The Mountain Meadows Massacre Children

[Pahoran]

This is all most instructive and interesting, Dale. Indeed, when we look at the lurid purple prose in what purports to be unbiased accounts, we can also find it most entertaining.

Now is there yet any evidence anywhere to give rise to any reasonable suspicion that either Brigham Young or anyone else wanted to hold the children "captive" in order to use them as "hostages?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

This is all most instructive and interesting, Dale. Indeed, when we look at the lurid purple prose in what purports to be unbiased accounts, we can also find it most entertaining.

Now is there yet any evidence anywhere to give rise to any reasonable suspicion that either Brigham Young or anyone else wanted to hold the children "captive" in order to use them as "hostages?"

Regards,

Pahoran

I suppose it depends upon how we use that word. I have previously said that the approaching army

must have been aware of danger to non-Mormons in Utah Territory -- and especially so if fighting

spread to the general population.

It might be argued that Johnston could not have known of the survivor children until he was almost

on Brigham's doorstep --- but, I hope to search his correspondence back to Fort Leavenworth and to

Washington, D. C., to determine when and how Gentiles in Deseret were first spoken of to/by Johnston

and Cumming.

Col. Kane came by way of California, and thus would have had quicker access to report details on MMM

than Johnston and Cumming -- but that is another matter.

My theory is that the LDS leaders knew that the approaching army knew -- that there were non-Mormons

in Utah Territory who would be put at risk in any sort of general combat among civilians. It will take

some time for me to document what telegrahed dispatches had reached the approaching army. As for

the LDS leaders, if anybody wishes to dispute Woodruff's journal, that is fine with me -- but the journal

says that BY was informed of the survivor children soon after the massacre, (even if he never read the

newspaper reports mentioning them, then in circulation in the west).

In other words, Brigham knew that there were Gentiles in Utah Territory who were at risk, and he knew

by the time Johnston was ready to enter the Valley that Johnston himself must know about such people.

Now, what I need is some contemporary source(s) that speak of danger to Gentiles in the anticipated

conflict. I am near positive I can find such mentions in the late 1857 or very early 1858 Washington DC

newspapers and preserved eastern correspondence.

Can I find anything similar in Utah? Today I am reading the 1857-58 Deseret News, line-by-line. It

would help greatly if I had access to the LDS Archives, but I do not. I've been promised the loan of

a CD with the 1857-58 Journal History of the Church and relared documents on it.

That will be a start --- can you suggest any other sources from that period, which might clarify things?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

... can you suggest any other sources from that period, which might clarify things?

The Fales and Flake bibliography was a disappointment -- it covers only published materials. One of

the only items therein useful to me would be BY's report on "Indian Affairs," not published until 1862.

In his report he makes brief mention of the survivor children, by quoting from Wm. H. Rogers. This

would seem to indicate that BY was professing that the children were taken by Indians.

The "U.S. Congress, Senate Executive Document No. 42, 36th Cong., 1st Sess." is also useful, in

that it gives a lot of rearly reporting on the survivor children.

The 1992 UHQ I cited earlier is also useful, the author, Logan, cites 1850s-60s manuscript

material in the US Archives, filmed during the 1950s. I'll paste in some relevant excerpts below.

One item mentioned by Logan that might be worth searching out is, "Report on the Subject of the

Massacre at Mountain Meadows... Relative to the Seventeen Surviving Children...,"

(Arkansas State Senate Document; Little Rock: True Democrat Steam Press, 1860).

Another source that might be worth looking for is Anna Jean Backus' "Mountain Meadows Witness:

The Life and Times of Bishop Philip Klingensmith, (1995) The author presents evidence that her

great-grandmother, Priscilla Klingensmith Urie, was one of the survivor children, never sent back east..

UD

Utah Historical Quarterly

Vol. 60:3 (summer 1992)

"New Light on the Mountain Meadows Caravan"

Roger V. Logan, Jr.

pp. 223-237

[p.225]

Ron Loving... discovered some of the depositions while reading microfilm copies of the original records

in the National Archives filed under the rather uninviting title Territorial Papers of the United States

Senate 1789-1873, Roll 15, Utah December 31, 1849-June 11, 1870 (Washington, D.C., 1951)....

