The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

I have not read Lee's diary for 9/1; the August 31 date for GAS's arrival in SLC was based on his diary entry that he arrived on 8/31 at 4:00 p.m. (Bagley, p. 113).

[Bob Crockett]

Tomasi:

You are a prolific poster and I don't think I can sort through everthing you've said. I have made a brief stab at some of it.

Juanita Brooks says the southern Utah Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 caught up to the Fancher party in Parowan.

She has no evidence. Please check her footnotes and tell me if you think she does. She was famous for assuming things without evidence; just read John Doyle Lee and see all the fictional dialogue.

According to Huntington, the chiefs balked at first to Brigham's instruction. In the end, they did it because Brigham "gave" them the huge herd of Fancher cattle. Thus, they had self-interest in doing as he instructed them.

Nowhere is that stated in the the diary. Arapeen, a northern Ute, balked at fighting the Army. Nowhere does the diary show Indians balking at fighting emigrants, or being asked to fight emigrants.

There are references to Indians balking at Young's implied request to fight emigrants. These come from Hurt's report to Congress, long after the massacre occurred and at a time when it would be very easy to conflate emigrants and army. Hurt was very opposed to Brigham Young's policy of humane treatment of the Indians and was jealous of his loss of influence as Hurt tried to pursue a more brutal federal policy.

At the time of his meeting with southern Utah Indian chiefs on 9/1, he referenced cattle that "had gone" to California on the south route through Utah. At that moment, the only cattle traveling on the south route through Utah belonged to the Fancher party; neither the army nor its cattle had arrived.

You've stated elsewhere that I had no evidence of the usage of the term "south route." My article has a footnote with some of that. But I have many references to the "south route" meaning the cut-off from Wyoming to the Great Basin. I cite one historian of the Utah War which uses the term "south route" to discuss the whereabouts of the Fancher train when it was in Wyoming.

I would be very cautious of accepting at face value the evidence upon which Bagley cites. My example of the Hurt report is one such example. There is no contemporaneous evidence that Young directed the Indians to attack the Fancher train. Indeed, Denton uses the very same 1 Sept 1857 entry to argue that Indians did not want to attack the train.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the response. RCrocket.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Some observations:

1. How did Bagley "purposefully invert dates" concerning BY's meeting with Arapeen on 9/20. Was there some other date for the meeting, or two meetings that he combined into one? I can see why you say that Bagley has presented the information in Huntington's journal entry out of order, but what date did he get wrong? Instead, you seem to argue that Bagley describes the contents of the 9/20 meeting out of sequence, and perhaps he did (I have not read the original 9/20 journal entry), but I think you are incorrect in suggesting that the "massacre" discussed between BY and Arapeen may be concerning a "false, of another, earlier massacre," not the MMM (Crockett's FARMS review of BotP, p. 216 n.48). I know of no evidence of a rumor floating around that time of another massacre somewhere (you seem to imply it would be on the north route to California). And you may be correct that Huntington wrote this entry after 9/20 given the odd comment "before the news reached the City." But the fact Huntington mentions "the news reach[ing] the City" suggests something more than a mere rumor of another massacre, but news of the real massacre at Mountain Meadows. Because this conversation included an actual discussion of the Fancher massacre, it seems highly unlikely they were discussing an altogether different massacre (or even rumor of one). And your statement that Arapeen is a "northern" Indian is misleading in that some may think you're saying he was a northern Utah Indian only interested in cattle on the north route to California. In fact, he was from Sanpete County, well south of SLC, and along the "south route" to California that the Fancher party was traveling -- thus, BY's plan to stop emigrant travel on that route by stealing emigrant cattle was highly relevant to Arapeen (as well as to other tribes on the south route). That Arapeen was not at the actual place of the massacre, or that his tribe did not live in that general area, does not mean he was entirely cut out of the Fancher booty (at the 9/1 meeting, BY gave all cattle along the south route to the Indians there). And where in Huntington's entry for the Arapeen meeting is "army cattle" discussed? (again, I don't have a copy of the diary to know the entire journal entry).

2. I see your point with the cross-examination of Klingensmith, that Klingensmith admitted he did not hear what BY and Lee said about the massacre, but as you admit in footnote 46 of your review of BotP, "Klingensmith did purport to hear Brigham Young give directions about keeping something a secret," which goes directly to Bagley's quoting BY as instructing, "say nothing about it."

