The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

Are you sure about that?

If you read closely, you'll note that this footnote is talking of Huntington's diary entry for August 30, 1857 (NOT the entry concerning the subseqent 9/1 meeting between BY and the southern Utah Indian chiefs, which we've been discussing) and relates to giving the northern Snake Indians the beef, cattle and horses "on the road to California [by] the North Rout[e]." Sorry, but no cigar ....

[Zakuska]

Yes that it is and no mention of "Emigrants Cattle" on the 1st.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

...

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.

...

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

...

Neither, as it turns out, did BY.

...

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.

...

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.

1. As far as I know, the murder of these civilians was never pardoned (which explains why John D. Lee eventually was executed).

2. If BY put the Indians up to the act that eventually led to the engagement with and massacre of the Fancher party, then he could be "accessory before the fact." And even if there is no legal case, he is morally responsible for his role, imo.

3. The slaughter of these civilians could not in any way be called a "defensive action." They posed no threat to anyone. And Buchanan had nothing to do with it.

4. BY recognized what would occur if the southern Utah Indian chiefs carried out his order of stealing the emigrants' cattle. Again, Buchanan had nothing to do with this.

5. But BY's "soldiers and allies" did the killing, not Buchanan's.

6. You're wrong. General Winfield Scott's orders on June 29, 1857 to the commanding officer stated that "in no case will you, your officers or men, attack any body of citizens whatever, except on such requisition or summons, or in sheer self-defense." The U.S. Army had no intention of killing the Mormons.

7. I never said Johnston's army didn't have "ill intent" toward the Indians, such as your relative. Most white Americans did then. But we are talking about the Mormons' reaction to the coming troops, and their actions toward emigrants traveling through Utah at the time.

8. Look at a map -- after traveling nearly the entire length of Utah, Mountain Meadows was not far from the border. The Fancher party was harmless and posed no threat.

9. And, lest you forget, why do you continue to try and excuse the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Yes that it is and no mention of "Emigrants Cattle" on the 1st.

On September 1, 1857, the only cattle that "had been taken to California on the south route" was emigrant cattle. The army cattle hadn't arrived yet.

[Zakuska]

9. And, lest you forget, why do you continue to try and excuse the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians?

Where did he do that?

Did he not say that everyone feels bad about it?

The problem every one has is where you place the blame.

[Zakuska]

Yes that it is and no mention of "Emigrants Cattle" on the 1st.

On September 1, 1857, the only cattle that "had been taken to California on the south route" was emigrant cattle. The army cattle hadn't arrived yet.

So then the Indians didn't follow orders because they where intsructed to scatter Military cattle.

[Rollo Tomasi]

9. And, lest you forget, why do you continue to try and excuse the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians?

Where did he do that?

By diverting blame from where it rightly lay.

[Zakuska]

No he didn't divert anything.

He said that everyone inclkuding BY felt remorse for it. Remorse is not something a blood thirsty savage feels.

[Rollo Tomasi]

So then the Indians didn't follow orders because they where intsructed to scatter Military cattle.

No, they did what BY told them to do: steal the cattle that had been taken on the southern Utah route to California; unfortunately for the Fanchers, this included them.

[Pahoran]

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.

As you perfectly well know, I never claimed that the exact details of the MMM were ever foreseeable by anyone.

As you perfectly well know, I simply asserted that a man of Buchanan's military experience--he saw combat in the war of 1812--had to know that civilians get killed in wars too.

When he ordered the army into Utah, he had to know that this created danger for civilians. Of course he couldn't know that it would be the Fancher train, just as he couldn't have known that the Iron County Militia would have joined in with the local Paiutes.

But he should have foreseen the real possibility of civilian casualties. If he didn't, then he was negligent.

Why?  Because such a despicable and cowardly act would not be foreseen by any rational person who didn't understand the dynamics in Utah.

You are trying to argue that since he couldn't have foreseen the exact details of the tragedy, he couldn't have foreseen that anything bad could ever have happened.

This is utter nonsense, and one of the most egregious examples of intellectual dishonesty that I have seen in this forum (and I have seen plenty.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

He said that everyone inclkuding BY felt remorse for it. Remorse is not something a blood thirsty savage feels.

We're not talking "remorse," we are talking "responsibility."

[Zakuska]

And come hell or high water BY is going to pay... Am I correct?

If Uncle Buck had left well enough alone BY would not have given the orders and we wouldn't be in this mess.

To every reaction there is a causing action.

[Pahoran]

9. And, lest you forget, why do you continue to try and excuse the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians?

Where did he do that?

By diverting blame from where it rightly lay.

Yet more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

The blame rightly lies with the perpetrators. No-one has said otherwise.

It is you, and you alone, who is trying to divert blame where it does not belong: to the leaders of the Church you hate.