[p.232]

Charles R. Mitchell and Joel D. Mitchell

One of the most interesting depositions is that of a state senator and later Confederate colonel,

William C. Mitchell. [[7]] He had the melancholy job of describing his murdered sons' property. Earlier,

he had written to Senator Sebastian (December 31, 1857):

Two of my sons were in the train that was massacred, on their way to California, three hundred miles

beyond Salt Lake City, by the Indians and Mormons. There were one hundred and eighteen unmercifully

butchered; the women and children were all killed with the exception of fifteen infants -- one of [my]

sons, Charles was married and had one son, which I expect was saved, and at this time is at San Bernardino,

I believe in the limits of California. I could designate my grandson if I could see him.

Mitchell felt strongly that something must be done to punish the guilty in this matter. He continued:

From all accounts the President has not made a call sufficient to subdue them; the four regiments

together with what regulars can be spared is too small a force to whip the Mormons and Indians, for

rest assured that all the wild tribes will fight for Brigham Young. I am anxious to be in the crowd --

I feel that I must have satisfaction for the inhuman manner in which they have slain my children.... [[8]]

Colonel Mitchell believed that his infant grandson, John Mitchell, had survived the massacre. He wrote

about the boy on different occasions and worked tirelessly for the return of the surviving children.

Mitchell was appointed an agent of the U.S. government and sent to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Territory,

to receive the surviving children in August 1859. He, with others from Arkansas, brought the children

back to Carrollton where they were distributed to their

[p.233]

families, and in one case, to a friend. Two of the surviving children who had been kept in Utah to serve

as witnesses, should the guilty be prosecuted, were later taken to Washington, D.C., and then delivered

to Mitchell at Carrollton, Arkansas, in January 1860.

It is because of William C. Mitchell that we have most of the original written records of who the emigrants

were. He was present at the taking of most, if not all, of the depositions and appears to have been the

one who forwarded them to Senator Sebastian in Washington. Mitchell's own deposition tells a good deal

about his sons and their property:

I was personally well acquainted with said Charles and Joel Mitchell -- They were my sons, and I assisted

them in making their outfit for the trip in the spring of 1857. They left in company with John T. Baker and

many others and were murdered as I am informed and believe at "Mountain Meadows" in September of

same year. They were on their way to California...

[p.235]

In their affidavits Robert H. Mitchell and William C. Dunlap told how they were with William C. Mitchell,

special agent for the U.S. government, when he received surviving children from the massacre at

Fort Leavenworth. [[11]] These men said they were well acquainted with Jesse Dunlap and knew his outfit,

having traveled with him the day of his departure for California in the spring of 1857. They said that

the statement made by James D. Dunlap was correct. An additional affidavit made by Adam P. Dunlap and

Samuel Mitchell also verified the accuracy of James D. Dunlap's statements.

Conclusion

The depositions, while not the only contemporary records of the Arkansas emigrants, [[12]] are some of

the best. In reading them one can sense the concern that the affiants felt for the well-being of the

orphaned survivors who were bereft of parents and estate and who faced the prospect of great adversity.

The depositions failed to accomplish their primary goal of securing government assistance under

[p.236]

some sort of Indian depredations compensation act. Such laws were passed but none is known to have

benefitted the Mountain Meadows survivors.

The documents are valuable for the detail they add to the body of knowledge about the emigrant caravan,

its composition, and leadership. They also provide some of the best statements of the purpose many

emigrants had in making the journey west and give an accurate account of the property owned by them.

It should also be noted that many emigrants are known to have been in the Mountain Meadows caravan who

are not mentioned in the depositions. Clearly, the documents do not give a complete picture or answer

all questions, but they provide a fascinating glimpse of some of those who suffered so long ago as a

result of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

[p.237]

Endnotes

2 William C. Mitchell to A. B. Greenwood, commissioner of Indian Affairs, April 27, 1860, Microcopy 234,

Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1881, Roll 899, Utah Superintendency,

1849-80—1859-60, M-244/1860 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives, 1957)....

8 William C. Mitchell to Sen. William K. Sebastian in U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Executive Document

42, Message of the President... Communicating... Information in Relation to the Massacre at Mountain

Meadows, and Other Massacres in Utah Territory, 36th Cong., 1st sess., 1860, pp. 42-43.

