The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[USU78]

When the Fancher party was massacred, who got the cattle? It seems that the Indians at Brigham's meeting on Sept. 1, 1857, would have no way to get down to Southern Utah to kill the Fancher party on Sept. 11, 1857.

So why are we even discussing Brigham's Sept. 1, 1857 meeting with the Indians (and what he may have said) if there is no possible connection between that meeting and the

Did the Utes (which whom the Brethren met) and the Paiutes (who participated with the Cedar Citizians in MMM) have the kind of relationship that would make an[alleged] gift of cattle to the Utes an [alleged] gift to the Paiutes?

'Course, to some folks, all Indians look alike.

So I guess it doesn't really matter.

USU "Thinking the $$ given by the legislature to the UofU really belongs to USU" 78

[Rollo Tomasi]

But, as far as the evidence shows, ALL the chiefs were from southern Utah

Can you back that "ALL" up?

Juanita Brooks in John Doyle Lee (p. 203) (bold mine for emphasis):

"In the meantime, the southern Indian chiefs had been taken into Salt Lake City for an interview with the Big Captain. Jacob Hamblin, newly appointed head of the [southern] Indian [M]ission, had been told in his letter of appointment to conciliate the Indians and make them fast friends, 'for they must learn that they have either got to help us, or the United States will kill us both.' Hamblin, wanting the natives to get their orders first hand, started north with Thales Haskell and the local Indian chiefs, picking up others along the way until he had ten in his company."

Brooks goes on to state that after the meeting, the Indians "would be back in the south to overtake the Fancher train at Parowan."

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

Here is an article that you might find interesting.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=509

[Rollo Tomasi]

RT:

Here is an article that you might find interesting.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=509

I have read that article. Actually, that's the same article Scott Lloyd linked and discussed in his last post on this thread (on page 10), and I posted a response thereto (discussing what I agree and disagree with in Crockett's review).

[Zakuska]

Did you forget about this footnote?

Bagley tells us that the language in Huntington's diary entry for 1 September 1857 implies an instruction for attack on the Fancher train. Why then did Dimick Huntington use the same language elsewhere with Indian tribal leaders who could have had no geographic proximity to the Fancher train? For instance, two days earlier in Huntington's diary, 30 August 1857, Huntington wrote:

I [Huntington] told them that the Lord had come out of his Hiding place & they had to commence their work[.] I gave them all the Beef cattle & horses that was on the Road to CalAfornia[,] the North Rout[,] that they must put them into the mountains & not kill any thing as Long as they can help it but when they do Kill[,] take the old ones & not kill the cows or young ones.13

When Huntington talks about not killing anything "as Long as they can help it" he is talking about "cows." He asked the northern Indians for help to run cattle off the northern California route upon which the Fancher train would never tread. Following the massacre, Indian agent Garland Hurt, certainly no friend of the Mormons, noted the same requests were made to the northern Snake Indians.14 T. B. H. Stenhouse also confirms that running the cattle off was a general strategy used successfully against the army.15 Thus, Brigham Young's 1 September 1857 comment: "I gave them all the cattle" can only mean one thing. He offered the Indians all the cattle they could scatter that were owned by the army.

...

13 Huntington, diary, 11-12.

14 Indian Superintendent Garland Hurt determined for himself after the massacre that Brigham Young sought Indian help to run cattle off. Northern Indian tribes told him that "Dimie B. Huntington (interpreter for Brigham Young) and Bishop West, of Ogden, came to the Snake village, and told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them as their own." Hurt continues: "I have frequently been told by the chiefs of the Utahs that Brigham Young was trying to bribe them to join in rebellion against the United States . . . on conditions that they would assist him in opposing the advance of the United States troops." Garland Hurt to Jacob Forney, 4 December 1857, 35th Cong., 1st sess., H. Exec. Doc. 71, serial 956, p. 204. Huntington's diary account of the event and Hurt's thirdhand account conflict. Huntington's diary does not include a specific request to run off the cattle of emigrants, but appears to be limited to a request to run off the army's cattle. Hurt's thirdhand account of Huntington's statement, which Hurt reported after the massacre became public knowledge, includes a request to run off the army's cattle. Given Hurt's well-acknowledged hostility to Brigham Young, I would view Hurt's statement about emigrants' cattle as a probable exaggeration. But, it is not unreasonable to think that Huntington's vocalized strategy to the Indians was to obstruct overland traffic by running everyone's cattle off.

