Cutting off Utah Territory from Mail Service

[Confidential Informant]

An army is an army.  They kill people.  They break things.

Their presence also maintains law and order -- New Orleans comes to mind.

Indeed, because of the threat that they will begin to kill people and break things.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Indeed, because of the threat that they will begin to kill people and break things.

True enough. But that perception is different than saying an army WILL kill and destroy. Law and order is not something that comes naturally to the human animal.

[Scott Lloyd]

The commanding officers, some of them, may have been honorable men, but they were in command of an anti-Mormon mob. And Gov. Ford in Illinois showed how little control a commander-in-chief sometimes has over an army of mobbers.

...

You have just fulfilled my prediction that if I offered evidence from the speeches of Church leaders regarding ill intent by soliders in the army, you would dismiss the Church leaders as paranoid, hysterical and, essentially, liars.

They were army regulars, not to be confused with a local militia of "Cathage Greys."

This is how B.H. Roberts described the officers of the Utah Expedition:

"An 'Expedition' so officered justifies what has been so frequently said of it, viz., that it comprised the very 'flower of the American army;' and an 'Expedition'made up of such a division of the army, and so officered, cannot be thought of as having for its purpose any other than honorable service; and forbids the thought of its being engaged in a wanton war of invasion and conquest, or the liklihood of its becoming an irresponsible mob revelling in bachanalian orgies in the despoiled settlements and towns of an American community." (Roberts, Comprehensive History, vol. IV, p. 256).

B.H. Roberts got past the hysteria ... why can't you?

I know what Roberts wrote. I have the same source as you. I even corrected you on the citation, remember?

I respect Roberts as a historian, but occasionally he gets it wrong with his conclusions, as when he opposed women's suffrage in Utah.

This is one such occasion.

This "flower of the American army" was greatly diminished in size by the time it got to the territory because of the substantial number of desertions. In the years that the army was quartered at Camp Floyd, south of Salt Lake City, crime, vices and disorder were introduced into the territory. And a virulently anti-Mormon rag was circulated at the camp.

[Rollo Tomasi]

In the years that the army was quartered at Camp Floyd, south of Salt Lake City, crime, vices and disorder were introduced into the territory. And a virulently anti-Mormon rag was circulated at the camp.

So now you're diverting attention to the future behavior of the troops at Camp Floyd?

[Pahoran]

This "flower of the American army" was greatly diminished in size by the time it got to the territory because of the substantial number of desertions. In the years that the army was quartered at Camp Floyd, south of Salt Lake City, crime, vices and disorder were introduced into the territory. And a virulently anti-Mormon rag was circulated at the camp.

No wonder Rollo admires them so much.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

In the years that the army was quartered at Camp Floyd, south of Salt Lake City, crime, vices and disorder were introduced into the territory. And a virulently anti-Mormon rag was circulated at the camp.

So now you're diverting attention to the future behavior of the troops at Camp Floyd?

No, only offering some glimpse into their character.

[USU78]

B.H. Roberts got past the hysteria ... why can't you?

My wife's Fancher relations have gotten over the hysteria, why can't you?

[Rollo Tomasi]

B.H. Roberts got past the hysteria ... why can't you?

My wife's Fancher relations have gotten over the hysteria, why can't you?

Your Fancher relations did not have "hysteria" -- they had real grief brought on by the real murders of real relatives. In contrast, the hysteria we saw in 1857 Utah was based on a false assumptions and exaggerated tales.

[Scott Lloyd]

B.H. Roberts got past the hysteria ... why can't you?

My wife's Fancher relations have gotten over the hysteria, why can't you?

Your Fancher relations did not have "hysteria" -- they had real grief brought on by the real murders of real relatives. In contrast, the hysteria we saw in 1857 Utah was based on a false assumptions and exaggerated tales.

The fact that you label the defensive action of Brigham Young and the settlers of Utah Territory in 1857 as sedition and treason tells me you wouldn't know a false assumption or exaggerated tale if it bit you on the rump.

[USU78]

B.H. Roberts got past the hysteria ... why can't you?

My wife's Fancher relations have gotten over the hysteria, why can't you?

Your Fancher relations did not have "hysteria" -- they had real grief brought on by the real murders of real relatives. In contrast, the hysteria we saw in 1857 Utah was based on a false assumptions and exaggerated tales.

[Raymond is boarding a train back to Walbrook]

Raymond: 'Course, three minutes to Wapner.

Charlie: You'll make it.

Raymond: Yeah.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The fact that you label the defensive action of Brigham Young and the settlers of Utah Territory in 1857 as sedition and treason tells me you wouldn't know a false assumption or exaggerated tale if it bit you on the rump.

I didn't label it "sedition" or "treason" -- the President of the United States did (read his Proclamation of Pardon).

[Confidential Informant]

The fact that you label the defensive action of Brigham Young and the settlers of Utah Territory in 1857 as sedition and treason tells me you wouldn't know a false assumption or exaggerated tale if it bit you on the rump.

