The Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Orders are orders, and the failure to follow the orders of the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. Army was subject to strict punishment. And however cruel and callous the army may have been, it certainly pales compared to the cruelty and callousness exhibited at Mountain Meadows.

[Zakuska]

Pales?

How many Imagrants died when they where forced at baynet point over a frozen mississippi.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But he could have foreseen that the Saints would defend themselves, and that noncombatants could have been caught up in it.

...

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 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 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.

...

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

...

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.

1. How can the slaughter of innocent civilians at Mountain Meadows be considered "defensive"? How were these civilians "caught up in it"? The perpetrators came after them, remember? No cross-fire; no battle swirling around them. The actions of the perpetrators cannot be excused or justified in any way, shape or fashion, no matter how hard you try.

2. The "army on the way" provided utterly no basis to excuse or justify the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

3. Brigham's crime was using the southern Utah Indians to specifically target emigrants when he knew it would lead to the Indians "killing Innocents."

4. The MMM took place because Brigham determined to shut down overland travel through Utah, and one way to do this was to have Indians steal emigrant cattle.

5. You clearly have no understanding of "proximate cause."

6. No, the evidence shows at least some of the chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 made it back in time for the massacre on 9/11.

[Confidential Informant]

Rollo,

Have you read the reviews of Blood of the Prophets and the Sally Denton book that were published by FARMS?

I forget the author's name..Robert something, an attorney from SLC who spent a good deal of time on it. He talk about this very issue and shows exactly how "The "army on the way" provided the necessary impetus and hysteria in S. Utah that ultimately led to the MMM.

I'm sure someone here has the links.

C.I.

Edit to add:

No, the evidence shows at least some of the chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 made it back in time for the massacre on 9/11.

Actually, it shows no such thing to my recall.

ci

[Pahoran]

But he could have foreseen that the Saints would defend themselves, and that noncombatants could have been caught up in it.

...

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 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 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.

...

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

...

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.

1. How can the slaughter of innocent civilians at Mountain Meadows be considered "defensive"? How were these civilians "caught up in it"? The perpetrators came after them, remember? No cross-fire; no battle swirling around them. The actions of the perpetrators cannot be excused or justified in any way, shape or fashion, no matter how hard you try.

2. The "army on the way" provided utterly no basis to excuse or justify the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

Firstly: I am not in any way trying to "excuse or justify the perpetrators." You have no excuse for accusing me of so doing.

You are to withdraw your false accusation. An apology would be nice, too.

3.  Brigham's crime was using the southern Utah Indians to specifically target emigrants when he knew it would lead to the Indians "killing Innocents."

So his "crime" is to recruit allies from the only available source to him. Only the most rabid anti-Mormon could see this as a "crime."

4.  The MMM took place because Brigham determined to shut down overland travel through Utah, and one way to do this was to have Indians steal emigrant cattle.

Which was a necessary part of his defensive strategy, which, wherever he was in direct control, was as bloodless as it was successful.

5.  You clearly have no understanding of "proximate cause."

I provided several definitions, and demonstrated how Buchanan's actions qualify. You have done neither. You simply throw the phrase around, hoping that we will be intimidated by your erudition.

It didn't work. Give it up and move on.

6.  No, the evidence shows at least some of the chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 made it back in time for the massacre on 9/11.

I know this. However, the attack started five days earlier; they didn't make it back in time to start the attack.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

Have you read the reviews of Blood of the Prophets and the Sally Denton book that were published by FARMS?

I forget the author's name..Robert something, an attorney from SLC who spent a good deal of time on it. He talk about this very issue and shows exactly how "The "army on the way" provided the necessary impetus and hysteria in S. Utah that ultimately led to the MMM.

...

No, the evidence shows at least some of the chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 made it back in time for the massacre on 9/11.

Actually, it shows no such thing to my recall.

