The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[juliann]

Many of you may be interested to know that there is currently a film being made about the worst act of domestic terrorism to occur on US soil until the Oklahoma city bombing.

Yes, the genocide of a race in the name of slavery never happened. Or doesn't matter. Which position are you taking?

[juliann]

Those who defend Brigham Young have a pro-LDS agenda.

Yup, to say there is absolutely no evidence to indict BY is to "defend" him. Am I good or what.

I am "pro-truth" regardless of the direction it takes me. 

Unfortunately, you have arrived at your destination before taking on that slogan. You can do all the hopin' and wishin' and wishin' and hopin' that you can muster...but there is no evidence to uphold your "truth" about BY's involvement. Cover up....obviously. Involvement? Why is it taking 17 pages to convince people if there is any evidence whatsoever?

New government representatives were coming to Utah and an army was coming as well.  George A. Smith did tour southern Utah with very strong words.  Here is an important question:  Was the army coming with intent to physically harm the people of Utah or to see that the new government officials were able to be effective in their responsibilities?  I think the latter.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Which leads me to wonder, why the fixation on MMM?

...

What do you want? What is the point? What do you want anyone to do as a result of your in-depth studies?

...

Should the church issue some kind of apology like "Well it seems that somehow BY was responsible because he set in motion the possibility that something bad could happen to the Fancher party"?

...

What would that accomplish? It wouldn't satisfy you ...

...

Are you trying to prove that BY wasn't a prophet? Should we throw out the hundreds of other amazing acts the man did? Do you think he was a prophet?

...

I place it in the same bucket as the Kennedy assasination and Bigfoot -- things that will be sorted out and explained on the other side.

1. The MMM just happens to be the subject of this thread (I didn't start the thread, just joined in). I can get just as involved in other threads that, for whatever reason, pique my interest. It happens that I have long held an interest in the MMM, and have read much about it (from different perspectives). I also think it is one of those cases in Mormon history that has been effectively whitewashed over time, with culpability for some being brushed aside (this is particularly true within Mormonism). I would simply like an accurate history of the event to remain for future generations (the whole "if we forget our history, we are doomed to repeat it" sort of thing). I don't think it's an obsession for me (but if it were, I'd be the last to know), but it certainly is an interest of mine.

2. My point in this discussion was to represent the real facts (to the extent we know them) of what happened. We'll never know everything, of course, but we do know a lot. I see many (but not all) proffer red herring facts or claims on this issue intended to muddy the water and divert the smallest of blame from BY or the Church in general (this is to be expected -- has anyone ever heard a Church president or the Church as an institution admit a mistake or apologize for anything? Of course not, because to do so would somehow admit the Church is not always led by revelation from God).

3. I would like to see the Church issue an apology for any role its leaders or doctrines may have played in allowing the massacre to occur. This will never happen, however -- at the most recent dedication of the MMM monument (in 1999), GBH specifically said that the Church's involvement in the monument, etc., should not be construed as any admission of blame for what happened. But I think there certainly is enough evidence of the masscre's being connected to Church leaders and teachings of the time, certain bloody covenants, and general dynamics in 1857 Utah that effectively made Utah a theocracy (on both a territory and local level -- this was the very reason Buchanan sent in troops with the new territory officials, to back up federal authority), to support a long overdue apology.

4. I would be very satisfied if the Church issued a formal apology for any role its leaders, doctrines and teachings may have played in setting the stage for the masscre. Included in that should be an admission that BY must bear some responsibility for involving Indian allies that led to innocent civilian deaths. I think the effect would be quite dramatic.

5. I am not trying to prove that BY wasn't a prophet; I believe he was called as such at that time. But he was also human, with near absolute power in Utah (and we know from D&C 121 that such power can greatly influence even the best of men), and he made some horrible mistakes (like MMM). The only thing I'm trying to prove is that BY bears some responsibility for what ultimately ended in slaughter. I'm fine with giving credit to Brigham where credit is due (the exodus to and colonization of Utah, for example, was brilliant), but along with that comes the blame where such is due. I think with all LDS Church presidents, members tend to only apply "good" to them, when in fact they were very fallible human beings (like us all) who made mistakes, which should be ackowledged in history so future generations see the real man, not some 1-dimensional caricature that has no basis in reality (because that is what happens when an entire side of a person is wipe away from memory).

6. I don't care what others think about this, but in LDS theology we know that Bigfoot is Cain. But, yes, I agree we'll know a lot more on the other side, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure out as much as we can on this side, too.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The new book that will be coming out from historians who are LDS (and keeps getting pushed back) will have used more documents than any other historian has used.

I've been looking forward to this book for a long time (like you said, it keeps getting postponed); anyone know the latest date it's supposed to be out?

[Rollo Tomasi]

New government representatives were coming to Utah and an army was coming as well.

[juliann]

except on such requisition or summons, or in sheer self-defense." The soldiers were simply going to reestablish federal authority (and install new territory leaders) in Utah.

Now that is really reassuring. They won't mess with anyone unless they decide to mess with them. Give me a break. The Mormons were expecting more of the same....there was still an extermination order out on them for cryin' out loud.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The Mormons were expecting more of the same....there was still an extermination order out on them for cryin' out loud.

Order are orders, and to disobey the written order of the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army would have extremely serious consequences. And the 20-year old extermination order in Missouri certainly had no application to federal authorities.

But I will concede this in the defense of BY -- the written order I quoted, among other reasons the army was being sent, were not given to BY at that time (as far as I can tell); this lack of communication by the feds certainly would lead Brigham to have the same expectations you just expressed. If the government had informed Brigham of the precise reasons they were sending the army, as well as the express orders to the army to do nothing to citizens (unless forced), perhaps the tensions could have been difused before things got out of control (but perhaps not, because when a forward group of soldiers met with BY on 9/13 to explain that the approaching army meant no harm, Brigham was just as fiery as ever).

[kawikadave]

Thanks for responding so well Rollo. I think I understand better now.

[Bertram]

Dunamis,

I have just returned to the Thread/Board and I immediately apologise for my unwarranted and personal remarks to both the Board and Rollo Tomasi!

Rollo please accept my apology.

[Bernard Gui]

because when a forward group of soldiers met with BY on 9/13 to explain that the approaching army meant no harm, Brigham was just as fiery as ever).

Brigham and the Mormons had heard that kind of false assurance

on a number of previous occassions.