I didn't label it "sedition" or "treason" -- the President of the United States did (read his Proclamation of Pardon).

Seeing as how both "sedition" and "treason" are legal terms can you provide a) the exact statutory proscription against said conduct and where BY and others were actually tried and convicted of such conduct? A little analysis of how Young's et. al., behavior comported with the statute would be nice also.

The mere fact that the president "labeled" it as such does not mean it was, in actuality , treason.

The actions of the farmers involved in the Whiskey rebellion would clearly be "treasonous" as they intened to march on Philadelphia.

It is not so clear that Young's actions were such as they were taken in a defensive action and not in an action of agression.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Seeing as how both "sedition" and "treason" are legal terms can you provide a) the exact statutory proscription against said conduct and where BY and others were actually tried and convicted of such conduct? A little analysis of how Young's et. al., behavior comported with the statute would be nice also.

Buchanan's 1858 Proclamation of Pardon stated that Utahns' actions against the U.S. Army constituted "treason." The Proclamation also offered "a free pardon for the seditions and treason heretofore by them committed." Brigham Young, GAS and others objected to many statements (factual and legal) in the Proclamation, but admitted they burned army trains and drove off army cattle. With these objections noted, the Church leaders accepted the pardon as prescribed, and Governor Cumming issued the following:

"Whereas, The proffered pardon was accepted, with the prescribed terms of the proclamation, by the citizens of Utah; Now, therefore, I, Afred Cumming, governor of Utah territory, in the name of James Buchanan, president of the United States, do proclaim that all persons who submit themselves to the laws and to the authority of the federal government are by him freely and fully pardoned for all treasons and seditions heretofore committed. All criminal offenses associated with or growing out of the overt acts of sedition and treason are merged in them, and are embraced in the 'free and full pardon' of the president. And I exhort all persons to persevere in a faithful submision to the laws and patriotic devotion to the Constitution and government of our common country. Peace is restored to our territory!"

Source: Roberts, Comprehensive History, vol. IV, pp. 425-40.

Thus, by accepting the pardon as prescribed by Buchanan, although he objected to its contents, Brigham Young acknowledged his treason.

[Scott Lloyd]

The fact that you label the defensive action of Brigham Young and the settlers of Utah Territory in 1857 as sedition and treason tells me you wouldn't know a false assumption or exaggerated tale if it bit you on the rump.

I didn't label it "sedition" or "treason" -- the President of the United States did (read his Proclamation of Pardon).

Seeing as how both "sedition" and "treason" are legal terms can you provide a) the exact statutory proscription against said conduct and where BY and others were actually tried and convicted of such conduct? A little analysis of how Young's et. al., behavior comported with the statute would be nice also.

The mere fact that the president "labeled" it as such does not mean it was, in actuality , treason.

The actions of the farmers involved in the Whiskey rebellion would clearly be "treasonous" as they intened to march on Philadelphia.

It is not so clear that Young's actions were such as they were taken in a defensive action and not in an action of agression.

C.I.

We have got to be called treasoners by our enemies. Joseph was taken up six times, if I remember rightly, on the charge of treason. Once he was brought into court by some enemies who thought they could prove that he had committed adultery, and that they termed treason. At another time our brethren wanted to vote in Davies County, Missouri, and said they would cast their votes and have their rights with other citizens; whereupon Joseph was taken up for treason. Another time, he was taken up on a charge of high treason; and when he came before the grand jury, his enemies wanted to prove that he had more than one wife, asserting that that was high treason.

Our enemies are constantly yelling "Rebellion! Treason!" no matter how peaceful, orderly, and loyal we may be. And now to come out in open opposition to their cursed, corrupt practices, will of course be counted treason. But let me tell you that the real, actual treason is committed in Washington, by the administrators of our Government sending an army to take the lives of innocent citizens. Every man is allowed by the Constitution to have what religion he pleases. That liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution; "but you, ‘Mormons,’ an army must be sent against you, because you are Latter-day Saints." Yes, an army must be sent to drive us from the earth.

(Brigham Young, Sept. 13, 1857; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, pp. 234-235)

[Scott Lloyd]

Seeing as how both "sedition" and "treason" are legal terms can you provide a) the exact statutory proscription against said conduct and where BY and others were actually tried and convicted of such conduct?  A little analysis of how Young's et. al., behavior comported with the statute would be nice also.