There where 15 Cheifs present... in your quote only 12 people are accounted for, thus not "ALL" where Southern Cheifs. (I beleive one of these twelve was a translator) Theres quite alot of second and third hand accounts going on here.

Also... this one quote blows your theory out of the water. BY was instructing/bribbing all Indians everywhere to scatter cattle... the Francher train was not singled out. The Indians took the orders too far.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Did you forget about this footnote?

...

There where 15 Cheifs present... in your quote only 12 people are accounted for, thus not "ALL" where Southern Cheifs.

1. No, I didn't forget about that footnote. The other Huntington diary entry you quote relates to the "north route" to California -- the meeting on 9/1 with the southern Utah Indian chiefs, however, dealt with the "south route" to California (not coincidentally, the area of the southern Utah Indian chiefs) and the cattle that "had been taken" on that route (note the past tense -- what cattle recently "had been taken" on the south route to California? The massive herd of the Fancher party, of course. The army and its cattle hadn't even arrived yet). Note that Huntington's entries do not mention the army, just "cattle" on "north and south routes" through Utah. We know from Brigham's sermon on August 16, and his instructions to the apostles on August 26, that part of his plan was to stop all overland emigration through Utah, and that Indians would "kill Innocents" if they engaged "Gentile emigrants." Yet, just 6 days later Brigham was instructing the southern Utah Indian chiefs to do just that -- engage emigrants by scattering or stealing their cattle on the south route. And the poor Fancher party was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

2. As for whether ALL the chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 were from southern Utah, I've seen NO evidence to suggest otherwise, and indeed, the evidence we have only suggests they came from the south (and no where near Lander's Pass and Wyoming). As for the number at the 9/1 meeting, perhaps Brooks got the total number of participants wrong (for example, I'm not sure that Brooks's statement of "10" includes Brigham Young, Jacob Hamblin, Thales Haskell and Dimick Huntington -- if not, then this would bring the total number to 14; Bagley also suggests that one "James Gemmell" was present when Hamblin's party arrived at BY's office, so this could put the total at 15). If anyone has evidence that northern Utah Indian chiefs participated in the 9/1 meeting, please share it, but I know of none.

[Zakuska]

It wouldn't matter if Brigham did know that the Indians mischeif would intail violence. They where at war a Nuclear arsenal nipping at his heels.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It wouldn't matter if Brigham did know that the Indians mischeif would intail violence. They where at war a Nuclear army nipping at his heels.

But if Brigham Young knew that his directive to southern Utah Indian chiefs to steal emigrant cattle would lead to violence against civilian emigrants (and it appears he did, given his statement on August 26 that a fight between Gentile emigrants and the Indians would result in the Indians killing "innocent People"), then I submit he bears some responsibility for "setting the stage" that ultimately resulted in massacre.

[Zakuska]

Christ put the Sword in Peters hand knowing full well what would happen, does that make him responsible for "setting the Stage" and attacking an innocent Guard?

God put the ammonites in the Hands of the Israelites knowing full well and even commanding the slaughter... was he "setting a stage" too?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Christ put the Sword in Peters hand knowing full well what would happen, does that make him responsible for "setting the Stage" and attacking an innocent Guard?

Don't know, but at least Christ could fix the mess -- no such luck with bringing back those slaughtered civilians, their corpses left to rot in the sun and be consumed by the beasts in the area.

[Zakuska]

Thats a common bibilical war practice.

[USU78]

It wouldn't matter if Brigham did know that the Indians mischeif would intail violence.  They where at war a Nuclear army nipping at his heels.

But if Brigham Young knew that his directive to southern Utah Indian chiefs to steal emigrant cattle would lead to violence against civilian emigrants (and it appears he did, given his statement on August 26 that a fight between Gentile emigrants and the Indians would result in the Indians killing "innocent People"), then I submit he bears some responsibility for "setting the stage" that ultimately resulted in massacre.

Nonsense. He who commences a war without declaration of war under then prevailing international law bears the responsibility of what has been called collateral damage to property, health and life.