Bernard

[Ron Beron]

Whatever the causes of the MMM it seems apparent from BY's later life and actions the events of those couple of days haunted him to his death. While Brigham was probably not immediately or tangentially culpable his incendiary rhetoric prior to the event didn't help the jingoism of the south. Equally so the comments made by the wagon train just stirred up the mess a bit more.

[Pahoran]

Rollo,

just a few of your more obvious howlers, in no particular order:

I have never said that BY participated in the massacre, including coaxing the victims out from their stronghold. The Fancher party never should have been targeted in the first place, and that was at least partially Brigham's doing. And Brigham wanted them left alone only after targeting them -- his change of mind was too little, too late, imo.

This is Baglady's discredited spin. There was no "change of mind"--Brigham was of the same "mind" regarding his defensive strategy throughout the duration of the hostilities. Those less anti-Mormon than you can see what that strategy was, if Brigham's own words aren't good enough, by observing what happened under his direct control.

The jury (made up of 8 LDS, 1 former LDS, and 3 non-LDS) did deadlock in Lee's first trial. Btw, the 3 non-LDS voted to convict.

That cannot be known for certain; but if it's true, so what? The prosecution blew it by constructing flimsy attacks on Brigham Young--like you are--instead of trying the defendant before the court.

The massacre was foreseeable, as BY himself made clear on August 26. It was his instruction to the chiefs on 9/1 that may very well have started the ball rolling toward the ultimate slaughter. And for that he will be held accountable by God.

You intoned, sanctimoniously, almost as if you actually believe in God. Frankly I can't see that God has anything left to do when arrogant anti-Mormons presumptuously take it upon themselves to try and convict Brigham in absentia.

And I note that you predict that God "will" hold him responsible for something that only "may have" had something to do with what he said. How very--Christian of you.

It would be a bit difficult to "sneak off" with a 1,000 head of cattle without the owners knowing it.

No, but as Lot Smith proved--using Indian tactics, btw--it is easy enough, using stealth and surprise, to drive off cattle at night and get away before the owners have time to react.

BY did target the cattle of "people on the road" -- he referred to it as the "south rout[e]" to California. I guess it was more a trail than a road, but the chiefs knew what he was talking about.

Probably better than you do. Which is consistent with the fact that the chiefs in question were in SLC on 9/10 instead of participating in the attack on the Fancher train.

On which subject, you wrote:

As for whether the chiefs made it back in time -- Juanita Brooks says the southern Utah Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 caught up to the Fancher party in Parowan.

And how does she know? Was she there? You try to conjure by her name as if it was some kind of magical incantation. This is "appeal to authority" taken to ridiculous extremes.

We know Haslem made his ride in 60 hours (riding all night and with fresh horses) -- the chiefs only had to do the same ride in 5 to 6 days to get there for the initial attack, and 9 to 10 days for the massacre itself.

You are obviously trying to stretch out the time-frame as long as possible; it would seem more intellectually honest for you to admit that, for Brigham's meeting to have been anything to do with the "proximate cause," the chiefs had to be back in So. Utah in time to get the thing started: i.e. to muster their men and organise the initial attack. The men were mustered on the evening of the 5th. The chiefs didn't leave SLC until the morning of the 2nd.

So they had to do the "ride"--unparsimoniously assuming that they had horses in the first place--in about 3

[Zakuska]

No, but as Lot Smith proved--using Indian tactics, btw--it is easy enough, using stealth and surprise, to drive off cattle at night and get away before the owners have time to react.

Apparently... Rollo has been so busy on his snipe hunt that he hasn't seen "home on the Range"... Steal'n cows is just a Yodal away!

[Rollo Tomasi]

This is Baglady's discredited spin.  There was no "change of mind"--Brigham was of the same "mind" regarding his defensive strategy throughout the duration of the hostilities.

...

You intoned, sanctimoniously, almost as if you actually believe in God.  Frankly I can't see that God has anything left to do when arrogant anti-Mormons presumptuously take it upon themselves to try and convict Brigham in absentia.

...

Probably better than you do.  Which is consistent with the fact that the chiefs in question were in SLC on 9/10 instead of participating in the attack on the Fancher train.

...

And how does she know?  Was she there?  You try to conjure by her name as if it was some kind of magical incantation.  This is "appeal to authority" taken to ridiculous extremes.

...

You are obviously trying to stretch out the time-frame as long as possible; it would seem more intellectually honest for you to admit that, for Brigham's meeting to have been anything to do with the "proximate cause," the chiefs had to be back in So. Utah in time to get the thing started: i.e. to muster their men and organise the initial attack.  The men were mustered on the evening of the 5th.  The chiefs didn't leave SLC until the morning of the 2nd.And I notice you haven't told us how long it took GAS to make the whole trip.  I wonder why?  Could it be that that 52 miles was the easiest stretch of the whole trip, and you want to suppress that fact?

...

Yes, and it took Lee himself 10 days to make that journey; and that was when he was in a hurry to get to Brigham first, to head off anyone who might implicate him.

...

Actually it isn't "likely" they went there at all.

...

But what is your evidence that Brigham "knew the Fancher party was the only emigrant train on the south route at that time?"  Produce it, please.

...

By loading meaning into that participle, you are trying to pretend that the instructions given to the southern chiefs were materially different from those given to their northern counterparts; but you can't possibly be obtuse enough to believe that.  Clearly the "had gone" Huntington recorded as of the first of September means exactly the same as the "on the road" he mentioned two days earlier.  Keep in mind that these diary entries are summaries, and it is not honest to pretend that they are verbatim transcripts, as you do.  In reality these are two identical meetings where the identical proposals were put forward.  Surely you must be able to grasp this rather non-controversial fact.

...

Ah, the "blood atonement" libel.  All the most fanatical anti-Mormons repeat it; but everyone else knows that there is no truth in it.

...

What "evidence?"  You mean "Argus," right?  Don't you know that he wasn't even in Utah at the time?  Don't you know that he never gives any provenance for this report?  Don't you know that a "she said" report wherein the one repeating it doesn't even claim to have heard it, or tell us why he believes that she said it, falls below the level of hearsay?

...

No, he was acting as a leader determined to protect his people from aggression and genocide.  Only the most fanatical anti-Mormon zealot would call him a "despot" therefor.

...