Crockett's review of Bagley's book is discussed earlier in this thread (I haven't read anything about Sally Denton's book), and I gave my thoughts on what I agree with and what I didn't agree with. There is evidence that Tutsegabit and Youngwuds, two Paiute chiefs, were at the 9/1 meeting with BY and the massacre.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Firstly: I am not in any way trying to "excuse or justify the perpetrators." You have no excuse for accusing me of so doing.

You are to withdraw your false accusation. An apology would be nice, too.

...

So his "crime" is to recruit allies from the only available source to him. Only the most rabid anti-Mormon could see this as a "crime."

...

Which was a necessary part of his defensive strategy, which, wherever he was in direct control, was as bloodless as it was successful.

..

I provided several definitions, and demonstrated how Buchanan's actions qualify. You have done neither. You simply throw the phrase around, hoping that we will be intimidated by your erudition.

...

I know this. However, the attack started five days earlier; they didn't make it back in time to start the attack.

1. Sorry, no withdrawal or apology coming. You continue to insist to blame the murders on a guy 2,000 miles away.

2. Brigham's crime was to target innocent civilians in his battle plans.

3. Targeting civilians was not necessary to stopping the soldiers, especially civilians who were nearly out of Utah and the soldiers hadn't even arrived yet.

4. You can quote definitions all you want; where you fail is in applying the facts to those definitions.

5. According to Brooks, the southern Utah Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 overtook "the Fancher party train in Parowan." Well before the massacre.

[Bertram]

ollot,

Better a broken record than broken covenants!

I am definitely sticking to the thread which is who is telling the truth about MMM!

You are constantly quoting long dead individuals INCORRECTLY and FALSELY in relation to who did what or who did not do what in relation to MMM!

You are like the squaddie who claims everyone in the squad is out of step except him......a bit like the Army which claimed they were "innocent" and The Mormons and the Prophet Brigham Young were in the wrong.....in fact just like you are trying to agree with in your avid condemnation since MMM to your latest sad ANTI LDS Church Teachings!

CAN YOU NOT JUST SEE HOW LOW YOU HAVE SUNK WHEN YOU PROFESS TO BE AN HONEST ACTIVE MEMBER IN THE CHURCH BUT CONSTANTLY ATTEMPT TO DO SATAN'S WORK FOR HIM?

I really am sad for you and your loss of Testimony of the True LDS Church and pray that you may seek GOD's guidance.

Be honest with me and tell me if I have mis-quoted your position from what you yourself have revealed on this Board about yourself?

[Zakuska]

5. According to Brooks, the southern Utah Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 overtook "the Fancher party train in Parowan." Well before the massacre.

So then they escorted them form Parowan to MM, how many miles is that?

How then did the wagon train "Circle up" at MM for the final gun battle?

[Pahoran]

Firstly: I am not in any way trying to "excuse or justify the perpetrators."

[Rollo Tomasi]

5. According to Brooks, the southern Utah Indian chiefs who met with BY on 9/1 overtook "the Fancher party train in Parowan." Well before the massacre.

So then they escorted them form Parowan to MM, how many miles is that?

How then did the wagon train "Circle up" at MM for the final gun battle?

They didn't engage the Fancher party until Mountain Meadows; they simply caught up to them in Parowan (doesn't mean they cozied up to them and escorted them thereafter).

[Rollo Tomasi]

The evidence shows that Brigham was not "targeting civilians" at all. The cattle, as legitimate spoils of war, were offered to the Indians all over Utah (not just the Southern Paiutes) as inducement to assist the Saints in their struggle for survival.

...

She was wrong.

In fact Tutsegabit and Youngwuds, the only Paiute chiefs mentioned in the Huntingdon diary entry of which you are so enamoured, were in SLC on either the 10th (Huntington) or the 16th (Woodruff) of September.

They couldn't have made the round trip in time for either date.

I know that James Haslam was able to go one way in three days, pony express style, with relays of fresh horses; but such a service was not available to the Paiute chiefs.

...