You are also trying to divert it away from the person who has ultimate responsibility for ordering an unjustified invasion and setting in motion the chain of events which led to the foreseeable death of non-combatants.

Does that mean that you are "excusing the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians?"

If some person A says that person B is not to blame for a given crime, it is a damnable lie to accuse person A of "excusing" that crime.

But it makes a good appeal to emotion, which is something hate propagandists rely upon.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

1. As far as I know, the murder of these civilians was never pardoned (which explains why John D. Lee eventually was executed).

And he was wrongfully executed, in my view. This was, in my opinion, militia action, albeit against orders by the CinC, subject to the amnesty. Of course, the politically motivated judge at the 2nd trial long after the events ignored this defense. It should have been appealed by Lee and wasn't.

2. If BY put the Indians up to the act that eventually led to the engagement with and massacre of the Fancher party, then he could be "accessory before the fact." And even if there is no legal case, he is morally responsible for his role, imo.

Nonsense. I need more involvement than that in order for me to be legally responsible as before the fact accessory. As far as morally . . . you seem to think the Amerindians incapable of independent thought and action and, therefore, culpability. This is as nannyisticly racist a view as I have heard in many a moon.

3. The slaughter of these civilians could not in any way be called a "defensive action." They posed no threat to anyone. And Buchanan had nothing to do with it.

Quite weaseling. But for Buck's illegal and undeclared war, but for his invasion of Utah territory, but for his toadying to Southron interests, MMM doesn't happen. And nobody's saying MMM was part of the defensive action. It was specifically ordered against. You know this. Yet you keep making the assumption that BY controlled and therefore caused the events. The events were in full fury before BY even heard about the invasion.

4. BY recognized what would occur if the southern Utah Indian chiefs carried out his order of stealing the emigrants' cattle. Again, Buchanan had nothing to do with this.

He recognized, sadly, what might occur. Too subtle a difference for some to recognize, yet one I'm fully convince RT fully apreciates.

5. But BY's "soldiers and allies" did the killing, not Buchanan's.

Did the Austrians have causus belli against Serbia in 1917? Yes, if Serbia and her masters in Moscow could forsee and not take action to prevent the unforgivable act of murdering the crown prince and royal heir. If Austria had causus belli, and nobody argues they didn't, then Buchanan was responsible for all reasonably forseeable results, including the collateral damage by Cedar City.

6. You're wrong. General Winfield Scott's orders on June 29, 1857 to the commanding officer stated that "in no case will you, your officers or men, attack any body of citizens whatever, except on such requisition or summons, or in sheer self-defense." The U.S. Army had no intention of killing the Mormons.

Nonsense. You know of the terror campaign. The white slavery threats against all unmarried, nubile Mormon girls and women. All the rest of it. Those threats were credible. Have you not read any of the reports of US army and marine actions against civilian noncombatants after Chapultepec? Same Winfield Scott. Same guy. Same lies.

7. I never said Johnston's army didn't have "ill intent" toward the Indians, such as your relative. Most white Americans did then. But we are talking about the Mormons' reaction to the coming troops, and their actions toward emigrants traveling through Utah at the time.

He was a Mormon. Guess that doesn't matter. Amerinds don't count.

8. Look at a map -- after traveling nearly the entire length of Utah, Mountain Meadows was not far from the border. The Fancher party was harmless and posed no threat.

Did the Cedarcitizians know that? Yes or no, it doesn't matter. They bear the corporate and sole on-the-ground moral responsibility for MMM. Not BY. Not all of Mormonia then and now.

9. And, lest you forget, why do you continue to try and excuse the slaughter of 120 unarmed and defenseless civilians?

Now you're just being nasty. You know quite well I never did. All I do is point out the wrongheadedness and nasty inclination to blame those not legally or responsible for MMM.

Remember . . . just who is attacking whom here?

[Rollo Tomasi]

As you perfectly well know, I simply asserted that a man of Buchanan's military experience--he saw combat in the war of 1812--had to know that civilians get killed in wars too.

When he ordered the army into Utah, he had to know that this created danger for civilians. Of course he couldn't know that it would be the Fancher train, just as he couldn't have known that the Iron County Militia would have joined in with the local Paiutes.

But he should have foreseen the real possibility of civilian casualties. If he didn't, then he was negligent.

...

This is utter nonsense, and one of the most egregious examples of intellectual dishonesty that I have seen in this forum (and I have seen plenty.)

1. Yes, civilians get killed in war, but there was no real war here (the army hadn't even arrived in Utah at the time the Fancher party was wiped out), and unintentional harm during battle is one thing; it's quite another to lay a 4-day seige and then slaughter unarmed and defenseless civilians with utterly no connection to the enemy army or posing any threat at all. That's not war, that's mass murder in cold blood.