Except, as the Saints very well knew, federal authority wasn't in doubt in Utah; only the suitability of certain corrupt officials.  And when had any other territory needed an army "simply" to install a governor?

...

As I said: Brigham believed he didn't have the authority to forbid slavery.

EDITED TO ADD FURTHER INFO; EDITS IN BOLD:

1. I believe it was a change of mind because on 9/1 Brigham targeted emigrants on the south route (by instructing the Indians to steal their cattle), but in his message sent via Haslem he instructed that the emigrants be allowed to go in peace. Inconsistent messages suggest a change of mind.

2. I believe in God, and leave it to Him to deal with Brigham's role in the MMM; hence, the reason I invoke His name and judgment. Brigham's role has been whitewashed for nearly 150 years regarding the slaughter of the Fancher party; it's time for the truth to be better known and understood, and what's wrong with that?

3. The dispute you raise involves just two of the southern Utah chiefs that met with BY; there are another dozen or so that are not part of this dispute.

4. Juanita Brooks is considered the premier authority on the MMM and John D. Lee. Perhaps you didn't know that. I suspect you weren't personally present for the First Vision -- does that mean it didn't happen?

5. According to Brooks, those same southern Utah chiefs reached up to the Fancher party in Parowan. They certainly had motivation to catch up to the Fancher party -- the Fanchers were the only emigrants on the south route at the time, the chiefs knew about them and their assets, and that 1,000 head or so of cattle had just been given to them. If a 300-pound guy like George A. Smith can do 52 miles in a single day on the same trail, I suspect the in-better-shape and acclimated Indians chiefs could do just as well or better.

6. I don't know whether GAS's 52-mile day was the easiest stretch or not (was their an "easy stretch" in the frontier days?), but I'll look into it. I just know it was part of his return trip to SLC. I'm not suppressing anything, just giving you all I know. (EDIT: GAS left SLC on his southern Utah tour on August 3, 1857 (coincidentally enough, the same day the Fancher party arrived in SLC), and arrived in Provo that day (meeting with leaders and giving military orders); GAS went to Springville and did the same on 8/4; GAS went to Nephi and did the same on 8/5; GAS went to Fillmore and did the same on 8/6; GAS arrived at Parowan on 8/8 and stayed there til 8/15, reviewing the militia and preaching fiery sermons about the coming war; GAS then went on to Cedar City and Harmony and visited Moutain Meadows. On August 24, GAS headed back to SLC; Hamblin (with the southern Utah Indian chiefs heading for the 9/1 meeting with BY) met up with GAS on 8/25 near Paragonah. They then went to Beaver. It was from Beaver that GAS, Hamblin and the rest traveled 52 miles in one day to Corn Creek (about half-way between Fillmore and Cove Fort), where they camped just 40 yards from the Fancher party on August 25 (and GAS actually spoke with some of the Fancher leaders). GAS arrived in SLC on August 31).

7. Why did it take John D. Lee 10 days to make the trip? I don't know, but rather than rushing, perhaps he was not in any hurry to face God's prophet with the blood of innocent civilians on his hands. Remember, Lee was a zealot and true believer, and the adopted eternal son of Brigham -- I think it likely he feared Brigham might discern Lee's role and lies. (EDIT: Brooks says it only took Lee 9 days to travel to SLC, including a stop-off at the home of friend James Gordon on Mill Creek, to leave with him some of the booty taken off the Fancher party (watches, jewels, and silver)).

8. It's extremely likely the Indian chiefs who were escorted by Hamblin to meet BY on 9/1 returned to southern Utah, since that's where they were from!

9. In Brigham's letter to Haight (or maybe it was Dame) that went with Haslem, Brigham himself said that was the only emigrant train on the south route. (EDIT: This info was in Brigham Young's letter dated September 10, 1857 to Isaac Haight, sent via Haslem; in addressing the Fancher situation, BY said "[t]here are no other trains going south that I know of.").

10. The northern Indians chiefs meeting took place on Aug. 30; the southern Indian chiefs took place on Sept. 1. They were different meetings. On Sept. 1, there was only one herd of cattle that "had gone" on the south route to California -- that belonged to the Fancher party. Yes, Indians had also been given cattle on the north route, but this doesn't change the fact the Fancher cattle had been targeted. Was Huntington accurate in his entries? I guess we'll never know, but the attack on the Fancher party is consistent with what Brigham had instructed the Indians to do on 9/1. And, btw, "had gone" and "on the road" both described the Fancher cattle on 9/1 -- the cattle "had gone" on the south route and was still "on the road" as it relates to the south trail ... well, at least until Mountain Meadows, when the emigrants were forced on a direct "north trail to heaven."

11. Was Brigham a "fanatical anti-Mormon" when he preached blood atonement as doctrine? And don't forget, he was the one who instituted the "oath of vengeance."

12. Eleanor McLean Pratt was in Utah when the Fanchers were still there -- she had been brought in by Abraham Smoot, and Wilford Woodruff interviewed her as to the circumstances of Parley's murder. (EDIT: Eleanor arrived in SLC on July 23, 1857, with Abraham Smoot; Eleanor was interviewed by WW about Parley's death on August 1; the Fancher party arrived in SLC on August 3, and left on August 5; thus, Eleanor obviously was in SLC when the Fancher party came through).

13. At this point in time Utah was essentially a theocracy, and Brigham controlled it (the reason prior federal officers had left, and Buchanan was sending troops to reassert federal control). I agree BY was trying to protect his people (the fear of "genocide" is a bit paranoid, however), I just think he made a monumental mistake in doing that.

14. There was no federal authority at the time in question. And, unlike other territories, Utah was the only one approaching or constituting a theocracy; hence, the reason the army was sent in to reestablish federal authority.

15. Read Brigham's comments to the legislature in January 1852 -- he promoted slavery as a divine system and God's will; this was consistent with his establishing as Church doctrine that blacks cannot have the priesthood and temple ordinances. If you have evidence that Brigham felt he had to institute slavery, then give it, but all you do is keep claiming something that is not backed up by the evidence.

[Neighbor]

I would guess the movie being made about the MMM is damage control for the LDS Church in response to what the History Channel gave out more recently.

""Vengence is Mine" sayeth the LORD.'

The fact that BY ordered the makeshift memorial torn down says volumes of his guilt in the matter. (not to mention what his adopted son said about him)

[Scott Lloyd]

""Vengence is Mine" sayeth the LORD.'