No witness from this period reports the Paiutes with horses; they walked everywhere. It is true that they were using them by the 1880's, but it is sloppy logic to assume that they had them in 1857.

...

However, even if we reverse the burden of proof and give the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, as anti-Mormons like you invariably do, and credit the Paiute chiefs with horses that no-one else says they had, their rate of advance is likely to resemble that of John D. Lee, who took 10 days to make the one way trip on horseback. Thirty miles a day is a pretty respectable clip over mountain trails.

So they could not have made the trip down in time to assemble their people for the attack on the evening of the 5th; if they arrived after that, they could not have been in at the death on the 11th even if we allow Woodruff's date of the 16th.

...

You do a whole lot of posing and preening about "searching for truth." It is apparent that you do nothing of the sort--your propaganda activities can't leave you enough time, for one thing--but it would be really nice if you were to try, just once.

1. Your argument for Buchanan's "proximate cause" is like arguing George W. Bush is the "proximate cause" for Iraqi insurgents kidnapping and beheading innocent civilians. It ain't gonna fly in either case.

2. We're not talking about wild cattle grazing throughout Utah; we are not talking about cattle belonging to Mormons -- we are only talking of cattle that "had been taken" on the southern route to California: emigrant cattle! And Brigham clearly targeted this cattle at the Sept. 1 meeting. Any why did Brigham want the Indians to steal the cattle? Just so the Indians could have some extra beef steaks? No, but to stop emigration through Utah; not the emigration of cattle, but of people. Thus, the people were the targets. And the cattle that "had been taken" on the south route were not "spoils of war" -- they belonged to innocent civilians, not the army.

3. Brooks was simply "wrong"? That's the best you got?

4. Perhaps Woodruff was wrong on his dates? Those two chiefs were reported by name to have been present for the massacre. And it's clear they had horses, based on the fact that Hamblin escorted them to Salt Lake (unless you are now contending that Hamblin, too, was on foot), "picking up" others along the way. Haslam made the trip in about 60 hours. After meeting with BY on 9/1, the chiefs had 5 to 6 days before the initial attack, and 9 to10 days before the massacre. Very doable.

5. How is this propaganda? These are just the facts as we know them. Your simply saying they are "wrong" is about as "posing" and "preening" as it gets.

[Pahoran]

Your argument for Buchanan's "proximate cause" is like arguing George W. Bush is the "proximate cause" for Iraqi insurgents kidnapping and beheading innocent civilians.  It ain't gonna fly in either case.

Wow, a false analogy. How original, or something.

I refuse to be dragged into an argument about Bush. It was you, and no-one else, who brought up "proximate cause" WRT the MMM, in order to big-note yourself and give you a fancy-sounding way of implicating Brigham for something he didn't do.

It didn't work. In fact, it backfired.

We're not talking about wild cattle grazing throughout Utah; we are not talking about cattle belonging to Mormons -- we are only talking of cattle that "had been taken" on the southern route to California: emigrant cattle!

Huntington's grammar is so poor as to cast serious doubt upon the reliability of that participle; it's just not solid enough to carry the weight of all the vicious accusations you keep piling onto it. Sorry.

And Brigham clearly targeted this cattle at the Sept. 1 meeting.

Says he, assuming that Brigham was even present. (The evidence is inconclusive.)

Any why did Brigham want the Indians to steal the cattle?  Just so the Indians could have some extra beef steaks?  No, but to stop emigration through Utah; not the emigration of cattle, but of people.

That's right; he's closing the passes.

Thus, the people were the targets.

No, the army's lines of communication were the targets.

And the cattle that "had been taken" on the south route were not "spoils of war" -- they belonged to innocent civilians, not the army.

Not according to the American military doctrine adopted during the Civil War.

Brooks was simply "wrong"?  That's the best you got?

As you perfectly well know--no, it's not.

Perhaps Woodruff was wrong on his dates? 

Perhaps he was.

