept from us.

cool.gif BY certainly knew who led the MMM...he ruled Utah rigedly. He did NOT take action until congress REFUSED to admit utah as a state until some recompense was done/taken (many, many years later). That there wasn't an effective cover - up is NOT a matter of serious consideration. BY visited JDL after the MMM, made him a Bishop.

c) The survivors of the individuals want compensation from the church, the church doesn't want to give it to them.

d) BY later made JDL a scapegoat for the church. Church history books ("Essentials in Church History", by Joseph Fielding Smith) include the words that 'was the crime of an individual, the crime of a fanatic' was responsible for the MMM - PREPOSTEROUS!!! (given the weapons available at the time, etc.) (sorry I don't have my copy of MMM/Brooks or Essentials at hand (thanks divorce), but this is quoted in "Juanita Brooks Mormon Woman Historian, by Levi Peterson, paperback ed, p. 208

e) JDL was reinstated by the LDS church in the early 60's after Juanita Brooks published her book (The MMM, two editions) telling that JDL was a scapegoat. That was a tacit admission that 1) the cover up took place, 2) Juanita's book was (essentially) correct.

(IMHO) the church education system should be re-named in favor of Juanita Leavitt Pulsifer Brooks; she told the TRUTH, Brigham Young (I can barely tolerate to say his name) DID NOT.

Share this post


Link to post

so then...was Chiv acting out of 'religious' reasons/motivation? (Did BY order it or know about this???)

the whole thing (to me) reads that there were military orders, ... but that there might have been a mix-up as to what they were exactly... (sound familiar?)

REGARDLESS: the sand creek event/incident (as tragic as it apparently was)...has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the MMM (or does-did it, in your humble opinion?)

Share this post


Link to post

== so then...was Chiv acting out of 'religious' reasons/motivation? (Did BY order it or know about this???)

One can only suspect. We know for a fact that he was a religious tyrant who preached with a pistol at his pulpit. We know for a fact that hsi life was wrapped around his religion, and we know for a fact that the US government did not order the massacre. It was a horrible incident that took place because of one man taking advantage of his military status.

But the "motivation" for the MMM was hardly "religious" to begin with. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

== the whole thing (to me) reads that there were military orders,

From what planet are you reading this? Where is your evidence that there were orders? In the same place where Brigham Young's orders were kept? Chivington made his contempt for the indians known, and he spelled out HIS goal beforehand. This was his baby, and the fact that the incident caused political repercussions following, is a good indicator that this was not n approved action. If it were, we'd expect to see all sorts of "military" massacres resembling this. That is, if it were common military policy.

== ... but that there might have been a mix-up as to what they were exactly... (sound familiar?)

No.

== REGARDLESS: the sand creek event/incident (as tragic as it apparently was)...has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the MMM (or does-did it, in your humble opinion?)

Bearing on it? In the context of the assertion, its acknowledgment is necessary if we're interested in truth. MMM was not the worst "religious incident" in American history.

Share this post


Link to post

tapped,

a) whether or not BY said for the MMM to be done is (now) a GIANT RED HERRING... If evidence exists (First presidency vault?)...it is being kept from us.

Ooo... goody... conspiracy and innuendo!!! :P

hey... I can do that too...

Kevin said:

and we know for a fact that the US government did not order the massacre.

<_< Come on Kevin... have you never heard of Fort Nox! It's being "suppressed"!

Share this post


Link to post

But the "motivation" for the MMM was hardly "religious" to begin with. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

Absurd? what about all the apologist (added later) stories that the MMM was revenge for the death of JS, Parley Pratt...(Just About everyone under the sun)...Some have alleged that members of the Fancher train claimed to have the gun that killed JS...

are those BUNK? (in reality, they are/were FALSE excuses)

in the case of the MMM...(as Juanita Brooks, TRUTH TELLER tells us) the Iron County Militia was a subset of the (former) Nauvoo Legion...the leadership of the ICM was inter-identical to the leadership / stake presidency.

I regret that an ugly divorce (much of it over truths & half-truths/lies told about the MMM) my ex kept my copy of JB's Book AND "Essentials in Church History" which was my textbook (cover-up) at Ricks College, mid-60's. Some people can abide the truths of what actaully happened, some cannot.

as I said before...the MAIN lesson for us Now...is that if enough people (church members) had said NO, there would have been NO LDS participation in the MMM....

But LOYALTY to church leaders is the current mantra, so they don't encourage LDS to learn about it....Sad, very sad.

Share this post


Link to post

10th question. What reason had you for making the attack? What reasons, if any, had you to believe that Black Kettle or any other Indian or Indians in the camp entertained feelings of hostility towards the whites? Give in detail the names of all Indians so believed to be hostile, with the dates and places of their hostile acts, so far as you may be able to do so.

