The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

The quote from Brigham Young about "I have taken a little" is perhaps the single most significant piece of evidence Will Bagley repeatedly focuses on the show that Brigham Young approved the massacre both before and after the fact. Every time I discuss it with him he quotes this event.

...

Moreover, the statement is problematic. There were two witnesses to this event who chronicled Brigham's statement, and both were different, and neither used stenography to record it.

...

Your reliance on John D. Lee is, really, laughable as I have demonstrated to others elsewhere. Located in the Huntington Library (which both Will Bagley and Juanita Brooks saw but did not mention in their works) is a letter from William Bishop, Lee's lawyer. In the letter Bishop tells Lee that Bishop is going to spice up Lee's confessions to make them sell better. Lee was willing to go along with this.

...

Lee's other diary entries (I see you are not quoting Confessions) are riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies.

...

Bagley relies heavily on Lee and decided not to mention Bishop's letter. In email exchange with me, he admitted that he had seen the letter but had forgotten about it.

...

Moreover, on the very day Lee claims that Brigham said the murders "couldn't be avoided" Brigham's secretary makes no mention of the statement. The only thing Lee did was blame the Indians for it.

...

Brigham Young suspected Lee and sent a team of investigators to Cedar City and could not get enough evidence to do anything. It wasn't until Erastus Snow went to live there that Brigham figured he had had enough.

1. I have never argued that Brigham's statement at the monument in 1861 established his culpability (and I have always maintained, unlike Bagley, that Brigham did not plan or order the massacre, but that he set the stage by targeting civilians). I have said that his comment showed how he felt about the massacre -- that he believed (consistent with what Lee wrote in his diary) that the emigrants merited their fate and had been visited by God's vengeance.

2. The evidence of what Brigham said at the monument does not come from John D. Lee, but from Wilford Woodruff and Dudley Leavitt, both of whom were eyewitnesses. Yes, the precise words they recorded were different, but the substance was the same. And at least Woodruff's was a contemporaneous journal entry, which would tend to support its accuracy.

3. My reliance on John D. Lee is not from his posthumous "Confessions" -- but from his contemporaneous journal entry in 1861. The irony is that his entry is more sympathetic to Brigham than Woodruff's or Leavitt's accounts (i.e., Brigham comes across as more callous in the other accounts, but at least Lee said Brigham was "troubled" by the murders of the women and children).

4. Reliance on Lee's diaries for Brigham's conduct at Mountain Meadows is not even necessary -- WW's and Leavitt's accounts do significantly more damage, imo.

5. What Brigham suspected or figured out from Erastus Snow does not change one whit his behavior at Mountain Meadows in 1861 -- he believed the emigrants deserved what they got, and I find that abhorrent.

[Rollo Tomasi]

By the way, Wilford Woodruff's journal, as quoted by Brooks (page 182), says, "Most of those killed were buried some distance north in a hollow and not at that monument." What does this do to your grave-desecration notion?

This is correct -- Carleton's men only interred 34 skeletons there (as I've said before) -- the remains for the other 86 or so were somewhere else.

[Scott Lloyd]

Brigham knew the monument marked a mass grave (again, whether he thought the bones were within the cairn or under it makes no difference), and had it destroyed.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Dudley Leavitt was one of the major participants in the massacre, a fact neither Brigham Young nor Wilford Woodruff would likely have known at the time of the visit to the grave. Certainly Leavitt had every incentive to justify his conduct and spice up things to show Brigham's approval.

...

I might also point out again the problem with trusting history without a certain amount of cynicism. Juanita Brooks is the biographer of Dudley Leavitt. Although she plainly knew that Leavitt was a participant in the massacre, when she got to the event of the massacre she said essentially that some things are better left unsaid and that she wasn't going to discuss it.

1. Do you contend that the monument was not destroyed during Brigham's visit in May 1861? What evidence do you have contradicting Leavitt's version? And WW's account of what BY said is the same in substance as Leavitt's account, is it not?