He said they were in SLC on the 16th (my mother's birthday.) Huntington said they were there on the 10th. When I'm arguing with anti-Mormons, I like to stick Huntington into their craws and let them choke on him, but the fact is that we just don't know which of them is right. But if you think Woodruff was wrong, I'll go along with that: the chiefs were in SLC on the 10th. That's good enough for me!

Those two chiefs were reported by name to have been present for the massacre.

By whom? Not by any of the participants.

And it's clear they had horses, based on the fact that Hamblin escorted them to Salt Lake (unless you are now contending that Hamblin, too, was on foot), "picking up" others along the way.

No, it's not "clear" at all. Hamblin could have provided horses for the trip.

Haslam made the trip in about 60 hours.

Yes, with relays of horses, pony-express style. Are you seriously contending the Paiutes had access to the same services?

After meeting with BY on 9/1, the chiefs had 5 to 6 days before the initial attack,

No they didn't.

They were in SLC until the morning of the 2nd. The Paiute bands assembled for the attack in the evening of the 5th. They had just four days to make the trip.

and 9 to10 days before the massacre.  Very doable.

Not when they had to get back to SLC by the 10th (or the 16th, if you want to hitch your wagon to Wilford Woodruff, since he is suddenly more serviceable to your cause.)

How is this propaganda?  These are just the facts as we know them.

Rubbish. It is supposition and innuendo at best, and blatantly counterfactual at worst.

But then, you are an anti-Mormon, which nobody can deny.

Your simply saying they are "wrong" is about as "posing" and "preening" as it gets.

Except, contrary to that knowingly counterfactual assertion, I didn't "simply say they are 'wrong'," as you very well know. I backed up my defense of Brigham with facts and evidence.

Something you should try consulting occasionally. And probably would, were it not for the fact that, as you very well know, the facts and evidence do not support your anti-Mormon agenda.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Edgar]

the facts and evidence do not support your anti-Mormon agenda.

I've been following this topic and reading all the posts. I disagree with comments indicating Rollo has an anti-Mormon agenda. Based on the comments I have read I have to say Rollo has an "anti-whitewash of history" agenda. Those who defend Brigham Young have a pro-LDS agenda. I am in the anti-whitewash of history camp. I am "pro-truth" regardless of the direction it takes me.

The events that lead to the tragedy at Mountain Meadows are not the fault of just one group. It wasn't the fault of the LDS leaders. It wasn't the fault of the LDS members in southern Utah. It wasn't the fault of the prior US government officials in Utah. It wasn't the fault of Buchanan for deciding to send a large army with the new governor.

To think there is one group responsible for Mountain Meadows is to view the issue as if it were a comic book where the good guys are always good and the bad guys are always bad. Sorry, life is not like that. It is a great deal more complex.

Non-Mormons in government jobs acted poorly in Utah and they were treated poorly. It seems their decisions were largely ignored or interfered with by some LDS but I'm not sure. I'm still reading about this. I understand they left fearing for their safety.

Parley Pratt was killed in Arkansas about six months prior to Mountain Meadows. A revived sense of vengeance toward non-Mormons seemed to arise.

New government representatives were coming to Utah and an army was coming as well. George A. Smith did tour southern Utah with very strong words. Here is an important question: Was the army coming with intent to physically harm the people of Utah or to see that the new government officials were able to be effective in their responsibilities? I think the latter.

What was the mindset of LDS leaders of that time and how is that different than now? I couldn't possibly know but my reading indicates there was still a great deal of resentment, rightfully so, for the way the body of the saints had been treated from 1830 to 1846. The resentment was against several opponents including the government. Yes, tragic things happened to people simply because they were members of the church. However, church members also treated their Gentile neighbors in ways that also ended in tragedy.

