The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[USU78]

His "role in setting the stage" was to prepare the people to defend themselves against an unprovoked attack.  Since the attack fully justified the defense, he did nothing that any reasonable person would find blameworthy, although rabid anti-Mormon fanatics would undoubtedly disagree.

Did that "defense" include the wholesale murder of 120 unarmed and defenseless men, women and children?

Let's turn this around.

Do you believe BY included MMM amongst his defense plans for the Utah War?

Why?

What is your evidence therefor?

[Rollo Tomasi]

But that's the whole point, Yound didn't set the stage. He was simply reacting to unjust agression from his very own government. It's not like the Saints didn't have precedent to be concerned.

I think the evidence suggests otherwise. If the hysteria played a role in the massacre of a 120 people (who posed no threat to Utahns), then I think it is appropriate to hold those accountable for creating that hysteria. Again, past persecution suffered by the saints does not justify or excuse what happened at Mountain Meadows.

[USU78]

But that's the whole point, Yound didn't set the stage.  He was simply reacting to unjust agression from his very own government.  It's not like the Saints didn't have precedent to be concerned.

I think the evidence suggests otherwise. If the hysteria played a role in the massacre of a 120 people (who posed no threat to Utahns), then I think it is appropriate to hold those accountable for creating that hysteria. Again, past persecution suffered by the saints does not justify or excuse what happened at Mountain Meadows.

So . . . you agree, then, that Buck Buchanan is to blame for MMM?

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you now arguing that Brigham Young ordered the massacre?

If not, your response doesn't make sense.

Nope. I was merely observing that Pahoran seems to argue that the massacre was to be expected in light of the defense tactics of BY, or at least that the hysteria which led to the massacre was a proper tactic.

The hysteria was not a tactic. It was a consequence of the unjust action by the federal government. Church leaders are not to be faulted for mounting a defense.

Your criticism is misplaced.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Do you believe BY included MMM amongst his defense plans for the Utah War?

His defensive plans included stopping overland emigration through Utah. (Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, pp. 91-94).

[Rollo Tomasi]

So . . . you agree, then, that Buck Buchanan is to blame for MMM?

No. Problems with proximate cause. I think Brigham Young and George A. Smith had quite a bit more influence over the saints than Buchanan did.

[USU78]

Do you believe BY included MMM amongst his defense plans for the Utah War?

His defensive plans included stopping overland emigration through Utah. (Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, pp. 91-94).

And that was a bad idea, do you suppose?

Imagine the possibilities -- soldiers in drag as '49ers come into town, only to start the killing and raping and general thievery the Saints had suffered in Missouri and Illinois.

Would it have been unreasonable had BY actually ordered this and had it actually occurred? He would have been negligent had he not considered it.

Fact is, RT, as I'm quite sure you're aware, there never was a cutting off of the borders of Deseret during the short-lived Utah War. The worst that was done to those passing through on BY's orders was to refuse them food. And that was another sensible precaution given the overall strategy of taking to the hills, scorched earth and guerrilla, given the disparity in armaments. You can't now and never could eat greenbacks.

Face it. Buck Buchanan is responsible, if you really want to put the blame on one person.

[USU78]

So . . . you agree, then, that Buck Buchanan is to blame for MMM?

No. Problems with proximate cause. I think Brigham Young and George A. Smith had quite a bit more influence over the saints than Buchanan did.

Sydney Albert Johnston had more influence than Buck did.

Quite weaseling.

If we are to blame one person, should that person not be Buck "I carried the South and I owe them" Buchanan?

[Zakuska]

Rollos just mad the Brigham didn't turn the other cheek.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The hysteria was not a tactic. It was a consequence of the unjust action by the federal government. Church leaders are not to be faulted for mounting a defense.

Your criticism is misplaced.

The hysteria, indeed, was a tactic, at least in the context of Brigham's sending George A. Smith on a tour of southern Utah to stoke up the people's war frenzy. I do not criticize Brigham's planning a defense against the oncoming army -- my beef is that he set the people in such a hysterical frenzy as to make the massacre possible. Not every war atrocity is excused by "defense," including the merciless slaughter of defenseless civilians.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Sydney Albert Johnston had more influence than Buck did.

...

If we are to blame one person, should that person not be Buck "I carried the South and I owe them" Buchanan?

1. Johnston didn't arrive in Utah until well after the Fancher party had been annihilated.

2. Buchanan didn't tell the saints to stop overland emigration; Buchanan didn't instruct the Indians to steal emigrant cattle and horses; Buchanan didn't send George A. Smith on a mission to stoke up war fever; Buchanan didn't slaughter defenseless men, women or children who posed not threat to Utahns. Deflect blame all you want, but God will indeed have vengeance on those responsible.

[Zakuska]

"Deflect blame all you want, but God will indeed have vengeance on those responsible. "

And Rollo will make sure that he does.

[USU78]

The hysteria was not a tactic. It was a consequence of the unjust action by the federal government. Church leaders are not to be faulted for mounting a defense.