2. The fact that Leavitt's granddaughter wrote the seminal history of the MMM, under threat of excommunication, suggests the opposite of what you are saying about Juanita Brooks. If she really wanted to protect her grandfather and her family's good name, she wouldn't have written the history at all. And in her Preface to Mountain Meadows Massacre she candidly admits this:

"To the descendants of the men who were involved, I say that my own grandfather was there. What part he took I do not know, except that in his late life he always insisted, as many others did, that he had nothing to do with it. There is evidence that he was in the vicinity at the time and that he knew what was going on. If he did not help with the massacre, he still did nothing to prevent it."

[Bertram]

Scott Lloyd,

Who is RHT?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd,

Who is RHT?

Rollo H. Tomasi (not his real name, of course).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Scott Lloyd,

Who is RHT?

It's me. Over on the ZLMB board, I couldn't register as "Rollo Tomasi" (said the name was already taken), so I added the "H" in order to register. Hence, my moniker on ZLMB is "Rollo H. Tomasi," leading to Scott's use of the acronym "RHT." He and I go way back over there.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott Lloyd,

Who is RHT?

It's me. Over on the ZLMB board, I couldn't register as "Rollo Tomasi" (said the name was already taken), so I added the "H" in order to register. Hence, my moniker on ZLMB is "Rollo H. Tomasi," leading to Scott's use of the acronym "RHT." He and I go way back over there.

In fact, I hadn't even noticed, until now, that, here on the FAIR board, he got the H out of his name, as it were.

[Ron Beron]

Then, I can assume that despite all evidences you have chosen to ignore the actions BY took after the massacre and, instead, have believed the politicians sent in afterward?  BY probably didn't investigate immediately because he was told the indians had done the deed.  It wasn't until much later that he heard otherwise.

For me, what says it all about Brigham's feelings about the massacre were his words and actions during his visit to the massacre site in May 1861. I think this explains his ambivalence about investigating the matter.

I, too, think Brigham bears some responsibility for what happened. At least enough for the Church to make a public apology for his role and that of other Church leaders, like GAS.

Actually, I don't believe that there was any ambivalence. I think that BY would have liked to show that he was, indeed, innocent of promoting the attack. I believe that is why he attempted to prod the local and federal governments to examine the case. I think that then, as we would find at anytime, a general reluctance for either the media or bureaucratic authorities to investigate something that isn't necessarilyin their own good interests. How else can we explain the reluctance of President Buchanan and Governor Cummings to further explore the situation? It was only through the efforts of the church that brought Lee to justice.

As per the apology, it would seem appropriate for the church to issue an apology for those who were involved and not for any supposed involvement of BY.

[Bertram]

Thanks Guys,

Glad to hear we only have to deal with ONE Rollo!!!!!

TWO are more would be TOO much!!!

[Rollo Tomasi]

Do I trust Brooks?  No.  Do I trust Bagley's version?  Absolutely not; he purposely ignored exculpatory information I document elsewhere in published material.

You raise an interesting point that made me think about how much I trust either Brooks or Bagley to tell the entire story of the MMM. I have issues with both historians.

Brooks -- I think her MMM work was groundbreaking and courageous. But in the past few years I've heard rumors that she may have burned relevant MMM evidence that she felt was too incriminating of the Church (and probably her grandfather). I've seen no evidence that this is true, but if it is, it is the unpardonable sin for any historian, and whatever trust I have of her work would be shot.

Bagley -- I think he did a tremendous job with his book. But I do not agree with all his conclusions (like BY planning and ordering the massacre). I think he went way out on a limb with some of his arguments and conclusions, but did a great job of giving the evidence. I've discussed the book with him, some of my issues, disagreements and questions. His initial response was a defensive knee-jerk reaction laced with profanity. After he calmed down, and realized I was not trying to discredit him, he was much more professional and rational in his responses. Nevertheless, his mercurial temperment may explain why he seemed to go too far in some of his arguments and conclusions in the book. In other words, his obstinateness may have clouded his judgment with some of his arguments.

