The Mountain Meadow Massacre

[Pahoran]

Er Allen, the battle/massacre of Wounded Knee was in 1890, not 1980. (Spelling mistake or summat...)

In any event, I don't think that's very relevant anyway. Every attempt to justify the claim that the MMM was the "biggest" or something ultimately boils down to slightly gussied-up versions of "they were just injuns so they don't count."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

As I kept mentioning to Mickey_D29 (who seemed unable to catch the reference), everyone forgets Wounded Knee. This happend in 1980, not the 1800s. All those killed were US citizens, and they were killed by US citizens.

But the 1980 Wounded Knee incident did not even approach the magnitude of MMM in terms of numbers killed (which I thought was the reference point for this particular issue).

Those American civilians were members of a militia; they were the trained military of the day, similar to our National Guard today. It was militias that would later go fight in the Civil War; you can see their individual militia monuments all around battlefields such as Gettysburg. If we consider those militias to be military combatants at places like Gettysburg, why wouldn't we consider those militias to be military in Southern Utah?

As I pointed out above, it's clear from the 9/10 correspondence from BY to Isaac Haight that BY was involved because of his position as prophet and LDS Church president, not his title (de facto at the time) as governor. This was not a military operation. The Fancher party was purely civilian. The U.S. Army was not anywhere near southern Utah (and was still far from Utah) at the time of the massacre. There was no real threat at all to the saints in southern Utah. To the extent the Fancher party had weapons, they were unarmed at the time of the massacre. A majority of those killed were women and children. Pure and simple, this was NOT a military operation. It was the mass murder of defenseless civilians.

[Mickey_D29]

As I kept mentioning to Mickey_D29 (who seemed unable to catch the reference), everyone forgets Wounded Knee. This happend in 1980, not the 1800s. All those killed were US citizens, and they were killed by US citizens. Exactly what war was going on at the time? Or is someone saying that the Sioux were still not US citizens, even in 1980?

Wounded knee was in 1890, not 1980...at least the massacre that killed 150 Indians was...

[Scott Lloyd]

Pure and simple, this was NOT a military operation.  It was the mass murder of defenseless civilians.

No one here is denying that it was mass murder. But your contention that it was not a military operation seems absurd since it was carried out by the Iron County Militia. Note the common etymology in military and militia.

Do you not understand that a local militia, provided for under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, was the 1850s counterpart to today's National Guard?

[Nighthawke]

The U.S. Army was not anywhere near southern Utah (and was still far from Utah) at the time of the massacre. There was no real threat at all to the saints in southern Utah.

My understanding is that the Fancher train boasted about getting the Californians riled up ready to attack from the south.

So the saints were now suffering from the starvation years and had to cache non-existent food in case of all out war and about to be attacked from both the east and south.

[awyatt]

As I kept mentioning to Mickey_D29 (who seemed unable to catch the reference), everyone forgets Wounded Knee. This happend in 1980, not the 1800s. All those killed were US citizens, and they were killed by US citizens. Exactly what war was going on at the time? Or is someone saying that the Sioux were still not US citizens, even in 1980?

Wounded knee was in 1890, not 1980...at least the massacre that killed 150 Indians was...

You are correct; my mistake.

But the point still remains that it was Americans killing Americans. Wounded Knee is in South Dakota, which was admitted as a state on November 2, 1889. Are you contending that those killed at Wounded Knee on December 29, 1890, were not Americans?

-Allen

[awyatt]

Rollo said: Pure and simple, this was NOT a military operation. It was the mass murder of defenseless civilians.

Who conducted the massacre, Rollo? It was the militia--a military organization. (Or do you have evidence that the militia wasn't involved in the massacre?)

-Allen

[Daniel Peterson]

Rollo said: Pure and simple, this was NOT a military operation. It was the mass murder of defenseless civilians.

Who conducted the massacre, Rollo? It was the militia--a military organization. (Or do you have evidence that the militia wasn't involved in the massacre?)

Lemme guess. Rollo wants the Church to come clean and admit that the militia weren't involved at all. It was the Indians!

[Rollo Tomasi]

But your contention that it was not a military operation seems absurd since it was carried out by the Iron County Militia. Note the common etymology in military and militia.