3. I, too, have raised with Bagley what I think are errors in his book. Let's just say he didn't handle my observations very well. Despite his errors, I think his book is valuable. I even have some issues with your review of BotP, and when I get a chance I will post my thoughts on this thread.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

...

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.

I was simply giving information I had read in a national magazine.

My "nothing worse" comment was referring to historians within the context of their working with history. I was not making it out to be some sort of unpardonable sin against God.

[USU78]

Klingensmith's credibility in these matters is highly suspect. Just as the testimony of a skellum who scores a "walk" for giving up his boss is highly suspect.

Sorry, Wifey, dear, it's unpleasant to hear such things about your g-g-grandfather, but it's true.

[Zakuska]

2. I see your point with the cross-examination of Klingensmith, that Klingensmith admitted he did not hear what BY and Lee said about the massacre, but as you admit in footnote 46 of your review of BotP, "Klingensmith did purport to hear Brigham Young give directions about keeping something a secret," which goes directly to Bagley's quoting BY as instructing, "say nothing about it."

Maybe he was quoting scripture again as he was want to do?

Matt. 8: 4

4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Matt. 16: 20

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the aChrist.

Matt. 17: 9

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the avision to no bman

[gtaggart]

1. . . .  I know of no evidence of a rumor floating around that time of another massacre somewhere (you seem to imply it would be on the north route to California) . . . And where in Huntington's entry for the Arapeen meeting is "army cattle" discussed? (again, I don't have a copy of the diary to know the entire journal entry). (emphasis supplied)

Rollo, rcrockett recently posted that he spent at least a year and any number of dollars tracking down primary sources (for my purposes, I'll take him at his word). From what I've read of your posts and from the bolded statement above, I take it that your exposure to Mountain Meadows is from Brooks, Bagley, and some books from Signature. Have you read any primary sources on Mountain Meadows? If so, would you mind giving us a taste of which sources you've read? (I remember that at one time we went the rounds on your misunderstanding of what constituted a primary source.) Or are you relying on what you've read in the works of others?

3.  I, too, have raised with Bagley what I think are errors in his book.  Let's just say he didn't handle my observations very well.  Despite his errors, I think his book is valuable. I even have some issues with your review of BotP, and when I get a chance I will post my thoughts on this thread. (emphasis supplied)

On what basis do you make the judgment in bold?

[charity]

Rollo wrote: "I was simply giving information I had read in a national magazine."

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't understand that you believed national magazines were impeccable sources of light and truth. Gossip, Rollo, dear. Simply gossip. And you can't wiggle out of that one.

And when you speak within a specific and limited context, please so identify. "When speaking of historians, there is nothing worse than a historian destroying history." is not the same as "there is nothing worse than an historian destroying history."

.

[Pahoran]

RCrocket,

Something you will need to get used to if you plan to have any ongoing interaction with Rollo is his remarkable skill with a unique method, which I call "discussion-board origami." He has a fascinating way of recasting and plastiforming the discussion each time he replies so as to subtly shift the parameters of the subject. If you simply accept the new terms of the discussion each time, and let this go on unchecked, it will eventually get to the point where you are apologising to him for denying that the MMM ever happened, all the time wondering exactly when you did so.

To see this amazing technique in motion, let us recall what you previously wrote:

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.

Now it is quite clear to me from this that what invalidates Bagley's interpretation here is the order of subjects in the conversation. If Brigham tells Arapeen to help himself to cattle before Arapeen mentions any massacre, it follows that the cattle Brigham was talking about have nothing to do with the massacre Arapeen reports. This is perfectly obvious from the statement cited, but you later make this even clearer, thus:

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."

Note, however, what Rollo says in response to you.