Your criticism is misplaced.

The hysteria, indeed, was a tactic, at least in the context of Brigham's sending George A. Smith on a tour of southern Utah to stoke up the people's war frenzy. I do not criticize Brigham's planning a defense against the oncoming army -- my beef is that he set the people in such a hysterical frenzy as to make the massacre possible. Not every war atrocity is excused by "defense," including the merciless slaughter of defenseless civilians.

You're weaseling, RT.

How are Joe and Jane Settler supposed to react when official news comes that the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force is in Nebraska on its way through Wyoming and down Echo Canyon? How are they supposed to react to the news that the US has sent a gunship up the Colorado, trying to find a way to the Mormon settlements?

Fact is, and I'm quite sure you're already aware of this, no matter how much or how little XIXth Century Bombast went into the official and in person reports to the Southern I-15 Corridor settlements, the reaction would have been precisely the same.

Invasions by expeditionary forces don't exactly bring out the cool, deliberate response you seem to insist should have been the reaction of our all too human ancestors 150 years ago.

So don't go blaming the victims for being frightened. We can still have compassion for those whom the US fully planned on wiping out while being both remorseful for their acts of desparate extremity and most regretful for their victims.

Your lack of charity for those facing far greater problems than you or I are ever apt to see astounds me.

[Scott Lloyd]

The hysteria was not a tactic. It was a consequence of the unjust action by the federal government. Church leaders are not to be faulted for mounting a defense.

Your criticism is misplaced.

The hysteria, indeed, was a tactic, at least in the context of Brigham's sending George A. Smith on a tour of southern Utah to stoke up the people's war frenzy. I do not criticize Brigham's planning a defense against the oncoming army -- my beef is that he set the people in such a hysterical frenzy as to make the massacre possible. Not every war atrocity is excused by "defense," including the merciless slaughter of defenseless civilians.

Rallying the people's resolve to resist an armed invasion is not using "hysteria" as a tactic. Nothing in the speeches of Church leaders could even remotely be interpreted to encourage atrocities against innocents.

To use some words I read earlier today, this is a stretch, even for you, Rollo.

[Zakuska]

2. Buchanan didn't tell the saints to stop overland emigration; Buchanan didn't instruct the Indians to steal emigrant cattle and horses; Buchanan didn't send George A. Smith on a mission to stoke up war fever; Buchanan didn't slaughter defenseless men, women or children who posed not threat to Utahns.

And Brigham Young did?!

[USU78]

This:

1. Johnston didn't arrive in Utah until well after the Fancher party had been annihilated.

is just downright silly, RT. First off, Johnston is delayed, as I'm quite sure you are aware. Second, the anticipation of field pieces and bayonets is quite exquisite, I assure you, to those facing the business ends thereof.

This non sequitur is unworthy of you.

2. Buchanan didn't tell the saints to stop overland emigration; Buchanan didn't instruct the Indians to steal emigrant cattle and horses; Buchanan didn't send George A. Smith on a mission to stoke up war fever; Buchanan didn't slaughter defenseless men, women or children who posed not threat to Utahns. Deflect blame all you want, but God will indeed have vengeance on those responsible.

Please. Spare me. Your weaseling on this issue is tiresome. Knock off the XIXth Century Bombast, wipe off those crocodile tears and get real with me here.

But for Buck Buchanan's Blunder, BY doesn't have to do anything to prepare his people for a potentially long and deadly conflict.

But for Buck Buchanan's Blunder, MMM simply doesn't happen.

But for Buck Buchanan's Blunder, we're not having this conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

EDITED TO ADD:

The vengeance quote is only "inflammatory" to those who justified (or approved of) the massacre.

[Rollo Tomasi]

How are Joe and Jane Settler supposed to react when official news comes that the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force is in Nebraska on its way through Wyoming and down Echo Canyon? How are they supposed to react to the news that the US has sent a gunship up the Colorado, trying to find a way to the Mormon settlements?

Fight the soldiers, rather than slaughter unarmed and defenseless civilians.

[USU78]

How are Joe and Jane Settler supposed to react when official news comes that the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force is in Nebraska on its way through Wyoming and down Echo Canyon?  How are they supposed to react to the news that the US has sent a gunship up the Colorado, trying to find a way to the Mormon settlements?

Fight the soldiers, rather than slaughter unarmed and defenseless civilians.

Stop weaseling.

As you are fully aware, the Mormons were quite prepared to do fight Johnston's Army.

And, as you are also fully aware, the Mormons didn't kill the Fancher wagon train. Some Mormons did.

You seem to keep forgetting that.

Which is not logically possible.

Leading me to the conclusion that . . .

[Zakuska]

Not only fight Johnsons Army but burn their self's out of house and home rather than allow their belongings to be stolen once again by the Government.

[Benji]

I'm willing to give Wilford Woodruff the benefit of the doubt that he got Brother Brigham's words right. And Brigham's words, in conjunction with his party's destroying the Carleton monument during their visit, seem to say it all (Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, p. 183, Stanford U. Press 1950).