9 Ibid., p. 47.

10 Carleton and Mitchell, Report on the Subject of the Massacre, p. 32.

11 William C. Mitchell to A. B. Greenwood in Senate Executive Document 42, p. 90.

12 The following letter from William C. Mitchell to fellow Arkansan Alfred B. Greenwood, commissioner

of Indian Affairs in the Buchanan administration, is one of the best sources of information on the

identity of the Arkansas emigrants at Mountain Meadows. It is in Letters Received, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Utah Territory, National Archives:

Sir

As there is no list of the names of the survivors of the Mountain Meadow Massacre of 1857, which was

conveyed to their relatives and friends in Arkansas. [They are:]

Martha Elizabeth Baker

Sarah Frances Baker

William Twitty Baker

Rebecca Dunlap

Louisa Dunlap

Sarah Ann Dunlap

Prudy Angeline Dunlap

Georgeann Dunlap

Saphrona Huff

Christopher Carson Fancher

Triphena Fancher

John Calvin Miller

Mary Miller

Josiah Miller

Felix Jones

Mariam [Milam] Tackett

William Tackett

All of the above is in the care of their relatives and friends in Arkansas except Saphrona Huff who

was taken by her grandfather Brown who lives in Miggs Co. Tennessee to Tennessee. There was two of

those children wounded in the battle. Sarah Frances Baker shot through the left ear and Sarah Ann Dunlap

shot through the right arm and her shoulder dislocated having no use of it and much less than the other.

Those children vary in age from ten years to four years old. Also included you will find a list of the

killed and missing as far as we can obtain them. All of the children that was large enough to recollect

state that they were never in the possession of the Indians but kept by the whites.

I am Yours

Respectfully

Wm. C. Mitchell

Special Agt.

Hon. A. B. Greenwood

Commissioner of

Indian Affairs

Washington City

D.C.

.

[Uncle Dale]

...reporting on the survivor children...

Good grief -- I try to give Bro. Turley a compliment and get slammed -- I can't believe it.

If my faithful (?) e-mail correspondent has followed the URL to this thread, we can continue our

"measuring stick" conversation here.

1. No -- I am not just quoting Bagley

2. No -- I am not just quoting "die-hard Chrisrian critics' sites;" whatever that is supposed to entail.

3. No -- I see absolutely no reason to believe that MMM survivor Mrs Cates was "an obvious liar."

So, in answer to your last challenge, I have located and posted Mrs. Cates ORIGINAL 1875 statement

to the web. If need be, I can e-mail you the scan from the August 27, 1875 Dardanelle Independent.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/SO/miscsou2.htm#082775

The eye-witness says that the survivor children were measured against a certain stick. Those who

were taller than the stick were shot in the head. Children's skulls from the MMM site confirm that

some were shot at close range, execution style. At least one bullet hole in a child's skull there had

a top-downward trajectory. In other words the Mormon militia gunman stood over the child and shot

her in the head from above. It is unlikely that such a fatal shot came from a distance and that the

child's head just happened to be turned sideways, to a distant "Indian" shooter, at that particular

moment. Skull entry wounds made from bullets at close range are different from those shot at a

distance, or so I'm told.

As for your claim, that the surviving children were discovered by kindly Mormons, after the massacre

by Indians was well over, I point you to Elder Klingensmith's testimony, saying differenly. Since you

refuse to look at Bagley or Brooks, I'll give you an 1872 text, here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmisc.htm#092472

4. Regarding Captain Lynch's rescue of the survivor children, look here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/SO/miscsou2.htm#061705

5. Finally, in answer to your assertion, that you can find no mention of Haight's overseas mission,

I direct you to this 1884 article in the "Salt Lake Tribune" --

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune2.htm#110984

Dale R. Broadhurst

web host, SidneyRigdon.com

[LifeOnaPlate]

So, I'll continue it here, with these points for discussion ----

1. Who determined that some children would be exempted from the massacre?

I believe the decision was made by the local leaders. I implicate at the least, John Lee. His original story told to Brigham Young was that the Indians had massacred the train, and when the white men arrived they found the children there alive. It is exteremely unlikely that an enraged band of those particular Indians would have distinguished by age. That was a decision of whit men. Because Lee lied in that initial story, I think he either made the decision, participated in it, or knew exactly who did. In short, a and b, since they were pretty much the same thing.