2. Neither Buchanan nor anyone else outside of Utah had any reason to think that Mormons would target and slaughter innocent civilians who posed neither threat nor connection to the army. There is simply no excuse whatever for what happened at Mountain Meadows. How is it "negligent" for anyone, including Buchanan, not to foresee the wholesale murder of innocent civilians?

3. What is "utter nonsense" and a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty is trying to divert blame from the real perpetrators in Utah who targeted and murdered innocent civilians, to a politician some 2,000 miles away.

[Rollo Tomasi]

If Uncle Buck had left well enough alone BY would not have given the orders and we wouldn't be in this mess.

Regardless of what Buchanan did, BY never should have targeted civilians traveling through Utah.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is you, and you alone, who is trying to divert blame where it does not belong: to the leaders of the Church you hate.

The evidence demonstrates that Brigham Young, as part of his battle plan, targeted civilians. This targeting ultimately led to civilians being massacred. This has nothing to do with the Church, but with Brigham Young's culpability.

[Zakuska]

BY didnt target he told the indians to scatter cattle of the military who would come.

[Bertram]

I have glanced over this thread and I am apportioning "blame" to a pathological Walter Mitty individual who consistently fabricates "information" to prove the Church to be in error!

How do I arrive at this conclusion?

By his own admission of constantly lying to or withholding information from his Priesthood Authority!

Even to the extent to obtain, of all things, a Temple Recommend!

If anyone does that then it only leads me to a sad conclusion!

It is so obvious to me he is so much in denial that I have, sadly, to take nothing from his posts as even verging on the Truth!

I like nothing better than a good discussion on the Gospel but I am far from persuaded to even give him the cloak of credibility such is his vile utterances!

If he accuses me of a personal attack I will purely enquire which one is he....."pot or kettle"?

[Rollo Tomasi]

And he was wrongfully executed, in my view. This was, in my opinion, militia action, albeit against orders by the CinC, subject to the amnesty.

...

As far as morally . . . you seem to think the Amerindians incapable of independent thought and action and, therefore, culpability. This is as nannyisticly racist a view as I have heard in many a moon.

...

Quite weaseling. But for Buck's illegal and undeclared war, but for his invasion of Utah territory, but for his toadying to Southron interests, MMM doesn't happen. And nobody's saying MMM was part of the defensive action. It was specifically ordered against.

...

He recognized, sadly, what might occur. Too subtle a difference for some to recognize, yet one I'm fully convince RT fully apreciates.

...

Buchanan was responsible for all reasonably forseeable results, including the collateral damage by Cedar City.

...

Have you not read any of the reports of US army and marine actions against civilian noncombatants after Chapultepec? Same Winfield Scott. Same guy. Same lies.

...

He was a Mormon. Guess that doesn't matter. Amerinds don't count.

...

They bear the corporate and sole on-the-ground moral responsibility for MMM. Not BY. Not all of Mormonia then and now.

...

Now you're just being nasty. You know quite well I never did. All I do is point out the wrongheadedness and nasty inclination to blame those not legally or responsible for MMM.

1. Imo, more perpetrators should have been executed with John D. Lee -- there is no excuse for cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, militia or not.

2. Brigham Young instructed the southern Utah Indian chiefs to steal emigrant cattle on the south route through Utah to California. The Fancher party was on this south route, and targeted by Indians and Mormons, who eventually slaughtered them. How is it "racist" to think that the chiefs did just as Brigham instructed (there was something in it for them -- 1,000 head of cattle)?

3. Perhaps the massacre was "ordered against" (too late, it turns out), but the targeting of emigrant trains on the south route was "ordered for" by Brother Brigham.

4. Six days before Brigham ordered the southern Utah Indian chiefs to steal emigrant cattle on the south route, he informed his apostles that engagement between Indians and "Gentile emigrants" in Utah would lead to the Indians "killing innocents." How is this subtle?

5. The unprovoked slaughter of innocent and nonthreatening civilians was not foreseeable.

6. We are talking the Utah territory in 1857, not the Mexican War in 1848.

7. Back then, Amerinds didn't count (even BY legalized slavery for Indians in 1852).

8. I agree the perpetrators bear responsiblity for the murders; and BY bears responsibility for having emigrant trains targeted, like the Fanchers.

9. I'm being "nasty"? How many times have you told me to "quit weaseling"? Look in the mirror, friend.

[Scott Lloyd]

6. You're wrong. General Winfield Scott's orders on June 29, 1857 to the commanding officer stated that "in no case will you, your officers or men, attack any body of citizens whatever, except on such requisition or summons, or in sheer self-defense." The U.S. Army had no intention of killing the Mormons.

No intention, that is, if the Mormons were willing to roll over and allow the unjust imprisonment of their leaders and the forced dissolution of their church.

How very benevolent. The reverence for civil liberties is just so touching.

[Rollo Tomasi]

BY didnt target he told the indians to scatter cattle of the military who would come.