I say there is plenty of blame among all the parties involved. I say look for the truth regardless if it supports the church and its leaders or not. Some apologists frequently say church leaders are not perfect and can act as humans. I'm saying this is one of those cases with events leading up to the massacre. I'm saying this is one of those cases leading up to the massacre and the slow and incomplete attempts at "justice" after the massacre.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me but I ask that consideration be given that there are not good guys who are always good and bad guys that are always bad.

[USU78]

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.

But he didn't.

There's no evidence at all he ever did, except innuendo.

It is not honest to say he did.

You know this quite well.

[USU78]

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.

There is a large difference between targeting civilians and targeting civilians' cattle as a delaying tactic to clog the roads and slow the army's advance.

This is not too subtle a point for RT. He is quite smart enough to get it.

[USU78]

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.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not in a position to judge them worthy of execution. I'm delighted you are.

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)?

Quaere, and I honestly don't know this: Does southern = Paiute? Or is it southern Ute. I made this point before and nobody picked it up. Paiutes were the only participants, with the Mormon settlers, in MMM. I am unaware of any Ute involvement. As for the other points, others have addressed them, and I'll not add to this already overlong post repeated what's already been listed here.

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.

Once again: ordering the scattering of cattle in order to clog the roads is a far cry from ordering the deaths of civilians. This is not to subtle a point, RT.

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?

Once again: recognizing the messiness of all human activity, especially in times of war, is a virtue, in this kid's view. Many's the political leader who lacks (or feigns to lack) BY's wisdom and insight. If G-d forsees our wrong choices, is it his fault we make them, and is He responsible therefor?

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

I quite agree. BY could never have forseen the Cedar folks taking this action. Thanks for agreeing with me.

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

You think BY and the rest were unaware of US army actions in Mexico and against the Amerinds? That is not credible. That was entirely forseeable.

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

And you know why Utah was required to be a slavery-recognizing territory.

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

Horse hockey. Cattle, RT, cattle. Cattle aren't people; people, with rare exceptions {my annual nod to Angel} aren't cattle.

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

Weaseling is an action. Nasty is an attitude.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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

But he didn't.

There's no evidence at all he ever did, except innuendo.

It is not honest to say he did.

You know this quite well.

[Rollo Tomasi]

There is a large difference between targeting civilians and targeting civilians' cattle as a delaying tactic to clog the roads and slow the army's advance.

BY knew that having the Indians engage emigrants would result in the Indians "killing Innocent People." Six days after this observation, he instructed the southern Utah Indian chiefs to do just that regarding emigrants already on the southern route through Utah (which was only the Fancher party at that time). BY targeted civilian emigrants then on the south route. There was no army near this area at the time (there's go your argument of a "delay tactic"). Mountain Meadows was well past settlements in Utah (the remainder of the way through Utah was desert). There was no tactical (or other) reason to slaughter defenseless civilians who posed no threat.

[USU78]

BY knew that having the Indians engage emigrants would result in the Indians "killing Innocent People."

And, as I pointed out above, knowing the sad inevitability of loss of civilian life during military campaigns, even defensive ones, makes BY a great leader and an honest man. How many civilians lost their lives during the evacuations by the Russians incident to Napoleon's invasion? How long was this before 1857? To whose example was BY looking in ordering preparation for taking to the hills, delaying the army, and scorching the earth?

Six days after this observation, he instructed the southern Utah Indian chiefs to do just that regarding emigrants already on the southern route through Utah (which was only the Fancher party at that time).

And, as I pointed out above, "instructed" cannot mean "compelled." BY asked for allies' aid. Perhaps they offered it before he asked, who knows for sure? I for one am grateful for their aid and feel a debt of gratitude that only my Great-Great Grandmother and her infant twins died during the conflict, and not the rest of my ancestors. Hurray for the Utes! Huzzah for the Shoshone! They offered their aid, did indeed give aid, and were able to do so without any loss of life. The Paiutes, caught between the army they felt was breathing down their knecks to the North, and the gunboat coming up the Colorado from the South, I pity more than I blame.