The fact that BY ordered the makeshift memorial torn down says volumes of his guilt in the matter.

This is a crock. Given the rampant anti-Mormon prejudice of the time, and the widespread belief that not just Brigham Young but the entire Mormon people were complicit in the murders at Mountain Meadows, the makeshift monument was inflammatory and deserved to be torn down.

Also, RHT has stated -- thus far without attribution -- that the pile of rocks comprising the monument included the bones of some of the dead. Makes me wonder whether those who constructed the monument were trying more to stir up hatred than to pay due homage to the victims.

[Rollo Tomasi]

... the makeshift monument was inflammatory and deserved to be torn down.

Also, RHT has stated -- thus far without attribution -- that the pile of rocks comprising the monument included the bones of some of the dead.

I think it was a bit more "inflammatory" (and certainly insensitive to the extreme) when Brigham Young visited the monument in 1861, read the inscription on the cross, and said (according to Wilford Woodruff, who was present) that it should instead read "vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

My statement that the monument included the bones of some of the dead was taken from John D. Lee's reference to the "monument that contained their Bones" discussed during his meeting with BY during the latter's 1861 visit (Juanita Brooks and Glass Cleland, A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, 1848-1876, vol. 1, pp. 313-14). Moreover, Carleton reports that when he visited the site in May 1859, his men gathered 34 skeletons and interred them, and put over the grave site the monument and cross which BY had destroyed in 1861 (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 228-29).

[Scott Lloyd]

... the makeshift monument was inflammatory and deserved to be torn down.

Also, RHT has stated -- thus far without attribution -- that the pile of rocks comprising the monument included the bones of some of the dead.

I think it was a bit more "inflammatory" (and certainly insensitive to the extreme) when Brigham Young visited the monument in 1861, read the inscription on the cross, and said (according to Wilford Woodruff, who was present) that it should instead read "vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

My statement that the monument included the bones of some of the dead was taken from John D. Lee's reference to the "monument that contained their Bones" discussed during his meeting with BY during the latter's 1861 visit (Juanita Brooks and Glass Cleland, A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee, 1848-1876, vol. 1, pp. 313-14). Moreover, Carleton reports that when he visited the site in May 1859, his men gathered 34 skeletons and interred them, and put over the grave site the monument and cross which BY had destroyed in 1861 (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 228-29).

It has already been discussed here that the quote in the journal entry, without clarification or explanation, is inscrutable.

Also, the question remains: What was the point of piling up bones with the rocks as part of the cairn? Why not inter them, especially if, as it appears, they were already about the business of interring bones? By thus putting the bones on display, are not the men themselves at least as guilty of desecrating the bodies as those who allegedly did so by taking down the monument?

For that matter, how much can Lee's account be trusted to the effect that the rock cairn included bones of the dead?

[Rollo Tomasi]

It has already been discussed here that the quote in the journal entry, without clarification or explanation, is inscrutable.

...

Also, the question remains: What was the point of piling up bones with the rocks as part of the cairn? Why not inter them, especially if, as it appears, they were already about the business of interring bones? By thus putting the bones on display, are not the men themselves at least as guilty of descrating the bodies as those who allegedly did so by taking down the monument?

...

For that matter, how much can Lee's account be trusted to the effect that the rock cairn included bones of the dead?

1. Do you have some reason to think that Wilford Woodruff misquoted or mischaracterized what BY said at the MMM monument? I can certainly understand why you would find such words uncomfortable, but without any evidence that BY didn't say this or anything like unto it, why do you refuse to accept WW's contemporaneous journal entry?

2. I don't know why they would mix bones and rock together -- perhaps it was more like a crypt or something like that. Perhaps Lee was using hyperbole, and the rocks were really just over the dirt grave of the 34 skeletons. But even if the monument was really more a gravestone than crypt, this doesn't make BY's actions any less egregious, imo. I think everyone would see the destruction of a gravestone or marker as abhorrent and the desecration of a sacred place. And by pulling down the monument, and strewing the stones around, it is likely the grave itself was disturbed.

3. Lee's account was contemporaneous with BY's visit, and written many years before he would be brought up on charges; thus, I don't think Lee's credibility then (1861) was as big a deal as years later when he wrote his "confessions," etc.

4. In any event, BY's words at the gravesite, and his direction for the monument (whether over the grave or mixed with victim remains) to be destroyed, are all very troubling and, I think, give a good glimpse into how Brigham viewed the massacre.

[Scott Lloyd]

It has already been discussed here that the quote in the journal entry, without clarification or explanation, is inscrutable.

...

Also, the question remains: What was the point of piling up bones with the rocks as part of the cairn? Why not inter them, especially if, as it appears, they were already about the business of interring bones? By thus putting the bones on display, are not the men themselves at least as guilty of descrating the bodies as those who allegedly did so by taking down the monument?

...

For that matter, how much can Lee's account be trusted to the effect that the rock cairn included bones of the dead?

1. Do you have some reason to think that Wilford Woodruff misquoted or mischaracterized what BY said at the MMM monument? I can certainly understand why you would find such words uncomfortable, but without any evidence that BY didn't say this or anything like unto it, why do you refuse to accept WW's contemporaneous journal entry?

As I have stated clearly in previous posts, what I refuse to accept is your hostile interpretation of the incident and the quotation attributed to Brigham Young. No one present has given a clear explanation of his meaning, and he isn't here to ask. As has been pointed out before, there are a number of ways to interpret the statement, and there remains enough of a question to make it not just reasonable but prudent to withhold judgment. You have the right to interpret them in the worst way possible, but, absent any clarifying evidence, your interpretation is not binding upon others.

Incidentally, people do remember details differently. An account quoted in Juanita Brooks's book (footnote on page 183) has Brigham studying the monument for a while and then reading out loud, "Vengeance is mine and I have repaid." No "I have taken a little," and nothing there to the effect that this is what the monument should read.

I don't know why they would mix bones and rock together -- perhaps it was more like a crypt or something like that.

[Pahoran]

1.  I believe it was a change of mind because on 9/1 Brigham targeted emigrants on the south route (by instructing the Indians to steal their cattle), but in his message sent via Haslem he instructed that the emigrants be allowed to go in peace.  Inconsistent messages suggest a change of mind.

So, IOW, you assert that Brigham "changed his mind" because you first projected into his mind some evil designs against the Fancher train. Got it in one.