How did Bagley "purposefully invert dates" concerning BY's meeting with Arapeen on 9/20.  Was there some other date for the meeting, or two meetings that he combined into one?  I can see why you say that Bagley has presented the information in Huntington's journal entry out of order, but what date did he get wrong?  Instead, you seem to argue that Bagley describes the contents of the 9/20 meeting out of sequence, and perhaps he did (I have not read the original 9/20 journal entry), but I think you are incorrect in suggesting that the "massacre" discussed between BY and Arapeen may be concerning a "false, of another, earlier massacre," not the MMM (Crockett's FARMS review of BotP, p. 216 n.48).  I know of no evidence of a rumor floating around that time of another massacre somewhere (you seem to imply it would be on the north route to California).  And you may be correct that Huntington wrote this entry after 9/20 given the odd comment "before the news reached the City."  But the fact Huntington mentions "the news reach[ing] the City" suggests something more than a mere rumor of another massacre, but news of the real massacre at Mountain Meadows.  Because this conversation included an actual discussion of the Fancher massacre, it seems highly unlikely they were discussing an altogether different massacre (or even rumor of one).  And your statement that Arapeen is a "northern" Indian is misleading in that some may think you're saying he was a northern Utah Indian only interested in cattle on the north route to California.  In fact, he was from Sanpete County, well south of SLC, and along the "south route" to California that the Fancher party was traveling -- thus, BY's plan to stop emigrant travel on that route by stealing emigrant cattle was highly relevant to Arapeen (as well as to other tribes on the south route).  That Arapeen was not at the actual place of the massacre, or that his tribe did not live in that general area, does not mean he was entirely cut out of the Fancher booty (at the 9/1 meeting, BY gave all cattle along the south route to the Indians there).  And where in Huntington's entry for the Arapeen meeting is "army cattle" discussed? (again, I don't have a copy of the diary to know the entire journal entry).

As you can see, he is trying to rehabilitate Bagley without mention of the most important point at issue. He goes on about the date of the meeting, then produces a long and complex question about whether or not Brigham and Arapeen talk about the MMM or something else, and buries in all of this his contention that Brigham wasn't offering the army's cattle to the Indians at all, only emigrant cattle. If you fall for this, you'll be constantly playing catch-up-wth-the-moving-goalposts. In the meantime, the main point of your argument WRT that meeting--that Brigham offered cattle to Arapeen before Arapeen mentioned any massacre--will be gone by the wayside, while the main plank of Rollo's anti-Mormon platform--his accusation that Brigham knowingly and intentionally "targeted" the Fancher train--will somehow end up being accepted by default.

Just a quick heads-up there.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Charity,

Gossip, Rollo, dear. Simply gossip. And you can't wiggle out of that one.

Rollo -> Jollo -> Jello!

Watch him try!

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the heads up P. I've noticed that with Jello too.

[Rollo Tomasi]

She has no evidence. Please check her footnotes and tell me if you think she does. She was famous for assuming things without evidence; just read John Doyle Lee and see all the fictional dialogue.

...

Nowhere is that stated in the the diary. Arapeen, a northern Ute, balked at fighting the Army. Nowhere does the diary show Indians balking at fighting emigrants, or being asked to fight emigrants.

...

You've stated elsewhere that I had no evidence of the usage of the term "south route." My article has a footnote with some of that. But I have many references to the "south route" meaning the cut-off from Wyoming to the Great Basin. I cite one historian of the Utah War which uses the term "south route" to discuss the whereabouts of the Fancher train when it was in Wyoming.

...

I would be very cautious of accepting at face value the evidence upon which Bagley cites. My example of the Hurt report is one such example. There is no contemporaneous evidence that Young directed the Indians to attack the Fancher train. Indeed, Denton uses the very same 1 Sept 1857 entry to argue that Indians did not want to attack the train.

1. Jaunita Brooks has no footnote in her Lee bio for her statement that the southern Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 "would be back in the south to overtake the Fancher train at Parowan." Nevertheless, I can't imagine Brooks simply picked a city by random and claimed something for which she had no evidence. It would be nice to see her notes and research relating to this statement (do such papers exist?). Parowan is about 230 miles from SLC.

Brooks is not as explicit about this isue in her book about the MMM. Referring to what the chiefs did after the meeting with BY on 9/1, she states:

"The Indians must have started back home immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the massacre of the company." (p. 42).

And later she said of these Indians:

"Since the emigrants having a large herd of cattle, must of necessity move more slowly than the ordinary train, and the Indians on horseback would travel faster, it would be possible for them to overtake the emigrants by the time they arrived at the Meadows." (p. 49)

Brooks then references Haslam's 3-day ride to SLC (actually it was less -- about 60 hours).

I realize you noted in your review that the Paiutes that met with BY on 9/1 could not have made it back in time because Paiutes generally did not ride horses (at that time). In general, this is true, but not to this specific meeting. We know that the southen Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 had been accompanied to SLC by Jacob Hamblin, new president of the southern Indian mission, Thales Haskell and George A. Smith. Unless you are arguing that Hamblin, Haskell and GAS also returned to SLC on foot, they all must have gone on horseback. Thus, there can be no real debate that they didn't go to SLC on horseback to meet with BY on 9/1, which I think strongly suggests they returned to southern Utah also on horseback.