Would you could be as charitable to my ancient inlaws in Cedar City. You want them to have been executed. I'm glad you are unable to affect those events, since my wife would never have been here, being descended from Klingensmith.

BY targeted civilian emigrants then on the south route. There was no army near this area at the time (there's go your argument of a "delay tactic").

Rather there was no army yet. Had the Tsar waited until Napoleon was already in Kiev, would he have saved as many innocent civilians from French bayonets, I wonder?

Mountain Meadows was well past settlements in Utah (the remainder of the way through Utah was desert). There was no tactical (or other) reason to slaughter defenseless civilians who posed no threat.

Which is why BY didn't order it and why, as you admitted above, he could not have forseen it.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not in a position to judge them worthy of execution. I'm delighted you are.

...

Quaere, and I honestly don't know this: Does southern = Paiute? Or is it southern Ute. I made this point before and nobody picked it up. Paiutes were the only participants, with the Mormon settlers, in MMM. I am unaware of any Ute involvement.

...

Once again: ordering the scattering of cattle in order to clog the roads is a far cry from ordering the deaths of civilians.

...

Once again: recognizing the messiness of all human activity, especially in times of war, is a virtue, in this kid's view. Many's the political leader who lacks (or feigns to lack) BY's wisdom and insight. If G-d forsees our wrong choices, is it his fault we make them, and is He responsible therefor?

...

BY could never have forseen the Cedar folks taking this action.

...

And you know why Utah was required to be a slavery-recognizing territory.

...

Cattle, RT, cattle. Cattle aren't people; people, with rare exceptions {my annual nod to Angel} aren't cattle.

...

1. Why am I not surprised that you have no problem with the other perpetrators of this cold-blooded murder getting off scot-free?

2. It was primarily made up of Paiute bands from Cedar City, Fort Harmony, Pinto, and the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers. There may have been a few others from the Pahvants, Utes and Piedes.

3. I never said that BY ordered the massacre. What I'm saying is that BY knew that by ordering the Indians to engage the emigrants, he knew it was very likely that the Indians would "kill innocent People." For this reason alone, he never should have targeted civilians.

4. This was not war. No army was around or threatening. The Fancher part was made up entirely of civilians who posed no threat whatever, and were nearly out of Utah (there were no more settlements between Mountain Meadows and the California border). This was premeditated murder, pure and simple.

5. BY certainly foresaw (by his own words on August 26) violence coming upon the emigrants if engaged by the Indians, but he still instructed the chiefs on Sept. 1 to do just that. As for the Mormons participating in the massacre, the dynamics of Mormonism during his presidency would strongly suggest he could foresee their actions as well (i.e., blood atonement doctrine, oath of vengeance covenant, recent murder of Parley P. Pratt, etc.).

6. Utah was not required to be a slave state -- they did it all by themselves in 1852, after Gov. Brigham Young endorsed it to the legislature as a divine institution. Utah was the ONLY territory that had slaves, and even after Abraham Lincoln outlawed slavery in U.S. territories in 1862, Brigham continued to preach from the pulpit that slavery would never be done away with. I'm amazed you're supporting Brigham in this as well -- is the man diety in your eyes, never able to make any mistake?

7. The cattle belonged to people; The cattle BY instructed to be stolen belonged to people; BY stated that if Indians engaged emigrants, the Indians would "kill innocent People." What are you missing here?

[Rollo Tomasi]

And, as I pointed out above, knowing the sad inevitability of loss of civilian life during military campaigns, even defensive ones, makes BY a great leader and an honest man.

...

And, as I pointed out above, "instructed" cannot mean "compelled."

...

BY asked for allies' aid. Perhaps they offered it before he asked, who knows for sure? I for one am grateful for their aid and feel a debt of gratitude that only my Great-Great Grandmother and her infant twins died during the conflict, and not the rest of my ancestors. Hurray for the Utes! Huzzah for the Shoshone! They offered their aid, did indeed give aid, and were able to do so without any loss of life.

...