Taking reasonable and prudent steps to prepare for the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force, including engaging the aid of allies in a guerilla involving the stampeding of cattle in order to slow the attacking army's progress is not "setting the stage" for anything at all that wasn't set the minute Buck Buchanan commenced his undeclared and illegal war.

Now, lest you make a big deal about Deseret not being a sovereign nation, I remind you: Only Tsars and Kaisers amongst the rulers of XIXth Century nations sent national armies against their own citizens.

Buck Buchanan was just such a despot.

And bears whole and total responsibility for all collateral damage.

Including MMM.

Your singleminded desire to find something to pin on BY is admirable in its tenacity, pitiful in its wrongheadedness.

[Rollo Tomasi]

He who commences a war without declaration of war under then prevailing international law bears the responsibility of what has been called collateral damage to property, health and life.

...

And bears whole and total responsibility for all collateral damage.

Including MMM.

I had never heard the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians described as "collateral damage." It was more like premeditated murder (or, using your metaphor, a war crime). As part of his battle plan (if it can be called that), Brigham appears to have instructed Indians to target civilians emigrating through Utah just 6 days after telling his apostles that such contact would result in the Indians "killing innocent People." President Buchanan didn't meet with the Indians on 9/1 telling them to target emigrants; President Buchanan didn't lure the emigrants from their cover on a ruse; President Buchanan didn't shoot and slice away at the unarmed victims, including children. In fact, the U.S. Army wasn't even in Utah when this happened, and posed no immediate threat to the saints (and, as it turns out, there never was any real threat; no hostilities ever occurred between the Mormons and soldiers when the latter arrived in Utah). The Fancher party was nearly out of Utah when they were attacked at Mountain Meadows. Spin all you want, but there simply is no rational basis or excuse for the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children who were defenseless and posed no threat to anyone.

[Zakuska]

(and, as it turns out, there never was any real threat; no hostilities ever occurred between the Mormons and soldiers when the latter arrived in Utah).

Of course nothing inssued because the mormons had burried the temple foundation with a wheet field and had piled straw in every building, had the torches lit and where going to burn everything to the ground rather than be plundered by the military once again.

Havent you ever been on a tour of Ft. Douglas?

[Pahoran]

'Course, to some folks, all Indians look alike.

So I guess it doesn't really matter.

'Course, to some folks, Indians aren't really people anyway, so slaughtering them in large numbers doesn't count as a massacre of civilians.

And those folks, strangely enough, have no qualms accusing Brigham of "racism."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Rollo,

I see you are still diligently searching for ways to conceal the truth.

I previously wrote:

"Proximate cause means the active, efficient cause that sets in motion a chain of events which brings about a result without the intervention of any new and independent cause."

"A cause that sets in motion a sequence of events uninterrupted by any superseding causes and that results in a usually foreseeable effect (as an injury) which would not otherwise have occurred."

"In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. There are two elements needed to determine proximate cause: the activity must produce a foreseeable risk, and the injury must be caused directly by the defendant's negligence. There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury or event."

Buchanan ordered the troops into Utah. It was foreseeable to a man of his military experience that (1) the invaded population would attempt to defend themselves, and (2) innocents caught in the crossfire could be killed. Thus, the MMM is a result of the chain of events his order set in motion; his order is, therefore, the proximate cause of the MMM.

And you snipped all but the last sentence--thus eviscerating my argument without engaging it--and non-responded:

Sorry, but there is no way you're gonna get anyone to agree that the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians was proximately caused by Buchanan's military order.

I agree there's no way I'm ever going to get you to agree to it; but then, being an anti-Mormon, you aren't the least bit interested in the truth. AFAICT, you never have been.

The army hadn't even arrived in Utah yet -- and the Fancher party was nearly out of Utah (they posed absolutely no threat to anyone).

The army was coming, the threats they were making were well-known. And "nearly out" means "in." They had the misfortune of being in Utah when Buchanan's invasion order was being implemented. The tragedy was foreseeable by the author of that order.

In the end, the Mormons didn't even fight the army, which shows how small the real threat was.

To those who really are "searching for truth"--as opposed to those who merely give lip service to the idea--it really shows how successful was Brigham's defensive strategy. By the time the army got to Utah they were reliant upon Mormon good will for their survival.

Your effort to divert blame from the real cause is just silly.