Others -- Truth be told, I also don't trust FARMS or other apologists when it comes to the MMM. Their selective evidence and (to me) incessant use of irrational explanations for evidence that obviously suggests the opposite, is a turn-off for me.

So, I guess I don't trust anyone, especially when it comes to dealing with disturbing history, like the MMM. In the end, we all have to review the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

[charity]

Rollo wrote: "Brooks -- I think her MMM work was groundbreaking and courageous. But in the past few years I've heard rumors that she may have burned relevant MMM evidence that she felt was too incriminating of the Church (and probably her grandfather). I've seen no evidence that this is true, but if it is, it is the unpardonable sin for any historian, and whatever trust I have of her work would be shot."

Rollo, do you know who is worse than a person who starts a rumor? A person who passes it on. You must really see that you have taken a beating on your stand on this question, to now resort to this kind of scurrilous charge. "Gee whiz, we would know a lot more bad stuff if someone hadn't burned the really incriminating evidence. Only a rumor of course!" Shame on you.

[Zakuska]

Yep... when the chips are down resort to consipracy to keep the flame alive.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, do you know who is worse than a person who starts a rumor? A person who passes it on. You must really see that you have taken a beating on your stand on this question, to now resort to this kind of scurrilous charge. "Gee whiz, we would know a lot more bad stuff if someone hadn't burned the really incriminating evidence. Only a rumor of course!" Shame on you.

This "rumor" has been around for a while. I first read about it in Sally Denton's article on the MMM in the October 2001 edition of American Heritage, wherein Denton writes, "But only last year was it revealed that Brooks, herself a descendant of one of the participants, had admitted to burning crucial historical documents because 'they were just too incriminating' of the church." According to Bagley, Denton is referring to the claim first made by Bart Anderson in Jay Shelledy's Salt Lake Tribune article in March 2000. Levi Peterson, Brooks's biographer, has denied seeing any evidence of such an admission by Brooks during any of his extensive research into her life and writings. I have not read the Trib article with the original claim, so I do not know the evidence for it (if any). Until I see such evidence, I don't believe it -- but the claim itself is disturbing and, if proven, would cause my trust in Brooks's work to be shattered. Imo, there is nothing worse than an historian destroying history.

[Confidential Informant]

Actually, Rollo's claim isn't unique. Bagley claims that all sorts of documents were destroyed (but provides no evidence).

I don't mind Rollo bringing up the accusation, I just wish it was sourced a bit more so that it could be explored in some depth.

C.I.

Added: Whoops, a little slow on the trigger there I guess. Thanks for the cite Rollo.

[charity]

Ps. 101: 5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.

Making a substantiated claim is not the same as passing on gossip, which is what you did, Rollo. You had no information to add light to the claim, you just slapped it out there. I don't accept your "Until I see such evidence, I don't believe it -- but the claim itself is disturbing. . ." to relieve you of the resonsbility for watching your tongue.

And you have got to be kidding. "Imo, there is nothing worse than an historian destroying history." Let's see. Child molesting? Denying the Holy Ghost? I can think of those two just off the top of my head.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ps. 101: 5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.

Making a substantiated claim is not the same as passing on gossip, which is what you did, Rollo.

[Scott Lloyd]

And you have got to be kidding. "Imo, there is nothing worse than an historian destroying history." Let's see. Child molesting? Denying the Holy Ghost? I can think of those two just off the top of my head.

And he just told me, on another thread, that I'm in rare hyperbolic form!

[Bertram]

SO!

The last concentric "authentic" 23 Pages of posts have ALL been based on RUMOUR...GOSSIP....INNUENDO....LIES....SPECTULATION...."EVIDENCE" (that has been destroyed)....HEARSAY.......................................???????

Well I never!