Would you could be as charitable to my ancient inlaws in Cedar City. You want them to have been executed. I'm glad you are unable to affect those events, since my wife would never have been here, being descended from Klingensmith.

...

Which is why BY didn't order it and why, as you admitted above, he could not have forseen it.

1. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857, in a remote corner in Utah, well past any settlement in Utah. This was no "military campaign," not even a "defensive one." The Fancher party was pursued, surrounded for several days, and then 120 men, women, and children were coaxed out by lies and slaughtered in cold blood. And this makes BY a "great leader and an honest man"?

2. 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.

3. I wonder if the ancestors of the Fancher party feel the same gratitude that you do.

4. I don't want your in-laws executed; I only wish those who committed this horrible deed would have paid; instead (other than John D. Lee), they got away with it.

5. I'm glad some good came out of Klingensmith's life (such as your spouse), but he also participated in cold-blooded murder, for which he will answer to God.

6. I have never said that Brigham ordered the massacre; only that he set the stage that allowed for the massacre, for which he, too, will answer to God.

[Zakuska]

ROLLOS SNIPE Hunt continues...

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

Huntington Diary (Sep 1)

The Cattle that had been given to the Southern Indian Cheifs had come from the North Route.

So Now Rollo you want us to beleive that 10 Southern Indian Cheifs with Cattle in tow Made it all the way down to Parowan Utah (Who knows how many Miles from the circled up Fracher train on MM) intime to participate in the Masacre then all the way back up to SLC in how many days?

Perhaps Cows really can jump over the moon!

EDIT for spelling.

[Zakuska]

Rollo,

1. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857, in a remote corner in Utah, well past any settlement in Utah. This was no "military campaign," not even a "defensive one." The Fancher party was pursued, surrounded for several days, and then 120 men, women, and children were coaxed out by lies and slaughtered in cold blood. And this makes BY a "great leader and an honest man"?

Did Brigham "coax them" out or was that John D. Lees doing? Brigham wanted them to be left alone.

Your emotions and Hate for BY are getting the better of you Rollo.

2. 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.

Wrong that Cattle which had been given came from the North Route... see my last post.

7. The cattle belonged to people; The cattle BY instructed to be stolen belonged to people; BY stated that if Indians engaged emigrants, the Indians would "kill innocent People." What are you missing here?

Wrong again... BY sayed that "innocents" possibly could be killed. And thus he dilliberated for days before making the final decision.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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

Huntington Diary (Sep 1)

The Cattle that had been given to the Southern Indian Cheifs had come from the North Route.

So Now Rollo you want us to beleive that 10 Southern Indian Cheifs with Cattle in tow Made it down to Parowan Utah (Who know how many Miles from the circled up Fracher train on MM) intime to participate in the Masacre then all the way back up to SLC?

You keep mixing up Huntington's diary entries for Aug. 30 and Sept. 1. The first one related to giving cattle on the north route to northern Utah Indians; the second one related to giving cattle that "had gone" on the south route to the southern Utah Indians. The entry you quote was from Aug. 30 (not Sept. 1 as you claim). I don't know whether this was intentional or not, but I informed you before (when you brought up footnote 14 in Crockett's review) of the difference; please take note so the error is not repeated.

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. We know Haslem made his ride in 60 hours (riding all night and with fresh horses) -- the chiefs only had to do the same ride in 5 to 6 days to get there for the initial attack, and 9 to 10 days for the massacre itself. For example, when George A. Smith was returning from southern Utah to SLC he did 52 miles in one day (and Smith was an obese and out-of-shape man). Certainly doable. The total distance from Mountain Meadows to SLC is approximately 300 miles.

And why is it likely these chiefs hustled back down to southern Utah after the meeting? Perhaps because they (like BY) knew the Fancher party was the only emigrant train on the south route at that time (on their way to SLC, the chiefs had camped across the creek from the Fancher party at Corn Creek Springs, and noted their large herd).