Your effort to assign blame to someone who did nothing wrong is just what I'd expect from an anti-Mormon as fanatical and unscrupulous as yourself.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

The army was coming, the threats they were making were well-known. And "nearly out" means "in." They had the misfortune of being in Utah when Buchanan's invasion order was being implemented. The tragedy was foreseeable by the author of that order.

The wholesale slaughter of defenseless civilians who had nothing to do with the approaching U.S. Army, was not "foreseeable" by Buchanan. Why? Because such a despicable and cowardly act would not be foreseen by any rational person who didn't understand the dynamics in Utah.

[Edgar]

Taking reasonable and prudent steps to prepare for the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force, including engaging the aid of allies in a guerilla involving the stampeding of cattle in order to slow the attacking army's progress is not "setting the stage" for anything at all that wasn't set the minute Buck Buchanan commenced his undeclared and illegal war.

Now, lest you make a big deal about Deseret not being a sovereign nation, I remind you: Only Tsars and Kaisers amongst the rulers of XIXth Century nations sent national armies against their own citizens.

Buck Buchanan was just such a despot.

And bears whole and total responsibility for all collateral damage.

Including MMM.

Could someone give me a quick summary on the events leading up to Buchanan sending an army towards Utah? I don't know Utah history as others seem to know.

Thanks!

[Zakuska]

<-- I think this should be your official avatar.

Are you telling me that bush didn't know innocent men women and children would be killed when he sent in the troops?

BY said to scatter the Cattle, and knew some Innocents would be hurt because of it. Such is war. He didn't say to kill 120 men women and children.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Are you telling me that bush didn't know innocent men women and children would be killed when he sent in the troops?

BY said to scatter the Cattle, and knew some Innocents would be hurt because of it. Such is war. He didn't say to kill 120 men women and children.

I don't recall Bush ever instructing anyone to target innocent civilians.

[Zakuska]

I dont recall BY doing that either. The accounts conflict on what was said.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I dont recall BY doing that either. The accounts conflict on what was said.

There is only one account of what was said in that 9/1 meeting between Brigham and the southern Utah Indian chiefs: Brigham "gave them all the cattle on the south rout[e] to Cal[ifornia]." And he knew such engagement against "Gentile emigrants" would lead to violence and the Indians "killing Innocents."

[USU78]

Taking reasonable and prudent steps to prepare for the functional equivalent of the 3rd Army Nuclear Strike Force, including engaging the aid of allies in a guerilla involving the stampeding of cattle in order to slow the attacking army's progress is not "setting the stage" for anything at all that wasn't set the minute Buck Buchanan commenced his undeclared and illegal war.

Now, lest you make a big deal about Deseret not being a sovereign nation, I remind you:  Only Tsars and Kaisers amongst the rulers of XIXth Century nations sent national armies against their own citizens.

Buck Buchanan was just such a despot.

And bears whole and total responsibility for all collateral damage.

Including MMM.

Could someone give me a quick summary on the events leading up to Buchanan sending an army towards Utah? I don't know Utah history as others seem to know.

Thanks!

1847: First wagon train of Mormons, led by BY, arrives in then Mexican territory.

1848: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo requires that huge tracts of land, including all of present-day Utah, be ceded by Mexico to the US. BY, territorial governor, immediately applies to be admitted as a state as the State of Deseret. Positive response is delayed for nearly 50 years.

1857: Utahns kick out federal judge (appointee by Buchanan administration), who arrived with hooker in tow, who sat on the bench with him and suggested judgments on cases. A Mormon is also awarded the contract to provide mail service to the territory. His competitor is furious. He and judge blame Mormons, claiming rebellion. Nobody is sent to check. January is when Buchanan took the bench after winning the previous November's election by carrying a united South. Buchanan knows where the butter for his bread comes from. He, following advice of dispossessed federal judge, losing bidder on mail contract, and others, including the Indian agent in the Utah territory who hated the chumminess between the Mormons and the local Amerindian tribes, convince Buchanan to put down the alleged rebellion. He orders an expeditionary force to Utah to put down the rebellion. This consisted of the majority of US military might at the time, the Mexican expeditionary force having been long released from service. BY gets word at the 24 July celebration that an army is then coming out of Omaha. He appoints Lot Smith and others to delay, but not engage, the army by all prudent means. They successfully do so, requiring the army to winter in a burnt out Fort Bridger because the passes into the Salt Lake Valley were at the time unmanageable for the disease-ridden, starving, and freezing army. I believe only one soldier was killed during the successful delaying action, and that largely by accident.