[Bob Crockett]

1. Do you contend that the monument was not destroyed during Brigham's visit in May 1861?  What evidence do you have contradicting Leavitt's version?  And WW's account of what BY said is the same in substance as Leavitt's account, is it not?

The only evidence of this is from Dudley Leavitt. Thus, I suspect it, particularly since WW does not mention it. Do I need evidence contradicting it? The historian's burden does not always require one to find countervailing evidence. Do I personally think it happened? I will admit it is not beyond the pale.

The fact that Leavitt's granddaughter wrote the seminal history of the MMM, under threat of excommunication, suggests the opposite of what you are saying about Juanita Brooks.

I challenge Brooks for missing a whole lot. Nobody has ever taken Brooks on directly for her massive failures of scholarship. I can specify much more. But to miss the DoJ correspondence about continuing prosecutorial efforts, to fail to understand that a deal to forbear justice would have been a felony without a judicial or presidential order, and to base her entire theory upon the "scapegoat" business, is gross error.

Bagley -- I think he did a tremendous job with his book.

His book was a disaster. I have personally chased down hundreds of his cites; I spent a year in libraries around the west and in Washington D.C. looking at his sources. I have spent thousands of dollars on an archivist in the National Archives. I can tell you that Bagley's book was fundamentally dishonest with its treatment of sources and sloppy especially with its treatment of government documents.

Does the book get some things right? Of course.

But, what it got wrong was significant. BOTP couldn't even get right, when it really mattered, the citation to crucial government serial documents. Why? Because BOTP relied upon secondary sources which made the same errors and the book made transparent cites to the primary. (This shows that the UofOklahoma devoted little effort to peer-reviewing or cite-checking.)

He couldn't even get right the correct spelling of the name of the U.S. Attorney General who purportedly authorized the deal to thwart justice, nor the correct spelling of the name of the juror who claimed to set forth the dream of another juror. (Again, a cite checker would have caught this error.)

He purposely inverted dates. Brigham Young asks Arapeen (a northern Indian, nowhere near the massacre) for help in scattering the cattle of the federal troops, whereupon he could keep what he could scatter. Then, Apapeen tells him about a massacre. Bagley reports this out as: Arapeen tells Young of the massacre of the Fancher train. Brigham tells him, keep their cattle. (Again, a cite checker would have caught this error.)

He missed DoJ correspondence which refuted the scapegoat theory. He missed Huntington Library correspondence from Lee's lawyer challenging Lee's own work.

He (as well as Brooks) claimed that one piece of evidence to support the scapegoat theory was that an all-Mormon jury was selected for the second trial, indicating that the DoJ and Lee's lawyer agreed to the deal. But neither Brooks or Bagley notice that the trial transcript reveals that the DoJ lawyer Sumner Howard objected to an all-Mormon jury and tried to strike Mormons off the panel. I have pointed this error out to Bagley, he has nothing to say. But it is plain that neither Bagley nor Brooks read the transcript from start to finish; most of Bagley's citations to the trial are to Trib exposes -- can you imagine that as scholarship?

Do I make mistakes? Yes. Bagley has identified to me only one -- a typo regarding the start date of the massacre. I said Sept 5 when I should have said Sept 6. Typos can be difficult to control, and Bagley has his share. But, Bagley has never, ever, identified to me any other mistakes or errors with my sources.

Truth be told, I also don't trust FARMS or other apologists when it comes to the MMM.

The only "FARMS" apologists which spoken on MMM are myself and Briggs, and I am not affiliated with FARMS and take exception and have taken exception to FARMS' rhetoric in some reviews. I have reviewed Denton and Bagley. I would like to know what evidence I have used selectively. Keep in mind that I did not write a page by page review of either work, so telling me that I didn't address some aspects of Bagley's book doesn't tell me much; it was simply a function of space. [i have a long term project to check Bagley's citations to probate court activities, but that is another day.]