2. It is well established that part of BY's overall battle plan was to stop emigration through Utah (Bagley cites to a August 16, 1857 sermon by BY about Indians "using up" emigrants). And on 9/1 BY was meeting with Indians chiefs who had camped alongside the Fancher party just a few days before. As Huntington records it, BY had given the chiefs the cattle that "had gone" on the south route to California, and BY admit in his 9/10 letter to Haight that the only emigrant train he knew of on the south route at that time was the Fancher party. Thus, if Huntington used the right tense, BY's reference to cattle that "had gone"on the south route belonged to the Fanchers (certainly not the army's, which were no where near SLC (or south of SLC) at that time -- I know, you have a different interpretation of "south route," but I will discuss that below). BY's own record of the 9/1 meeting states thus:

"Kanosh the Pavanut chief with several of his band visited me[.] [G]ave them some council and presents. A spirit seems to be taking possession of the Indians to assist Israel. I can hardly restrain them from exterminating the Americans."

I'm sure you'll argue that "Americans" refers to the approaching U.S. Army, but at this time the army was no where near SLC, and certainly no where near the areas in southern Utah from where these southern Utah Indians chiefs came. Which "Americans" were in the southern part of Utah where these Indian chiefs lived? Yep, the Fancher party -- in the wrong place at the wrong time.

3. I disagree with your argument that BY's use of the "south route" refers to the entire road south of Lander Pass in Wyoming (where the army would travel), because it is not sensical. On 9/1 BY was meeting with chiefs of southern Utah tribes, accompanied by the Indian mission president in southern Utah, Jacob Hamblin. Why would BY tell Indians from southern Utah to attack army cattle on a route well northeast of SLC and no where near where these chiefs and their warriors lived? He wouldn't -- he was giving them instructions for their turf -- the trail through southern Utah. And, again, we return to Huntington's use of the phrase "had gone" for the cattle on the south trail -- the army hadn't arrived yet in Utah (and wouldn't for some time), so it makes no sense to use the phrase "had gone" to refer to cattle that "had not" yet arrived. The only logical meaning of "south route" in the context we have, is the Fancher cattle that "had gone" on the south route, right through the backyards of the chiefs meeting with BY on 9/1.

4. I think BY targeted the Fancher party as a subset of all emigrant trains that would travel the south route that year (remember, on 9/10 BY admitted that the Fancher train is the only one he knew of on the south trail). Huntington's record of the 9/1 meeting with southern Utah Indian chiefs is unmistakeable -- the chiefs meeting with BY were given the cattle that "had gone" on the south route (this applied only to the Fanchers at this time, at least in BY's mind); it did not refer to army cattle (at least not yet) because they were no where near Utah or on the south trail below SLC at that time. My opinion: BY did not plan or order the massacre, but he did target the Fanchers for engagement by the Indians (which he knew would likely lead to the Indians killing innocent emigrants), which in turn set the stage for the massacre.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, rcrockett recently posted that he spent at least a year and any number of dollars tracking down primary sources (for my purposes, I'll take him at his word).  From what I've read of your posts and from the bolded statement above, I take it that your exposure to Mountain Meadows is from Brooks, Bagley, and some books from Signature.  Have you read any primary sources on Mountain Meadows?  If so, would you mind giving us a taste of which sources you've read?  (I remember that at one time we went the rounds on your misunderstanding of what constituted a primary source.)  Or are you relying on what you've read in the works of others?

...

On what basis do you make the judgment in bold?

I readily admit I am neither historian nor scholar. All I have done is read. Some original sources (where I can find them) but usually the scholarly work of others (like Brooks, Bagley, Wise, Denton, FARMS materials, other papers, etc.). I am relying on the works of others, but my conclusions are my own.

I disagree with many of Bagley's conclusions and arguments (like BY planning the massacre -- I don't think the evidence shows that), but I think his book is a valuable resource for facts he gives.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And when you speak within a specific and limited context, please so identify. "When speaking of historians, there is nothing worse than a historian destroying history." is not the same as "there is nothing worse than an historian destroying history."

The context should have been obvious, darling. You're being a bit too "literal," don't ya think?

[Zakuska]

Brooks doesn't seem too convincing to me...