Yes, the leaders of the Iron County Militia were involved, but they also happened to be the local ecclesiastical leaders. And their asking BY for advice on what to do with the Fancher party, in BY's view at least (based on his 9/10/1857 response to Haight and his 1875 deposition testimony), make clear that he considered his involvement as ecclesiastical (as prophet and Church president), not civil or military (as governor). Moreover, the meeting called by Isaac Haight on Sept. 6, 1857 in Cedar City to discuss what to do with the Fancher party was comprised of members of the Cedar Stake Presidency (Haight was then acting stake president, according to BY's 1875 deposition), Bishop Klingensmith and his bishopric counselors, and the members of the Cedar Stake High Council, during which they held a prayer circle (source: Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 126). It sure doesn't sound much like a militia operation to me. But, perhaps I'm just being "absurd" ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

My understanding is that the Fancher train boasted about getting the Californians riled up ready to attack from the south.

So the saints were now suffering from the starvation years and had to cache non-existent food in case of all out war and about to be attacked from both the east and south.

How was it that the southern Utah Mormons felt they were "about to be attacked from both the east and south" when the U.S. Army was no where near southern Utah and those emigrants purportedly making threats "about getting the Californians riled up," were still in the general vicinity (and far from California)?

And this justifies or explains the massacre how?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Who conducted the massacre, Rollo? It was the militia--a military organization. (Or do you have evidence that the militia wasn't involved in the massacre?)

It was done by members of the LDS Church living in southern Utah, under the planning and direction of their ecclesiastical leaders, who also happened to be members of the Iron County Militia (and perhaps the local Rotary Club, too).

Joseph Smith was a major general in the Nauvoo Legion. He was lynched by the Carthage Greys. Does this mean Joseph's murder was a military operation? If so, then was it a martyrdom or simply a battle between opposing military forces?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Lemme guess. Rollo wants the Church to come clean and admit that the militia weren't involved at all.

No, just a simple apology for the Church's role would suffice.

[Scott Lloyd]

My understanding is that the Fancher train boasted about getting the Californians riled up ready to attack from the south.

So the saints were now suffering from the starvation years and had to cache non-existent food in case of all out war and about to be attacked from both the east and south.

How was it that the southern Utah Mormons felt they were "about to be attacked from both the east and south" when the U.S. Army was no where near southern Utah and those emigrants purportedly making threats "about getting the Californians riled up," were still in the general vicinity (and far from California)?

The threat of a force coming from the West, thus hemming the Saints in from both the east and west directions, was not exclusive to the Fancher party. The following is from a biography of Wilford Woodruff written by Matthias Cowley:

On February the 3rd the California mail brought the news that President Buchanan recommended a strong force against the Saints. Later advices brought word that a steamer was to bring four thousand men by the southern route; four thousand more were to come from Oregon; and two thousand from the Missouri River. There were then at Fort Bridger two thousand, making in all an army of twelve thousand men.

And this justifies or explains the massacre how?

It helps explain it in terms of the fears of the residents being inflamed by such boasts. It appears there was a very real basis to such fears.

[Scott Lloyd]

But your contention that it was not a military operation seems absurd since it was carried out by the Iron County Militia. Note the common etymology in military and militia.

Yes, the leaders of the Iron County Militia were involved, but they also happened to be the local ecclesiastical leaders. And their asking BY for advice on what to do with the Fancher party, in BY's view at least (based on his 9/10/1857 response to Haight and his 1875 deposition testimony), make clear that he considered his involvement as ecclesiastical (as prophet and Church president), not civil or military (as governor). Moreover, the meeting called by Isaac Haight on Sept. 6, 1857 in Cedar City to discuss what to do with the Fancher party was comprised of members of the Cedar Stake Presidency (Haight was then acting stake president, according to BY's 1875 deposition), Bishop Klingensmith and his bishopric counselors, and the members of the Cedar Stake High Council, during which they held a prayer circle (source: Bagley, Blood of the Prophets, p. 126). It sure doesn't sound much like a militia operation to me. But, perhaps I'm just being "absurd" ....

Are you contending that they were not acting under the auspices of the militia?

[Rollo Tomasi]

It helps explain it in terms of the fears of the residents being inflamed by such boasts. It appears there was a very real basis to such fears.

"Real" fears or not, there was no threat, immediate or otherwise, that required any sort of action even approaching the massacre of unarmed men, women and children.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Are you contending that they were not acting under the auspices of the militia?