The trouble, Rollo, is that Baglady's hateful imaginings, and your uncritical swallowing and regurgitation thereof, are not evidence of anything except your shared anti-Mormonism. If you can bring yourself to accept the rather obvious fact that the agreement made with the southern Indians on 1 September was exactly the same as the agreement made with the northern Indians on 30 August, all of Brigham's actions become entirely consistent.

He was never after the Fancher train. He had much bigger things to worry about.

I believe in God, and leave it to Him to deal with Brigham's role in the MMM; hence, the reason I invoke His name and judgment.

IOW, you're taking his name in vain.

But do you really leave it to him? No, you do not. You take it upon yourself to blacken Brigham's name with baseless accusations.

Brigham's role has been whitewashed for nearly 150 years regarding the slaughter of the Fancher party; it's time for the truth to be better known and understood, and what's wrong with that?

That's about as counterfactual as an assertion can get.

As you perfectly well know, Brigham's name has been heavily "blackwashed" by every anti-Mormon in North America and elswhere since 12 September, 1857. Every last one of you has salivated at the thought of pinning the MMM on Brigham. That was the sole program of corrupt judges, crooked lawyers and crusading clergymen for two decades, and has been a major plank in the anti-Mormon platform ever since. That, and that alone, is the entire reason why it took so long to bring any of the real perpetrators to justice; the sole reason why Lee was acquitted at his first trial; and the full explanation for why the authorities failed to finish the job--after the Lee conviction, it was apparent that the evidence trail didn't lead back to Brigham, and if they couldn't get him, they didn't care about anyone else. Not that there weren't some honest law enforcement officers who tried, but the driving impetus from their political masters was gone.

The dispute you raise involves just two of the southern Utah chiefs that met with BY; there are another dozen or so that are not part of this dispute.

All of whom were Pahvant Utes. The Indians at the massacre were Paiutes.

Juanita Brooks is considered the premier authority on the MMM and John D. Lee.  Perhaps you didn't know that.  I suspect you weren't personally present for the First Vision -- does that mean it didn't happen?

Fallacious analogy. You call her the "premier authority," but you cite her only when it suits you. Remember, she was convinced that Brigham was NOT responsible for the MMM; why don't you defer to her on that? Nevertheless, she was not an eye-witness and therefore was reliant upon the sources she could find.

According to Brooks, those same southern Utah chiefs reached up to the Fancher party in Parowan.  They certainly had motivation to catch up to the Fancher party -- the Fanchers were the only emigrants on the south route at the time, the chiefs knew about them and their assets, and that 1,000 head or so of cattle had just been given to them.

Brooks was unaware that two contemporaneous sources put the Paiute chiefs back in SLC on either the 10th (during the massacre) or the 16th (just five days afterwards.) Had she known this, her conclusion that the chiefs "reached up to the Fancher party in Parowan" would have to have been changed.

If a 300-pound guy like George A. Smith can do 52 miles in a single day on the same trail, I suspect the in-better-shape and acclimated Indians chiefs could do just as well or better.

A 300-pound guy on a horse can do better time than fit guy on foot. Didn't you know that?

On August 24, GAS headed back to SLC; Hamblin (with the southern Utah Indian chiefs heading for the 9/1 meeting with BY) met up with GAS on 8/25 near Paragonah.  They then went to Beaver.  It was from Beaver that GAS, Hamblin and the rest traveled 52 miles in one day to Corn Creek (about half-way between Fillmore and Cove Fort), where they camped just 40 yards from the Fancher party on August 25 (and GAS actually spoke with some of the Fancher leaders).  GAS arrived in SLC on August 31).

So it took him seven days to make the trip. Why do you assume that the Indians could do it in half the time?

Why did it take John D. Lee 10 days to make the trip?  I don't know, but rather than rushing, perhaps he was not in any hurry to face God's prophet with the blood of innocent civilians on his hands.

Or perhaps thirty miles a day was a pretty good rate of advance over uneven terrain.

Oh, wait! It was. There's no "perhaps" about it. And thus, all your empty speculations and Brodiesque attempts at mind-reading are demonstrated to be as irrelevant and incompetent as the rest of your arguments.

It's extremely likely the Indian chiefs who were escorted by Hamblin to meet BY on 9/1 returned to southern Utah, since that's where they were from!

So how did they get back to SLC by 9/10?

In Brigham's letter to Haight (or maybe it was Dame) that went with Haslem, Brigham himself said that was the only emigrant train on the south route. (EDIT: This info was in Brigham Young's letter dated September 10, 1857 to Isaac Haight, sent via Haslem; in addressing the Fancher situation, BY said "[t]here are no other trains going south that I know of.").

Thank you. That "that I know of" means that he's not 100% certain. By what black art do you divine that a mere opinion of his on the 10th was the guiding force behind his thinking on the 1st?

The northern Indians chiefs meeting took place on Aug. 30; the southern Indian chiefs took place on Sept. 1.  They were different meetings.

Two meetings two days apart with two different groups of Indians, and for identical purposes. You cannot honestly deny that, though no doubt you will try.

On Sept. 1, there was only one herd of cattle that "had gone" on the south route to California -- that belonged to the Fancher party.

Once again, you heap all the weight of your vile suspicions upon that participle.

Yes, Indians had also been given cattle on the north route, but this doesn't change the fact the Fancher cattle had been targeted.

Nice sophistry. Is it a "fact" that "the Fancher cattle had been targeted?"

No.

It is an idle and baseless speculation.

Was Huntington accurate in his entries?  I guess we'll never know, but the attack on the Fancher party is consistent with what Brigham had instructed the Indians to do on 9/1.

No it is not.

It is consistent with what you (or rather Baglady, with your slavish concurrence) have reverse-engineered Huntington's instructions to mean. Well, it would be a pretty poor effort at reverse-engineering if you couldn't make it fit, wouldn't it?

And, btw, "had gone" and "on the road" both described the Fancher cattle on 9/1 -- the cattle "had gone" on the south route and was still "on the road" as it relates to the south trail ...

Except that the "on the road" phrase is taken from Huntington's 30 August entry, the one describing the meeting with the northern chiefs. Now it happens that, as mentioned above, there is one safe conclusion we can reach about these two meetings, and that is that they were identical in content and function. In both cases Brigham was asking the Indians for assistance in closing the passes, and offering them whatever cattle they could drive off as war booty. That is it, and that is all of it--the Fancher train was never "targeted" by anyone except the actual participants.

well, at least until Mountain Meadows, when the emigrants were forced on a direct "north trail to heaven."