Buchanan's 1858 Proclamation of Pardon stated that Utahns' actions against the U.S. Army constituted "treason." The Proclamation also offered "a free pardon for the seditions and treason heretofore by them committed." Brigham Young, GAS and others objected to many statements (factual and legal) in the Proclamation, but admitted they burned army trains and drove off army cattle. With these objections noted, the Church leaders accepted the pardon as prescribed, and Governor Cumming issued the following:

"Whereas, The proffered pardon was accepted, with the prescribed terms of the proclamation, by the citizens of Utah; Now, therefore, I, Afred Cumming, governor of Utah territory, in the name of James Buchanan, president of the United States, do proclaim that all persons who submit themselves to the laws and to the authority of the federal government are by him freely and fully pardoned for all treasons and seditions heretofore committed. All criminal offenses associated with or growing out of the overt acts of sedition and treason are merged in them, and are embraced in the 'free and full pardon' of the president. And I exhort all persons to persevere in a faithful submision to the laws and patriotic devotion to the Constitution and government of our common country. Peace is restored to our territory!"

Source: Roberts, Comprehensive History, vol. IV, pp. 425-40.

Thus, by accepting the pardon as prescribed by Buchanan, although he objected to its contents, Brigham Young acknowledged his treason.

I don't think that answer was responsive.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't think that answer was responsive.

I gave all the "legal" information I have about BY being charged with treason and sedition, for which he was pardoned.

[Rollo Tomasi]

We have got to be called treasoners by our enemies. Joseph was taken up six times, if I remember rightly, on the charge of treason. Once he was brought into court by some enemies who thought they could prove that he had committed adultery, and that they termed treason. At another time our brethren wanted to vote in Davies County, Missouri, and said they would cast their votes and have their rights with other citizens; whereupon Joseph was taken up for treason. Another time, he was taken up on a charge of high treason; and when he came before the grand jury, his enemies wanted to prove that he had more than one wife, asserting that that was high treason.

Our enemies are constantly yelling "Rebellion! Treason!" no matter how peaceful, orderly, and loyal we may be. And now to come out in open opposition to their cursed, corrupt practices, will of course be counted treason. But let me tell you that the real, actual treason is committed in Washington, by the administrators of our Government sending an army to take the lives of innocent citizens. Every man is allowed by the Constitution to have what religion he pleases. That liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution; "but you,

[Scott Lloyd]

Seeing as how both "sedition" and "treason" are legal terms can you provide a) the exact statutory proscription against said conduct and where BY and others were actually tried and convicted of such conduct?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think that answer was responsive.

I gave all the "legal" information I have about BY being charged with treason and sedition, for which he was pardoned.

You didn't answer the question: What statute was violated, and how did the Church leaders' behavior comport with the statute?

[USU78]

I don't think that answer was responsive.

I gave all the "legal" information I have about BY being charged with treason and sedition, for which he was pardoned.

I think I see the problem. RT is not aware that "charging" is a legal term of art having a specific legal meaning:

Charge.  Accusation of a crime by a formal complaint, information or indictment.

Given the above, and the presence of so many lawyers hereabouts, do you want to clarify your position a bit, RT?

[Rollo Tomasi]

What statute was violated, and how did the Church leaders' behavior comport with the statute?

I don't know of any specific statute for treason in 1857 (although I'm sure there was some federal statute out there). In any event, BY was charged with treason, had to admit to it to get the pardon, did admit to it, and got the pardon.

BY did admit to burning army trains and scattering army cattle (or directing that such be done), which was a basis for the charged treason. He objected to the rest as untrue, but by accepting the pardon, he admitted to all allegations of treason in the Proclamation.

[USU78]

What statute was violated, and how did the Church leaders' behavior comport with the statute?

I don't know of any specific statute for treason in 1857 (although I'm sure there was some federal statute out there). In any event, BY was charged with treason, had to admit to it to get the pardon, did admit to it, and got the pardon.

BY did admit to burning army trains and scattering army cattle (or directing that such be done), which was a basis for the charged treason. He objected to the rest as untrue, but by accepting the pardon, he admitted to all allegations of treason in the Proclamation.

You can make the assertion that BY was charged and that he answered charges until the cows come home, embarrassed at one of their own having been abused by Carl's Jr.'s ad agency, yet the truth will still be the truth:

BY was never charged.

The "pardon" was a cynical act of fannycovering by a corrupt and blundering toady of Southern Senators.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think I see the problem. RT is not aware that "charging" is a legal term of art having a specific legal meaning:

Charge.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The "pardon" was a cynical act of fannycovering by a corrupt and blundering toady of Southern Senators.

Was BY not protected by the pardon from prosecution? Was the pardon not legal?

[Bob Crockett]

Tomasi:

I don't know of any specific statute for treason in 1857 (although I'm sure there was some federal statute out there). In any event, BY was charged with treason, had to admit to it to get the pardon, did admit to it, and got the pardon.

This detail certainly escaped me. When did he do this?

There was no "pardon" although I have used the term as a shortcut in the past. It was a blanket presidential amnesty and required no oath of affirmation to secure its benefits.

Technically, under 19th century law, a pardon was only available after there had been a conviction. Even by the time of Nixon's pardon there was considerable debate as to whether the pardon before a conviction was legal.

rcrocket