2. What was the purpose in saving some of the children?

None of the above, really. I feel like their main concern was not letting anyone live who could "tell the tale," and that was as far as they'd go.

B.H Roberts was pretty straightforward in Comprehensive History of the Church vol. 4, chapter C, I suggest his account be reviewed in light of other newer accounts.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think it's also key to mention other trains passed through the valley shortly after the massacre, and not only passed unmolested, but escorted and assisted by Mormons. I guess Brigham Young thought he had enough "bargaining chips"? I'm sorry, but the bargaining hostages angle is too far-fetched based on the historical record, and rests completely on Dale's interpolation. There is no evidence the children were used to coerce anything involved with the Utah War. To suggest otherwise cannot be upheld by fact. Duke's Train, for example, maybe they'd have made nice hostages. Why didn't the Mormons kill them? or kidnap any of them? Brigham Young expressly instructed Jacob Hamblin to escort the train safely through to the Las Vegas.

As for the children, according to Lee's account as well as George A. Smith's written report months after, the children were distributed among the settlers in the region; not held as hostages. The reports Young initially received pinned the crime on the Indians. This being the case I don't see why, given the impending war, Young would have made a big effort at this time to fix the situation with the children if he knew they were taken care of for the time.

With all the political issues going on, Indian agents, etc. leaving their posts, impending war, etc. it doesn't surprise me that it took 2 years to get an Indian Agent involved. Congress had appropriated $10,000 for the children, and Agent Jacob Forney collected them as best he could. The saints in no way hindered this action. Some of the children were taken to relatives as best as Forney could manage, but most of the children ended up at a childrens' orphanage in St. Louis. (See Roberts, CHC, 4:158)

As for the numerous reports on the condition of the children when they were retreived by Agent Forney, some have asserted the children were filthy, infested with lice, and generally not taken care of. Fortunately, Agent Forney himself, a non-Mormon, cleared this issue up in his official report of the instance, recorded in Senate Documents, 36th Congress, 1st Session, ii, No. 42, pp. 87, 89. He reported:

"It is proper to remark that when I obtained the children, they were in a better condition than children generally in the settlements in which they lived."

[Uncle Dale]

I guess Brigham Young thought he had enough "bargaining chips"? I'm sorry, but the bargaining hostages

angle is too far-fetched based on the historical record, and rests completely on Dale's interpolation. There

is no evidence the children were used to coerce anything involved with the Utah War....

I don't think that I ever accussed Brigham Young of taking the children as hostages -- I merely

said that they were taken, held, and kept from their relatives in the East for many months, in the

same way that hostages, or captives, or human shields might be taken.

If you excuse Brigham of ever thinking such a thing, you can go down the list, through George A. Smith,

Gen. Dame, Haight, Higbee, Lee, Klingensmith, etc. until you get down to the actual families who held

the children. An LDS descendant of Klingensmith says that one survivor child was raisedd in that

family and never returned to the east.

How can can know absolutely, that Lee did not hold the existence of those children "over the heads"

of other Mormons in the area, I cannot fathom. "Hostages" can have a number of meanings, and I

never said that the children were held for ransom against the US Government {although nearly

$3,000 ($100,000 in today's dollars) had to be paid to obtain their release from the southern Utah

Mormons, many months after word of their survival appeared in the country's newspapers}.

Are you saying that the children were free to go, at any time? They were free to catch a ride to

Salt Lake City, get jobs and earn enough money to take out an advertisement in the weekly

Deseret News, telling their grandparents, and uncles and aunts that they yet lived?

We know from preserved correspondence and old newspaper articles, that the children's relatives

were trying hard to obtain their release from the Mormons, within weeks of the massacre. If they

were NOT being held against their will, then why did nobody in Utah do so much as to write a single

paragraph in the Deseret News, seeking a way to return them to their homes?

Regardless of how you see things, here is an excerpt from a source much closer in time to those

events than we are -- see what was said back then:

Massacres of the Mountains:

A History of the Indian Wars of the Far West

By Jacob Piatt Dunn

New York

Harper & Bros.