[Zakuska]

Rollo,

Are you sure about that?

14 Indian Superintendent Garland Hurt determined for himself after the massacre that Brigham Young sought Indian help to run cattle off. Northern Indian tribes told him that "Dimie B. Huntington (interpreter for Brigham Young) and Bishop West, of Ogden, came to the Snake village, and told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them as their own." Hurt continues: "I have frequently been told by the chiefs of the Utahs that Brigham Young was trying to bribe them to join in rebellion against the United States . . . on conditions that they would assist him in opposing the advance of the United States troops." Garland Hurt to Jacob Forney, 4 December 1857, 35th Cong., 1st sess., H. Exec. Doc. 71, serial 956, p. 204. Huntington's diary account of the event and Hurt's thirdhand account conflict. Huntington's diary does not include a specific request to run off the cattle of emigrants, but appears to be limited to a request to run off the army's cattle. Hurt's thirdhand account of Huntington's statement, which Hurt reported after the massacre became public knowledge, includes a request to run off the army's cattle. Given Hurt's well-acknowledged hostility to Brigham Young, I would view Hurt's statement about emigrants' cattle as a probable exaggeration. But, it is not unreasonable to think that Huntington's vocalized strategy to the Indians was to obstruct overland traffic by running everyone's cattle off. 

[USU78]

RT said:

I had never heard the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians described as "collateral damage." It was more like premeditated murder (or, using your metaphor, a war crime).

It ain't metaphor if it really happened that way. Moreover, it ain't a war crime if it was not recognized as such by then effective rules of engagement. Given US Army rules of engagement in the West, I doubt anybody at the time would dare call this a war crime, as it would submit the entirety of the US armed forces to charges. You have 2 choices, RT: (1) either this was a militia (and, therefore, military) action, which would have been "pardoned" by the general amnesty negotiated between and among the combatants, or (2) it was murder by local civilians of other civilians. Either way, you lose your argument that MMM was an illegal act committed by, or at the direction of, BY.

As part of his battle plan (if it can be called that), Brigham appears to have instructed Indians to target civilians emigrating through Utah just 6 days after telling his apostles that such contact would result in the Indians "killing innocent People."

Recognizing that some noncombatants might get hurt as a result of a wholly defensive action is quite a different thing from being morally or legally responsible for those deaths. Buck was soley responsible therefor.

President Buchanan didn't meet with the Indians on 9/1 telling them to target emigrants;

And BY didn't either. He simply recognized what might happen as a result of the illegal, undeclared war by Buck Buchanan.

President Buchanan didn't lure the emigrants from their cover on a ruse; President Buchanan didn't shoot and slice away at the unarmed victims, including children.

Neither, as it turns out, did BY.

In fact, the U.S. Army wasn't even in Utah when this happened, and posed no immediate threat to the saints (and, as it turns out, there never was any real threat; no hostilities ever occurred between the Mormons and soldiers when the latter arrived in Utah).

A damnable obfuscation, RT, and you know better. The army had every intention, as they were under orders, to "take Mormons towns" and "put down the Mormon rebellion." Just what do you think that means? By putting flowers into the Saints' one field piece, Old Sow? Kill the men, rape the women, expose the young to the elements, steal the food and other personalty, and live in the now abandoned buildings. That's what a successful putting down of the Mormon rebellion would have looked like. And, BTW, ask my GG-Uncle, killed by Johnston's army for the crime of being Shoshone and riding on a "white man's saddle," whether the peaceloving soldiers of Johnston's army had any ill intent. Sheesh, mon, don't you know what "real threat" means?

The Fancher party was nearly out of Utah when they were attacked at Mountain Meadows. Spin all you want, but there simply is no rational basis or excuse for the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children who were defenseless and posed no threat to anyone.

Not quite. They were still a week at least from leaving Utah territory when they got bushwacked.

And, lest you forget, nobody's excusing the action by Lee, Klingensmith, et al..

And, lest you forget, everybody feels awful about it, not just you.

And, lest you forget, you're weaseling again.