Perhaps the way in which the actual murders were carried out (such as the single line marching formation and separating the men from women and children, in an effort to maximize the murder plan), but the planning, decisions, and direction leading up to the massacre were by ecclesiastical leaders (as supported by BY's involvement). I do not see the fact that these same leaders and participants were part of the Iron County Militia make it a military operation, particularly in light of the fact that the victims were unarmed civilians and the Mormons were under no direct military threat at that time. Throw in the stake meeting in Cedar City to decide what to do (complete with a temple-like prayer circle), BY's response in an ecclesiastical fashion, and the supposed threats relating to the murder of past Church leaders, and it all smacks of a religious war, not a military operation.

[Scott Lloyd]

It helps explain it in terms of the fears of the residents being inflamed by such boasts. It appears there was a very real basis to such fears.

"Real" fears or not, there was no threat, immediate or otherwise, that required any sort of action even approaching the massacre of unarmed men, women and children.

I didn't say it was justified. You said "justifies or explains." I offered this by way of explanation. It is pretty much indisputable that fear can drive people to do crazy things.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is pretty much indisputable that fear can drive people to do crazy things.

Sure, but fear was not the sole (or perhaps even paramount) factor, imo. Throw in revenge and anger, along with a violent temple covenant, and you've got the recipe for disaster.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is pretty much indisputable that fear can drive people to do crazy things.

Sure, but fear was not the sole (or perhaps even paramount) factor, imo. Throw in revenge and anger, along with a violent temple covenant, and you've got the recipe for disaster.

As long as we're tossing off opinions, I will go ahead and opine that the flashpoint in these extremely volatile circumstances would never have been reached had it not been for the behavior of some of the members of the emigrant train.

[charity]

Rollo, I have gritted my teeth over a number of your posts. Non-members who are reading your posts should understand that what you call the "violent temple covenant" refers to accepting martyrdom, not committing revenge. Play fair, Rollo. Don't mislead.

[Rollo Tomasi]

As long as we're tossing off opinions, I will go ahead and opine that the flashpoint in these extremely volatile circumstances would never have been reached had it not been for the behavior of some of the members of the emigrant train.

Certainly possible. My personal opinion is that particular members in the emigrant train, however boorish, etc., did nothing to justify or excuse the mass murder of 120 unarmed men, women and children. Cooler heads should have prevailed (like Laban Morrill advocated).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Non-members who are reading your posts should understand that what you call the "violent temple covenant" refers to accepting martyrdom, not committing revenge.

Anyone can "google" the Oath of Vengeance and see that is has nothing to do with "accepting martyrdom," and everything to do with revenge for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

[Outshined]

My personal opinion is that particular members in the emigrant train, however boorish, etc., did nothing to justify or excuse the mass murder of 120 unarmed men, women and children. Cooler heads should have prevailed (like Laban Morrill advocated).

I believe we call that hindsight. Only those who were there could say exactly how it all transpired.

[Scott Lloyd]

As long as we're tossing off opinions, I will go ahead and opine that the flashpoint in these extremely volatile circumstances would never have been reached had it not been for the behavior of some of the members of the emigrant train.

Certainly possible. My personal opinion is that particular members in the emigrant train, however boorish, etc., did nothing to justify or excuse the mass murder of 120 unarmed men, women and children.

Of course not. But boasting about having taken part in the killing of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and about one's intent to raise a hostile force to come back and wipe out the Mormons -- assuming such boasting did happen -- is not excusable either.

[Daniel Peterson]

No, just a simple apology for the Church's role would suffice.

Okay. I apologize for the Church's role, whatever it was.

As I understand your position, that role consists of the fact that, when a federal army was on its way to put down the mythical "Mormon rebellion" in Utah, Mormon leaders didn't roll over and play dead but decided that they had had enough (in New York and Ohio and Missouri and Illinois and even, with the recent murder of Parley Pratt, in Arkansas, to say nothing of the petty oppressions and open hostility of previously appointed federal officials in Utah). Moreover, California being occupied already and leaving the country having proved insufficient, they knew nowhere else to go. So, very wickedly, they began to speak in occasionally rather strong rhetoric about resisting the announced efforts to put them down of the heretofore ever so helpful federal government. Shame on them!

That is the Church's role in the massacre.