Smirked the fellow who has cried buckets of crocodile tears about Brigham being "insensitive."

Was Brigham a "fanatical anti-Mormon" when he preached blood atonement as doctrine?

Your response is a standard anti-Mormon ploy. "I'm just quoting Mormon sources. Are they anti-Mormon too?" Your hero and role model, Ed Decker, uses the same one.

But all you've done is demonstrate why you always mutiliate the quotes: it is so that you can intentionally misrepresent the content of the discussion. You previously wrote:

Blood atonement was used for non-Mormons as well

And it is an egregious falsehood that "blood atonement" was ever "used" at all. See that you do not repeat it.

As for what Brigham said: as I have written elsewhere, Brigham was simply bringing a "hellfire and damnation" preaching style to a people who did not believe in a literal burning hell.

And don't forget, he was the one who instituted the "oath of vengeance."

About which almost as many lies have been told as "blood atonement." It was nothing more or less than a prayer that God would avenge the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. Its real function was exactly the opposite of that claimed by anti-Mormons such as yourself: to entrust vengeance to God, so that the Saints could put the matter behind them.

Eleanor McLean Pratt was in Utah when the Fanchers were still there -- she had been brought in by Abraham Smoot, and Wilford Woodruff interviewed her as to the circumstances of Parley's murder. (EDIT: Eleanor arrived in SLC on July 23, 1857, with Abraham Smoot; Eleanor was interviewed by WW about Parley's death on August 1; the Fancher party arrived in SLC on August 3, and left on August 5; thus, Eleanor obviously was in SLC when the Fancher party came through).

Again, you have answered a question that nobody has asked. Again, your intentional mutilation of the quotes has let you feel free to fake it. Here is the real discussion. You wrote:

There is evidence that she claimed she recognized some men in the Fancher party as being present at Parley's murder (when the Fancher party passed through SLC).

To which I responded:

What "evidence?" You mean "Argus," right? Don't you know that he wasn't even in Utah at the time? Don't you know that he never gives any provenance for this report? Don't you know that a "she said" report wherein the one repeating it doesn't even claim to have heard it, or tell us why he believes that she said it, falls below the level of hearsay?

And don't you know that it is therefore not evidence at all?

At no time did I question Sister Pratt's whereabouts. I disputed your claim that "there is evidence that she claimed she recognized some men in the Fancher party as being present at Parley's murder."

And in fact there is no such evidence, is there?

At this point in time Utah was essentially a theocracy, and Brigham controlled it (the reason prior federal officers had left, and Buchanan was sending troops to reassert federal control).

Oh, that's an outrageous tissue of lies.

"Brigham controlled" Utah, not because it was a "theocracy" (insert usual ignorant Taliban rant here) but because he was the FEDERALLY APPOINTED TERRITORIAL GOVERNOR.

"The reason prior federal officers had left" was not because they Heroically Objected to Brigham's Usurpation of Democratic Institutions, as you tried to imply, but because they were a corrupt lot of scoundrels, cut from the same cloth as the "carpet-baggers" who later plundered the south.

The reason "Buchanan was sending troops to reassert federal control" was not because Brigham had Nefariously Usurped Democratic Institutions, as you tried to imply, but because he chose to believe the lies told by the afore-mentioned carpet-baggers, because his approval rating was dropping. That's what US presidents do, don't you know: when their popularity goes down, they go to war.

I agree BY was trying to protect his people (the fear of "genocide" is a bit paranoid, however),

That's right. No-one had ever issued an extermination order against them, or driven them out of a city they'd built, in mid-winter at gunpoint. Nothing like that had ever happened, so Brigham was just being "paranoid."

I just think he made a monumental mistake in doing that.

And you would be wrong. Agreed that the MMM was a monumental mistake; but only extreme anti-Mormon fanatics think it was Brigham's.

There was no federal authority at the time in question.  And, unlike other territories, Utah was the only one approaching or constituting a theocracy; hence, the reason the army was sent in to reestablish federal authority.

False, false and false. See above.

Read Brigham's comments to the legislature in January 1852 -- he promoted slavery as a divine system and God's will; this was consistent with his establishing as Church doctrine that blacks cannot have the priesthood and temple ordinances.

Again, that's false. The two things have nothing whatever to do with each other.

I challenge you to produce a single instance of a black person being enslaved in Utah. You will find that there were none. Every one of the tiny handful of black slaves in Utah was brought there as a slave.

If you have evidence that Brigham felt he had to institute slavery, then give it, but all you do is keep claiming something that is not backed up by the evidence.

Sorry Rollo, but I find myself reminding you that it is accusers, not defenders, who bear the burden of proof.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

As I have stated clearly in previous posts, what I refuse to accept is your hostile interpretation of the incident and the quotation attributed to Brigham Young. No one present has given a clear explanation of his meaning, and he isn't here to ask.

...

Incidentally, people do remember details differently. An account quoted in Juanita Brooks's book (footnote on page 183) has Brigham studying the monument for a while and then reading out loud, "Vengeance is mine and I have repaid." No "I have taken a little," and nothing there to the effect that this is what the monument should read.

...

Why say the monument "contained" the bones when it was just "over" them? That would be an odd statement to make, even as hyperbole.

...

How is it likely? A single grave containing, according to your conjecture, the remains of 34 persons would have to be pretty narrow and deep to be covered by a single rock cairn.

...

Yet even at that time he is untrustworthy enough, in your view, that you presume to revise his words to state that the rock cairn did not "contain" the bones of victims but was merely placed "over" them.

...

Interesting that on a return trip from this journey, Brigham Young and his party were entertained at dinner by John D. Lee. This would suggest relations between him and Lee were still cordial and would support the theory that Brigham, at this time, was not in full possession of the facts regarding the Mountain Meadows episode. If he thought, as many believed at the time, that the Fancher party included mobbers who had taken part in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and of Parley P. Pratt, as it pertained to such persons, a statement such as "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have repaid" would be justifiable.

1. "Hostile interpretation" of what BY said (as recorded by WW)? I think it was a very reasonable interpretation, but I certainly don't intend to "bind" anyone. Rather, let each reader decide what BY meant by his words and actions in having the monument destroyed.