Brooks is not as explicit about this isue in her book about the MMM. Referring to what the chiefs did after the meeting with BY on 9/1, she states:

"The Indians must have started back home immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the massacre of the company." (p. 42).

And later she said of these Indians:

"Since the emigrants having a large herd of cattle, must of necessity move more slowly than the ordinary train, and the Indians on horseback would travel faster, it would be possible for them to overtake the emigrants by the time they arrived at the Meadows." (p. 49)

According to what you said earlier they started harassing in Parawon not the meadows.

Parowan is about 230 miles from SLC.

And how far from the meadows?

[Bertram]

YAWN! ZZZZZZZ YAWN! ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz......

[Rollo Tomasi]

He goes on about the date of the meeting, then produces a long and complex question about whether or not Brigham and Arapeen talk about the MMM or something else, and buries in all of this his contention that Brigham wasn't offering the army's cattle to the Indians at all, only emigrant cattle.

"Invert dates" were rcrocket's words, not mine. I found them confusing, because that phrase suggests the date was changed somehow. Hence, my question. If rcrocket was referring to Bagley's placing out of sequence the items of discussion between BY and Arapeen (which I think he was), then that's fine, but this would not seem to fit the claim of someone "inverting dates."

[Bob Crockett]

Brooks is not as explicit about this isue in her book about the MMM. Referring to what the chiefs did after the meeting with BY on 9/1, she states:

"The Indians must have started back home immediately, for in seven days they were harassing the emigrants at Mountain Meadows, and in ten days they participated in the massacre of the company." (p. 42).

Major problems with this. The Huntington diary puts Tutsegabit and Youngwuds in Salt Lake City on September 10, smack dab in the middle of the massacre (Sept 6 to 11). Huntington Diary, p. 14. Brooks didn't have the diary. Woodruff has them in SL on Sept. 16. 5:98. They must have done some real flying back and forth.

Jaunita Brooks has no footnote in her Lee bio for her statement that the southern Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 "would be back in the south to overtake the Fancher train at Parowan." Nevertheless, I can't imagine Brooks simply picked a city by random and claimed something for which she had no evidence.

She had no evidence. For this, and other crucial assumptions. I rely on evidence. If I'm cross-examining someone who make an assertion of fact with no basis, a court will usually strike the testimony upon request.

We know that the southen Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 had been accompanied to SLC by Jacob Hamblin, new president of the southern Indian mission, Thales Haskell and George A. Smith. Unless you are arguing that Hamblin, Haskell and GAS also returned to SLC on foot, they all must have gone on horseback. Thus, there can be no real debate that they didn't go to SLC on horseback to meet with BY on 9/1, which I think strongly suggests they returned to southern Utah also on horseback.

According to the Smithsonian report, Warren L. D'Azevedo (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Great Basin (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian, 1986), 377: "The Southern Paiute were foot travelers who packed their burdens. The annual cycle required great mobility, and men seem also to have traveled rather widely for hunting, trade, and pleasure." The work mentions, however, occasional use of horses for warfare. (p. 387.) However, horses are not reported during the massacre. Powell does not report them using horses during his exploration of the region. I don't think anything you have mentioned would say that there is a "strong suggestion" that these Pauites used horses to go back and forth from Salt Lake City.

Why would BY tell Indians from southern Utah to attack army cattle on a route well northeast of SLC and no where near where these chiefs and their warriors lived?

Do you consider Ammon Walker and Kanosh to be Paiutes? I'm just curious. They were the only other Indians specifically identified as there on Sept. 1. [They were not Paiutes, and Walker rarely went south of Manti.]

disagree with your argument that BY's use of the "south route" refers to the entire road south of Lander Pass in Wyoming (where the army would travel), because it is not sensical. "

Perhaps. Not my strongest argument. "South route" is used to denote both the road south of Salt Lake City as well as the road south of Lander Pass.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Major problems with this. The Huntington diary puts Tutsegabit and Youngwuds in Salt Lake City on September 10, smack dab in the middle of the massacre (Sept 6 to 11). Huntington Diary, p. 14. Brooks didn't have the diary. Woodruff has them in SL on Sept. 16. 5:98. They must have done some real flying back and forth.

...

She had no evidence. For this, and other crucial assumptions. I rely on evidence. If I'm cross-examining someone who make an assertion of fact with no basis, a court will usually strike the testimony upon request.

...