That's not what he said, and you know it. He told the Indians to steal the cattle that "had been taken" on the south route to California. No army cattle there, Zak, just emigrant cattle. Keep trying ....

[Pahoran]

As you perfectly well know, I simply asserted that a man of Buchanan's military experience--he saw combat in the war of 1812--had to know that civilians get killed in wars too.

When he ordered the army into Utah, he had to know that this created danger for civilians.  Of course he couldn't know that it would be the Fancher train, just as he couldn't have known that the Iron County Militia would have joined in with the local Paiutes.

But he should have foreseen the real possibility of civilian casualties.  If he didn't, then he was negligent.

...

This is utter nonsense, and one of the most egregious examples of intellectual dishonesty that I have seen in this forum (and I have seen plenty.)

1. Yes, civilians get killed in war, but there was no real war here (the army hadn't even arrived in Utah at the time the Fancher party was wiped out), and unintentional harm during battle is one thing; it's quite another to lay a 4-day seige and then slaughter unarmed and defenseless civilians with utterly no connection to the enemy army or posing any threat at all. That's not war, that's mass murder in cold blood.

This is mere obfuscation. I have already agreed--and never claimed otherwise in the first place--that Buchanan could not have foreseen the specific details of the MMM. But he could have foreseen that the Saints would defend themselves, and that noncombatants could have been caught up in it. Since the MMM is the consequence of these foreseeable events and nothing else, Buchanan bears ultimate responsibility.

Neither Buchanan nor anyone else outside of Utah had any reason to think that Mormons would target and slaughter innocent civilians who posed neither threat nor connection to the army.  There is simply no excuse whatever for what happened at Mountain Meadows.  How is it "negligent" for anyone, including Buchanan, not to foresee the wholesale murder of innocent civilians?

Had the army not been on the way, the Iron County Militia would not have been on alert. Had the army not been on the way, they would not have hesitated to help the emigrants against the Indians, instead of the other way around. Had the army not been on the way, the emigrants themselves might have been a little more circumspect in some of their statements. Had the army not been on the way, the emigrants' boastings and blusterings would have been a whole lot less alarming.

What is "utter nonsense" and a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty is trying to divert blame from the real perpetrators in Utah who targeted and murdered innocent civilians, to a politician some 2,000 miles away.

So it might be--if anyone had tried to divert blame from the real perpetrators.

But no-one has. And anyone who says that they have would be lying in his teeth.

What is "utter nonsense" and a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty is trying to divert blame from the person responsible for setting these events in motion, to a leader defending his people from invasion, whose only "crime" was that he couldn't exercise immediate, day-to-day control over events some 300 miles away.

The fact is that emigrant trains regularly passed through the territory, from the time of the first Mormon settlement until the railroad was completed. The route through Southern Utah, stopping at the Mountain Meadow to let their animals recuperate, was a standard one that was safely taken by many emigrant trains, both before and since. The MMM took place only because the army was coming.

And the army was coming only because Buchanan ordered them there.

It was you who brought up the idea of "proximate cause," remember. Now deal with it.

You subsequently wrote:

The evidence demonstrates that Brigham Young, as part of his battle plan, targeted civilians. This targeting ultimately led to civilians being massacred. This has nothing to do with the Church, but with Brigham Young's culpability.

On the contrary, the evidence conclusively shows that the Paiute chiefs who met with Brigham on the first of September didn't arrive on the scene until after the attack had already started. Brigham's deal couldn't have "caused" something that was already under way by the time the parties to the deal got there.

This is called "logic." You should try it sometime.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

2. Brigham Young instructed the southern Utah Indian chiefs to steal emigrant cattle on the south route through Utah to California. The Fancher party was on this south route, and targeted by Indians and Mormons, who eventually slaughtered them. How is it "racist" to think that the chiefs did just as Brigham instructed (there was something in it for them -- 1,000 head of cattle)?

Beings how the Indians "bulcked" at the mere thought of stealing cattle... I have to say

[Rollo Tomasi]

I have glanced over this thread and I am apportioning "blame" to a pathological Walter Mitty individual who consistently fabricates "information" to prove the Church to be in error!

How do I arrive at this conclusion?

By his own admission of constantly lying to or withholding information from his Priesthood Authority!

Even to the extent to obtain, of all things, a Temple Recommend!

If anyone does that then it only leads me to a sad conclusion!

It is so obvious to me he is so much in denial that I have, sadly, to take nothing from his posts as even verging on the Truth!

I like nothing better than a good discussion on the Gospel but I am far from persuaded to even give him the cloak of credibility such is his vile utterances!

If he accuses me of a personal attack I will purely enquire which one is he....."pot or kettle"?

You really are starting to sound like a broken record. For the umpteenth time, cut the personal attacks and stick to the topic.