2. The "repaid" quote you are referring to was by Dudley Leavitt (a massacre participant and ancestor of today's EPA chief, Mike Leavitt). Here's the exact quote:

"[bY said] vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I have repaid. He didn't say another word. He didn't give an order. He just lifted his right arm to the square, and in five minutes there wasn't one stone left upon another. He didn't have to tell us what he wanted done. We understood." (Juanita Brooks, Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 183).

Whichever account you want to use (Woodruff's or Leavitt's), the message is the same -- BY personally agreed with the massacre, justifying it as some form of God's punishment. That's just sick ....

3. The first monument was a very big conical structure, "50 feet in circumference at the base and 12 feet in height," made up of many stones and topped by a 24-foot cedar cross (with the "vengeance" inscription). (Bagley, p. 229). I don't think it makes any difference whether the bones were within or under this massive stone monument -- what matters is that this grave was desecrated (according to Leavitt, not one stone of this huge monument was left on another). The 34 skeletons buried there is no conjecture -- it was in Carleton's report of the very men who gathered and buried the 34 skeletons. And such bones could easily be covered by a monument with a 50-foot circumference (and very easily disturbed if Leavitt's description is correct about the utter destruction of the monument).

4. I'm not taking sides on whether Lee was correct or credible when he said the monument contained bones -- I'm simply quoting what he wrote in his diary. But, again, whether the bones were within or below the structure makes no difference to me -- the monument's destruction was a gross desecration.

5. I'm sure during their 1861 meeting Lee and BY were on very good terms (Lee was Brigham's adopted eternal son, of course, so that's to be expected) and that perhaps BY did not know all the details of what occurred. But Brigham did know this: 120 men, women and children had been slaughtered. Scott, you can argue any justification for the massacre (like the murders of Joseph, Hyrum, and Parley), which the murderers themselves probably used to deal with the fact they butchered unarmed and defenseless families, but there is no justification for mass murder, and Brigham's comment at and desecration of the grave is abhorrent under any type of skewed reasoning. Lee himself later claimed that while Brigham expressed regret over the women and children killed, he felt it couldn't be avoided (I know, Lee is not credible in your eyes, but he recounts the most sympathetic view of Brigham in this regard). Keep trying to make this sordid affair palatable, but no amount of spin will ever put the MMM in a favorable light.

[Zakuska]

Keep trying to make this sordid affair palatable, but no amount of spin will ever put the MMM in a favorable light.

Who is trying to cast it in a "favorable light"?

[Scott Lloyd]

As I have stated clearly in previous posts, what I refuse to accept is your hostile interpretation of the incident and the quotation attributed to Brigham Young. No one present has given a clear explanation of his meaning, and he isn't here to ask.

...

Incidentally, people do remember details differently. An account quoted in Juanita Brooks's book (footnote on page 183) has Brigham studying the monument for a while and then reading out loud, "Vengeance is mine and I have repaid." No "I have taken a little," and nothing there to the effect that this is what the monument should read.

...

Why say the monument "contained" the bones when it was just "over" them? That would be an odd statement to make, even as hyperbole.

...

How is it likely? A single grave containing, according to your conjecture, the remains of 34 persons would have to be pretty narrow and deep to be covered by a single rock cairn.

...

Yet even at that time he is untrustworthy enough, in your view, that you presume to revise his words to state that the rock cairn did not "contain" the bones of victims but was merely placed "over" them.

...

Interesting that on a return trip from this journey, Brigham Young and his party were entertained at dinner by John D. Lee. This would suggest relations between him and Lee were still cordial and would support the theory that Brigham, at this time, was not in full possession of the facts regarding the Mountain Meadows episode. If he thought, as many believed at the time, that the Fancher party included mobbers who had taken part in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and of Parley P. Pratt, as it pertained to such persons, a statement such as "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have repaid" would be justifiable.

"Hostile interpretation" of what BY said (as recorded by WW)? I think it was a very reasonable interpretation, but I certainly don't intend to "bind" anyone.

Good, because you don't have the facts to do so. Your interpretation (and that's only what it is at this point) amounts to jumping to the most damning conclusion possible.

The "repaid" quote you are referring to was by Dudley Leavitt (a massacre participant and ancestor of today's EPA chief, Mike Leavitt).

[Rollo Tomasi]

The trouble, Rollo, is that Baglady's hateful imaginings, and your uncritical swallowing and regurgitation thereof, are not evidence of anything except your shared anti-Mormonism.

...

If you can bring yourself to accept the rather obvious fact that the agreement made with the southern Indians on 1 September was exactly the same as the agreement made with the northern Indians on 30 August, all of Brigham's actions become entirely consistent.

...

He was never after the Fancher train. He had much bigger things to worry about.

...

You take it upon yourself to blacken Brigham's name with baseless accusations.

...

As you perfectly well know, Brigham's name has been heavily "blackwashed" by every anti-Mormon in North America and elswhere since 12 September, 1857. Every last one of you has salivated at the thought of pinning the MMM on Brigham.

...

All of whom were Pahvant Utes. The Indians at the massacre were Paiutes.

...

Fallacious analogy. You call her the "premier authority," but you cite her only when it suits you. Remember, she was convinced that Brigham was NOT responsible for the MMM;

...

Brooks was unaware that two contemporaneous sources put the Paiute chiefs back in SLC on either the 10th (during the massacre) or the 16th (just five days afterwards.) Had she known this, her conclusion that the chiefs "reached up to the Fancher party in Parowan" would have to have been changed.

...

A 300-pound guy on a horse can do better time than fit guy on foot. Didn't you know that?

...

So it took him seven days to make the trip. Why do you assume that the Indians could do it in half the time?

...

That "that I know of" means that he's not 100% certain. By what black art do you divine that a mere opinion of his on the 10th was the guiding force behind his thinking on the 1st?

...

It is consistent with what you (or rather Baglady, with your slavish concurrence) have reverse-engineered Huntington's instructions to mean.

...

In both cases Brigham was asking the Indians for assistance in closing the passes, and offering them whatever cattle they could drive off as war booty. That is it, and that is all of it--the Fancher train was never "targeted" by anyone except the actual participants.

...

And it is an egregious falsehood that "blood atonement" was ever "used" at all. See that you do not repeat it.

...