1886

[p. 273]

CHAPTER X.

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS....

[305]

... On December 31, fifteen brief weeks after it occurred, William C. Mitchell, of Dubuque, Arkansas,

wrote to Senator Sebastian of that state: "Two of my sons were in the train that was massacred, on

their way to California, three hundred miles beyond Salt Lake City, by the Indians and Mormons. There

were one hundred and eighteen unmercifully butchered; the women and children were all killed with the exception of fifteen infants. One of my sons, Charles, was married and had one son, which I expect

was saved, and at this time is [perhaps] at San Bernardino, I believe in the limits of California. I could designate my grandson if I could see him.... Four regiments, together with what regulars can

be spared, is too small a force to whip the Mormons and Indians, for rest assured that all the wild...

tribes will fight for Brigham Young. I am anxious to be in the crowd -- I feel that I must have satisfaction

for the inhuman manner in which they have slain my children, -- together with two brothers-in-law and seventeen of their children."

The people of the neighborhoods whence the emigrants went were satisfied with the evidence they had. The press

announced the organization of volunteer companies in a dozen counties of Missouri and Arkansas. The government,

however, did not decide so quickly. Many wild reports concerning the situation in Utah had been current -- reports

of battles in which seven or eight hundred on a side had been killed -- of the army being captured and the officers

hung -- and possibly this was only a canard too. It was decided to investigate first, and Dr. Forney, Superintendent

of Utah, was instructed to look into the matter. The Western men did not let the case drop, however. On March 18, 1858,

Mr. Gwin,

306 MASSACRES OF THE MOUNTAINS.

of California, introduced a resolution of inquiry in the Senate, asking what steps had been taken to punish the

murderers of the one hundred and eighteen emigrants. He said he knew the Indians were guilty, and it had been

charged, and was believed, that the Mormons were, but at any rate the guilty should be punished. On June 22, 1858,

Dr. Forney reported:

"It affords me great pleasure to inform you, and the friends of the children in question through you,

that I learned to-day where the children are. In my inquiries about the children I met a gentleman

who lives at or near where the massacre took place. This gentleman, Mr. Hamlin, has one of the

children, and informs me that all the children (fifteen) in question are in his immediate neighborhood

in the care of whites. These unfortunate children were for some days among Indians; with considerable

effort they were all recovered, bought and otherwise, from the Indians."

Forney was as impartial a man as the Mormons could have asked for -- in fact, he was prejudiced in their favor.

He evidently believed Hamlin, of whom more anon, but, as he went south and gathered facts, here and there,

the truth gradually forced itself upon him, and on May 1, 1859, when he had recovered sixteen of the children,

he wrote: "Four of the oldest of the children know, WITHOUT DOUBT KNOW, enough of the material facts of the

Mountain Meadow affair, to relieve the world of the white hell-hounds who have disgraced humanity by being

mainly instrumental in the murdering of at least one hundred and fifteen men, women, and children, under

circumstances and mariner without a parallel in human history for atrocity."

Dr. Forney had cause to change his mind, outside of the evidence of the children. He went first among the Pah-Vant

Indians under chief Kanosh, at Corn Creek -- the Indians who had been poisoned by the emigrants and taken

vengeance on them. He found that none of them had been poisoned by the waters of the spring; that the spring ran

so strong that a barrel of arsenic would not have poisoned it; that an ox belonging to Dr. Ray, a Mormon living

at Fillmore City, had died about the time the emigrants were camped at Corn Creek, from eating a poisonous weed

-- a not unusual occurrence -- and some Indians who ate of the ox were poisoned, but they had made

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS. 307

no complaints of the emigrants, and had no trouble of any kind with them; that none of the Pah-Vants were at

the Mountain Meadow massacre; that the conduct of the emigrants all through Utah had been most exemplary; that

none of the children had been with the Indians for an hour. And yet, as if desirous of adding a little more to

the awful infamy of this affair, all the Mormons who had had custody of these children put in claims for the

purchase-money expended in buying them from the Indians, as well as for their maintenance, the total claimed

amounting to over $7000. Of this amount Forney paid $2961.77 for what he considered proper charges, and reported

as to the rest that he "cannot condescend to become the medium of even transmitting such claims to the department."