In terms of "selective" use of evidence, Denton is certainly the champion to reach her bogus theory that the Paiutes weren't participants. Denton didn't read to the bottom of important documents, and didn't check the JoD to support her claim that Brigham didn't speak on certain topics and days. Ironically, her work sold better than Bagley's.

So, I guess I don't trust anyone, especially when it comes to dealing with disturbing history, like the MMM. In the end, we all have to review the evidence and come to our own conclusions.

To some extent, that kind of comment is a copout. I guess no history can be trusted, be it Gibbon, Durant, Bancroft, Plutarch or the Bible itself. But one must take a stand against the misuse of sources.

[Zakuska]

rcrocket,

He purposely inverted dates. Brigham Young asks Arapeen (a northern Indian, nowhere near the massacre) for help in scattering the cattle of the federal troops, whereupon he could keep what he could scatter. Then, Apapeen tells him about a massacre. Bagley reports this out as: Arapeen tells Young of the massacre of the Fancher train. Brigham tells him, keep their cattle. (Again, a cite checker would have caught this error.)

Can you elaborate more?

[Bob Crockett]

Tomasi says:

GAS arrived in SLC on August 31.

I pulled this out of one of your posts. Interestingly, however, Lee claims in his diaries that GAS gave him the orders of destruction in present-day Kanosh the next day.

rcrocket

[Scott Lloyd]

1. Do you contend that the monument was not destroyed during Brigham's visit in May 1861?

[Bob Crockett]

rcrocket,

He purposely inverted dates. Brigham Young asks Arapeen (a northern Indian, nowhere near the massacre) for help in scattering the cattle of the federal troops, whereupon he could keep what he could scatter. Then, Apapeen tells him about a massacre. Bagley reports this out as: Arapeen tells Young of the massacre of the Fancher train. Brigham tells him, keep their cattle. (Again, a cite checker would have caught this error.)

Can you elaborate more?

Bagley claims correctly that if Young was involved in disposing of the property of the emigrants he would be an accessory after the fact. (Putting to one side for the moment that he and other Mormons had a presidential pardon for any such offense.)

Bagley cites two events to support his theory. The second event he cites is this one, that he told Chief Arapeen after the massacre that Arapeen could help himself to the booty of the massacre. This is really important to Bagley's theory.

However, the Huntington Diary at page 18-19 actually shows that Young was telling Arapeen to "help himself to what he wanted" of the Army's cattle.

Arapeen then demurs, saying he does not want to fight the Army.

Then, as the conversation progressed, Arapeen tells Young that the Southern Paiutes "had killd the whole of an Emigrant company & took all their stock & it was right."

Young says nothing about Arapeen getting booty from the Fanchers. Bagley has actually twisted what occurs to help his thesis.

The other event Bagley relies upon to show that Young participated in the disposition of the booty is Klingensmith's testimony which described a meeting between Young and Lee during the General Conference in October 1857, right after the massacre. Bagley says that Lee made a full report of the massacre and Young told Lee in Klingensmith's presence to dispose of it.

However, when Klingensmith was cross-examined at trial, he admitted that he never heard the exchange between Young and Lee. (Bagley does not mention this.) Moreover, Lee does not even mention Klingensmith's presence in his diaries, or confessions, nor does Lee ever mention orders to dispose of the booty. (Bagley does not mention this, either.)

So you see, that be very selective use of sources, and by inverting the evidence, a completely different story can be told. I have spoken in a list to Bagley about this problem, and his only response is (1) I am a hack, (2) I am a lawyer and lawyers are trained to lie, and (3) I had a typo in my review as to the start of the massacre. Bagley and I are the same list; he often spouts off about MMM but chooses never to engage me about my specific challenges.

rcrocket

[gtaggart]

Mr. Crockett,

Somewhere on this thread, Rollo said he had read your review in FARMS Review and that he didn't agree with some of what you wrote. You may want to ask him what and why.

Enjoyed your Denton and Bagley reviews by the way.