Do you consider Ammon Walker and Kanosh to be Paiutes? I'm just curious. They were the only other Indians specifically identified as there on Sept. 1. [They were not Paiutes, and Walker rarely went south of Manti.]

1. I agree that they would have had to hustle back south after the 9/1 meeting, but it was possible on horses. I also know the Paiute Indians generally were not known to use horses for transportation then, but I don't think this was the case in Hamblin's escorting them to meet BY in SLC for the 9/1 meeting -- the group traveled and arrived together, meeting with BY together on 9/1 -- unless they were all on foot (which no one is arguing), they were all on horses. And if they went on horses, I believe it more likely than not that they returned on horses. It's still a long trip even on horses -- we know Haslem did it in 60 hours (but he had fresh horses and rode all night); we know that Hamblin's group (which included the obese GAS) did 52 miles one day on the trip to SLC. So, yes, it would be hard, but not impossible (and I think even more possible for the Indians than Mormons, given the former's better acclimation to outdoor Utah and terrain).

2. I realize Brooks might have trouble on cross-examination on her evidence for the Indians overtaking the Fancher party in Parowan, but her lack of footnote does not necessarily mean lack of evidence. Perhaps no footnote was an oversight; perhaps her underlying research for the book contains the evidence (she often lacked footnotes, which bugged me, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the evidence). I don't think she wrote her book with lawyers, court procedure, etc. in mind.

3. I agree that not only Paiutes were at the 9/1 meeting -- there were various tribes represented. But ALL (as far as I could tell) lived along or near the south trail where they were escorted by Jacob Hamblin from southern Utah up to SLC (the very path the Fancher party was then on).

[Pahoran]

I realize Brooks might have trouble on cross-examination on her evidence for the Indians overtaking the Fancher party in Parowan, but her lack of footnote does not necessarily mean lack of evidence.

Now Rollo, if you recall, you previously (about 8 pages ago) 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 I responded to your selectively slavish reliance upon Brooks thus:

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.

And now we see that, despite your subsequent denials, I was right on the money. Brooks asserts some X, which X is serviceable to your anti-Mormon agenda, and therefore we are supposed to take it on faith that she has some evidence for it somewhere that she hasn't seen fit to disclose to us; and we are further supposed to take it on faith that this evidence is all-sufficient and would withstand scrutiny in the light of the Huntington diary.

Perhaps no footnote was an oversight; perhaps her underlying research for the book contains the evidence (she often lacked footnotes, which bugged me, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the evidence).  I don't think she wrote her book with lawyers, court procedure, etc. in mind. 

The rules of evidence don't only apply in court.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

... we are further supposed to take it on faith that this evidence is all-sufficient and would withstand scrutiny in the light of the Huntington diary.

I was simply quoting what Juanita Brooks wrote. What evidence she had for that statement I don't know, but the feat she described was definitely doable. If anything, the Huntington diary entry for 9/1 only supports what Brooks said -- thanks to it, we now know the chiefs has reason to catch up to the Fancher party because Brigham had just given them their cattle (which they were familiar with this huge herd since they had camped near the Fancher party just a few days before).

[Pahoran]

... we are further supposed to take it on faith that this evidence is all-sufficient and would withstand scrutiny in the light of the Huntington diary.

I was simply quoting what Juanita Brooks wrote. What evidence she had for that statement I don't know, but the feat she described was definitely doable. If anything, the Huntington diary entry for 9/1 only supports what Brooks said -- thanks to it, we now know the chiefs has reason to catch up to the Fancher party because Brigham had just given them their cattle (which they were familiar with this huge herd since they had camped near the Fancher party just a few days before).

But the diary entry for 9/10 doesn't.

Clearly your anti-Mormon agenda is the only factor you consult in your selection of evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

But the diary entry for 9/10 doesn't.

BY's 9/10 letter to Isaac Haight sure does, where he admits the Fancher party is the only train on the south route that he knows of -- meaning that in his 9/1 meeting with southern Utah Indian chiefs, he targeted the Fancher party to have their cattle stolen.

[Pahoran]

But the diary entry for 9/10 doesn't.

BY's 9/10 letter to Isaac Haight sure does, where he admits the Fancher party is the only train on the south route that he knows of -- meaning that in his 9/1 meeting with southern Utah Indian chiefs, he targeted the Fancher party to have their cattle stolen.

No.

It doesn't.

The most charitable thing I can say about that accusation is that it is a "leap of logic."

Regards,

Pahoran