About which almost as many lies have been told as "blood atonement." It was nothing more or less than a prayer that God would avenge the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. Its real function was exactly the opposite of that claimed by anti-Mormons such as yourself: to entrust vengeance to God, so that the Saints could put the matter behind them.

...

"Brigham controlled" Utah, not because it was a "theocracy" (insert usual ignorant Taliban rant here) but because he was the FEDERALLY APPOINTED TERRITORIAL GOVERNOR.

...

The reason "Buchanan was sending troops to reassert federal control" was not because Brigham had Nefariously Usurped Democratic Institutions, as you tried to imply, but because he chose to believe the lies told by the afore-mentioned carpet-baggers, because his approval rating was dropping. That's what US presidents do, don't you know: when their popularity goes down, they go to war.

...

Again, that's false. The two things have nothing whatever to do with each other.

...

Every one of the tiny handful of black slaves in Utah was brought there as a slave.

...

If you have evidence that Brigham felt he had to institute slavery, then give it, but all you do is keep claiming something that is not backed up by the evidence.

Sorry Rollo, but I find myself reminding you that it is accusers, not defenders, who bear the burden of proof.

1. Actually, Bagley claims that the 9/1 meeting evidences that BY planned the massacre of the Fancher party; I disagree, concluding it only evidences that BY targeted emigrant cattle (including Fancher), which set the stage for the massacre to occur (based on BY's telling his apostles on Aug. 26 that if the Indians engage the emigrants, the Indians will kill innocent people). I don't think BY ever planned the massacre of the Fancher party, but I think he knew such was certainly more likely due to his instruction that the Indians target emigrant cattle. So don't say I swallow Bagley's arguments, when he and I disagree on what BY did at that critical meeting.

2. The plan or principle in the two meetings between the Indians (northern Indians on 8/30 and southern Indians on 9/1) was the same -- steal emigrant cattle to stop overland travel through Utah. The key difference, however, is how that principle was applied -- in the case of the 9/1 meeting, it included the cattle that "had gone" on the south route -- the Fancher party. Remember that GAS, Hamblin and the southern Indian chiefs meeting with BY, had camped beside the Fancher party at Corn Creek just a few days before; thus, it makes perfect sense that this particular emigrant party was discussed and the specific instruction applied to this cattle that "had gone" on the south route.

3. Stopping the Fancher train was part of his battle plan to end overland travel through Utah -- it makes perfect sense that this was a subject at his 9/1 meeting.

4. If Brigham's name has been "blackened," he did it all by himself. His own words and instructions.

5. The "whitewash" I'm referring to is within the LDS Church and the history it teaches its people.

6. Paiute chiefs were also at the 9/1 meeting with BY.

7. Brooks was not "convinced" BY was innocent; she in fact felt he was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. Although she didn't know the details of the 9/1 meeting (she only knew it occurred, not what was said), she still accused BY and GAS of setting the stage for the hysteria that led to the massacre. I agree with her (and not Bagley) that BY did not plan and order the massacre; I agree with her that he played a role in creating the atmosphere that allowed the massacre to occur.

8. She may have been unaware of Huntington's date of 9/10 and Woodruff's date of 9/16, but she also had evidence that the chiefs who had met with BY on 9/1 had overtaken the Fancher party in Parowan. Why do those dates have any greater weight than Brooks's evidence?

9. The southern Indian chiefs rode with GAS and Hamblin to meet BY on 9/1 (unless you're claiming GAS and Hamblin were also on foot), and returned on horses to "overtake" the Fancher party in Parowan.

10. The Indians were probably half the size and had twice the stamina of the 300-pound GAS. The Indian chiefs had 9 days or so before the massacre, and 5 days before the initial attack. Easily doable if GAS is any gauge.

11. Perhaps BY was not 100% certain, but since he was the one who told the chiefs on 9/1 to steal emigrant cattle that "had gone" on the south route, was now answering an urgent message from Haight about the Fancher party, and also was saying the Fancher party was the only train he knew of on the south trail, it all is consistent with this conclusion: the Fanchers were targeted from the beginning -- perhaps not for murder, but certainly for their property to be stolen.

12. Huntington's diary entry speaks for itself. I'm just reading his words -- it is you who is trying to create new words or tenses to avoid the obvious.

13. As I said above, the plan and principle were the same in the two meetings -- but since the application of the plan and principle on the south route included the reality that a very large herd recently "had gone" on the south route (and was the only train BY "knew of" on that route), it makes perfect sense that the instruction included the "had gone" participle.

14. Blood atonement was preached, and at times practiced by zealots. I'll repeat that again if you like.

15. John D. Lee relied on the "oath of vengeance" in saying that men participated in the massacre because they felt it was their religious duty. Even if in the form of a prayer, the members took it very, very seriously. And many southern Utah members saw it as an answer to that "prayer" when the Fancher party was delivered into their hands.

16. Yes, there is evidence that McLean claimed members of the Fancher party passing through SLC had men present at Parley's murder. Woodruff recorded that in his 8/1 interview of her, she expressed bitterness against Arkansas (from where the Fancher party would arrive just 2 days later) and her desire that Parley's death be avenged. Years later, Charles Wandell (the "Argus" you cite) claimed that when the Fancher party passed through SLC, McLean "recognized one or more of the party as having been present at the death of [Parley] Pratt." There is no evidence to support that any of the Fancher party had any involvement in Pratt's death.

17. Brigham knew he was out as governor; that's the reason gave in his 1875 deposition for not starting the investigation of the massacre sooner. Do you really think Brigham wielded more power as governor than he did as Church president and prophet? Thanks for the laugh.

18. Buchanan's sending 2,500 troops to Utah hardly classifies as a "war." He had to put in a new non-Mormon governor, and after the last debacle, had to make sure it stuck. Hence, the army was sent along to make sure the Mormons didn't kick out the new guys like they did the old guys.

19. Brigham's promoting slavery and banning black from the priesthood in the same speech "have nothing whatever to do with each other"? Just keep diggin' the hole deeper, my friend.

20. Utah was the only territory that allowed slavery for both blacks and Indians. In the 1860 census, Utah was the only territory that listed slaves. Keep trying to justify BY's promotion of slavery -- you're just making that hole deeper and deeper.

21. Nice dodge when I ask you to back-up your ridiculous claims justifying slavery in Utah. You were promoting that claim, so the burden is on you to give the evidence.