Wilford Woodruff recorded a lot of interesting things from brother Brigham who was clearly a bloodthirsty and racist man of huge proportion:

[Zakuska]

Benji,

Which Brigham Young are you speaking of? (From the same Discourse)

I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood. The people abroad do not generally understand this, but they will. Like Paul, they do that they would not do, and leave undone that they would do because of the sin that reigns in their members. The nations of the world may apply this same text to their own case. They want to do something, but what to do rightly they do not find.

JOD (10:110)

Certianly not the one I know. Doesn't sound like the "bloodthirsty and racist man of huge proportion" you make him out to be. According to the Bible the Law of God did require the spilling of blood for mixing seed, but according to Brigham that was not his wish.

Better check the context of your Anti-Mormon References next time.

http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/V...JDvol10-24.html

Edit to add link.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rallying the people's resolve to resist an armed invasion is not using "hysteria" as a tactic. Nothing in the speeches of Church leaders could even remotely be interpreted to encourage atrocities against innocents.

I beg to differ. Brigham Young on August 16, 1857:

"If the United States send their army here and war commences, the travel must stop; your trains must not cross this continent back and forth. To accomplish this I need only say a word to the [tribes], for the Indians will use them up unless I continually strive to restrain them. I will say no more to the Indians, let them alone, but do as you please. And what is that? It is to use them up; and they will do it." (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, page 91).

On September 1, 1857, Brigham went one step further. Meeting in Salt Lake City with some southern Utah Indian chiefs escorted by Dimick Huntington, and rather than "restraining" the Indians from doing harm to emigrant trains, Brigham now encouraged the Indians to steal emigrant cattle on the route through southern Utah (the way the Fancher party went). (Bagley, page 113-14). Although not a direct order to massacre civilians, Brigham understood that encouraging the Indians to engage the emigrants could lead to the killings of innocents -- according to Wilford Woodruff, on August 26, 1857, Brigham had told LDS apostles that "Gentile emigrants [will] shoot the indians, wharever they meet them & the Indians now retaliate & will kill innocent People." (Bagley, page 114; spelling and punctuation as in original).

[Scott Lloyd]

Rallying the people's resolve to resist an armed invasion is not using "hysteria" as a tactic. Nothing in the speeches of Church leaders could even remotely be interpreted to encourage atrocities against innocents.

I beg to differ. Brigham Young on August 16, 1857:

"If the United States send their army here and war commences, the travel must stop; your trains must not cross this continent back and forth. To accomplish this I need only say a word to the [tribes], for the Indians will use them up unless I continually strive to restrain them. I will say no more to the Indians, let them alone, but do as you please. And what is that? It is to use them up; and they will do it." (Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, page 91).

On September 1, 1857, Brigham went one step further. Meeting in Salt Lake City with some southern Utah Indian chiefs escorted by Dimick Huntington, and rather than "restraining" the Indians from doing harm to emigrant trains, Brigham now encouraged the Indians to steal emigrant cattle on the route through southern Utah (the way the Fancher party went). (Bagley, page 113-14). Although not a direct order to massacre civilians, Brigham understood that encouraging the Indians to engage the emigrants could lead to the killings of innocents -- according to Wilford Woodruff, on August 26, 1857, Brigham had told LDS apostles that "Gentile emigrants [will] shoot the indians, wharever they meet them & the Indians now retaliate & will kill innocent People." (Bagley, page 114; spelling and punctuation as in original).

So what we have is a situation in which Brigham Young, who up to now had used his influence to subdue a volatile situation between Indians and passing emigrant trains, now announced his intention no longer to do so. The government would now be left to deal on its own with this ongoing problem. This, because the United States government intends to wage war upon him and his people without provocation.

I just can't see anything egregious or heinous here.

[Rollo Tomasi]

And, as you are also fully aware, the Mormons didn't kill the Fancher wagon train. Some Mormons did.

You are quite correct -- not all 100,000 or so Mormons living then participated in the massacre. But the highest Church leaders in the area led the way. And even the most recent plaque at Mountain Meadows, built by the Church in 1999, admits that Mormons and their religion played a significant role in the massacre -- here is the relevant part of the inscription:

"Led by Captains John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, a California-bound wagon train from Arkansas camped in this valley in the late summer of 1857 during the time of the so-called Utah War. In the early morning hours of September 7th, a party of local Mormon settlers and Indians attacked and laid siege to the encampment. For reasons not fully understood, a contingent of territorial militia joined the attackers. This Iron County Militia consisted of local Latter-day Saints (Mormons) acting on orders from their local religious leaders and military commanders headquartered thirty-five miles to the northeast in Cedar City. Complex animosities and political issues intertwined with deep religious beliefs motivated the Mormons, but the exact causes and circumstances fostering the sad events that ensued over the next five days at Mountain Meadows still defy any clear or simple explanation."