Answer. My reason for making the attack on the Indian camp was, that I believed the Indians in the camp were hostile to the whites. That they were of the same tribes with those who had murdered many persons and destroyed much valuable property on the Platte and Arkansas rivers during the previous spring, summer and fall was beyond a doubt. When a tribe of Indians is at war with the whites it is impossible to determine what party or band of the tribe or the name of the Indian or Indians belonging to the tribe so at war are guilty of the acts of hostility. The most that can be ascertained is that Indians of the tribe have performed the acts. During the spring, summer and fall of the year 1864, the Arapaho and Cheyenne Indians, in some instances assisted or led on by Sioux, Kiowas, Comanches and Apaches, had committed many acts of hostility in the country lying between the Little Blue and the Rocky mountains and the Platte and Arkansas rivers. They had murdered many of the whites and taken others prisoners, and had destroyed valuable property, probably amounting to $200,000 or $300,000. Their rendezvous was on the headwaters of the Republican, probably one hundred miles from where the Indian camp was located. I had every reason to believe that these Indians were either directly or indirectly concerned in the outrages which had been committed upon the whites. I had no means of ascertaining what were the names of the Indians who had committed these outrages other than the declarations of the Indians themselves; and the character of Indians in the western country for truth and veracity, like their respect for the chastity of women who may become prisoners in their hands, is not of that order which is calculated to inspire confidence in what they may say. In this view I was supported by Major Anthony, lst Colorado cavalry, commanding at Fort Lyon, and Samuel G. Colby, United States Indian agent, who, as they had been in communication with these Indians, were more competent to judge of their disposition towards the whites than myself. Previous to the battle they expressed to me the opinion that the Indians should be punished. We found in the camp the scalps of nineteen (19) white persons. One of the surgeons informed me that one of these scalps had been taken from the victim's head not more than four days previously. I can furnish a child captured at the camp ornamented with six white women's scalps; these scalps must have been taken by these Indians or furnished to them for their gratification and amusement by some of their brethren, who, like themselves, were in amity with the whites.

Kevin: your guy was asked (under oath?) why the attack took place...I fing NOTHING reliegious about it...(but am first to admit I have not read all) the fact that he might have been a relegious zealot does not change that fact that these indians were (at least) thought (legitimately?) to be hostile... That's what 'military discipline' is all about. I understand he was NOT reprimanded or charges in this terrible event/incident....

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/...ndcrk.htm#smith

11th question. Had you any, and if so, what reason, to believe that Black Kettle and the Indians with him, at the time of your attack, were at peace with the whites, and desired to remain at peace with them?

Answer. I had no reason to believe that Black Kettle and the Indians with him were in good faith at peace with the whites. The day before the attack Major Scott J. Anthony, lst Colorado cavalry, then in command at Fort Lyon, told me that these Indians were hostile; that he had ordered his sentinels to fire on them if they attempted to come into the post, and that the sentinenls had fired on them; that he was apprehensive of an attack from these Indians, and had taken every precaution to prevent a surprise. Major Samuel G. Colby, United States Indian agent for these Indians, told me on the same day that he had done everything in his power to make them behave themselves, and that for the last six months he could do nothing with them; that nothing but a sound whipping would bring a lasting peace with them. These statements were made to me in the presence of the officers of my staff whose statements can be obtained to corroborate the foregoing.

My bottom line thought here is that (IMHO)...there is NO rational parallel between the MMM & Sand Creek. others?

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmmm. So, Tapped, you are willing to give Chivington, a self-proclaimed hater of Amerindians (among others), the benefit of the doubt in his testimony, but not Brigham Young? Isn't this a double standard?

Share this post


Link to post

JR:

What did BY testify about? what did he say? (citations, please)

that statement that Sand Creek was a 'religious' event / incident ((all army troops involved?) appears to be weak at best?

What were the ALLEGED religious reasons/motivation????

that 'fact'(?) that he didn't like indians (hated them?) ...I don't think so...

the MMM was a religiously motivated event, covered up by church leaders....It was done by civilian 'members' of the Iron County Militia, which WAS NOT an event - incident ordered-requested or sanctioned by the U.S. government in ANY way, shape form, or description.

I think the statement (based on my Very Limited information) that the S.C. M. was religious...appears to be a bit of a stretch....(did the leader appeal to his subordinates on religious motivation/reasons, OR did he give them military orders ???)

there can be little doubt that the LDS church ---overtly or covertly, has covered up- not disclosed all the info it had at various times about the MMM. If ANYONE doubts that...read "Essentials in Church History, by joseph Fielding Smith, which was MY textbook at Ricks College... Tell lies, they often catch up with you....Often in ways/at times...you probably didn't forsee at the time the lie was told. (Unfortunatley) I have learned this..(firsthand & other) too many times!

Share this post


Link to post
JR:

What did BY testify about? what did he say? (citations, please)

that statement that Sand Creek was a 'religious' event / incident ((all army troops involved?) appears to be weak at best?

What were the ALLEGED religious reasons/motivation????

that 'fact'(?) that he didn't like indians (hated them?) ...I don't think so...

I was referring to Brigham Young's deposition in the second trial of John D. Lee. You can read it on this site. He denies much of what you attribute to him. Why is Chivington's statement valid to you at face value, but Brigham Young's is not?

As an aside, Chivington was fully aware that the Amerinds at Sand Creek were harmless, and predominantly women and children. This was not an example of "military discipline", but shameless butchery.

In relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, could it have happened in the absence of the Mormons in the area? Are you aware of any of the other hostile activity directed at other wagon trains at the same time in the same region, but solely by Amerinds (indeed, where the trains were actually protected by Mormons)?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...