In the spring of 1859 a company of dragoons and two companies of infantry, under Captain R. P. Campbell, passed

through the Meadows and buried the remains. Theirs was the last view of the Lord's work. Dr. Charles Brewer,

in charge of the burying-party, reported: "At the scene of the first attack, in the immediate vicinity of our

present camp, marked by a small defensive trench made by the emigrants, a number of human skulls, and bones and

hair, were found scattered about, bearing the appearance of never having been buried; also remnants of bedding

and wearing apparel. On examining the trenches, which appear to have been within the

308 MASSACRES OF THE MOUNTAINS.

corral, and within which it was supposed some written account of the massacre might have been concealed, some

few human bones, human hair, and what seemed to be the feathers of bedding, only were discerned. Proceeding 2500

yards in a direction N. 15

[emeliza]

LoudmouthedMormon = HSR?

Makes sense doesn't it? LMM started on here on 8/17, which is the last day HSR was on here posting.

As for the children, I am not sure if BY knew about them or not. If he did, he probably thought they were of no consequence and just left them be to where they were.

I would assume the families that took them in did so more out of some guilt, however it is even more appalling that not only did the massacre happen, but later these families did try and charge for having cared for these children in the first place.

[USU78]

An LDS descendant of Klingensmith says that one survivor child was raised in that family and never returned to the east.

Dale is referring, of course, to my wife's aunt's book, Mountain Meadows Witness. Therein are photos of the child in question as an adult for side-by-side comparison with Fancher relatives' photos. You can judge for yourself if her conclusions are accurate or are, as one of the authors of the upcoming MMM book said to me, "Nonsense!" Wouldn't it have been just like Bishop Klingensmith to keep in his bosom a daily reminder of his sins . . . and at a time when the family started going by "Smith."

[Uncle Dale]

I would assume the families that took them in did so more out of some guilt, however it is even more

appalling that not only did the massacre happen, but later these families did try and charge for having

cared for these children in the first place.

I would guess that at least a few of the children were placed with families that had nothing to do

with the massacre, and who thought (at least for a while) that they were orphans taken from Indians.

Within a few weeks (or a couple fo months at the least) those families must have known better.

But it still does not mean that all the families had any direct connection to the massacre. It was hard

times -- times of uncertainty -- and the imposition of another mouth to feed in a poor family would have

been a real hardship. Assuming that the local bishops did nothing to pay for the survivor children's

expenses, I can see how some families would have asked for federal reimbursement.

However, a great deal of wealth was taken from the Francher wagon train -- more than enough to have

paid for the survivors' expenses during their two years "house arrest," many, many times over.

Of all the families involved with the children, the Hamblin family seems to have closest to being innocent

of bad motives (though Indians associated with the family evidently took part in the massacre).

I still cannot determine whether Jacob Hamblin was acting on his own, or under orders from SLC, when

he began to round up the kids, for their return to the federal authorities. If Hamblin was acting contrary

to what the Utah leaders above (and equal to) him wanted done, perhaps he was a true hero.

Given the very violent and frightening times, I can more or less understand why the massacre took

place. Why the children were treated as they were --- and why their capture was attributed to "Indians"

all the way down to the days of Joseph Fielding Smith, is harder for me to fathom.

After all -- they were helpless, harmless babies, and followers of Jesus should have done better by them

from the very instant that the shooting stopped.

Uncle Dale

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would guess that at least a few of the children were placed with families that had nothing to do

with the massacre, and who thought (at least for a while) that they were orphans taken from Indians.

Within a few weeks (or a couple fo months at the least) those families must have known better.

But it still does not mean that all the families had any direct connection to the massacre. It was hard

times -- times of uncertainty -- and the imposition of another mouth to feed in a poor family would have

been a real hardship. Assuming that the local bishops did nothing to pay for the survivor children's

expenses, I can see how some families would have asked for federal reimbursement.

However, a great deal of wealth was taken from the Francher wagon train -- more than enough to have

paid for the survivors' expenses during their two years "house arrest," many, many times over.

CFR on how much money and where it all went.

[Uncle Dale]

CFR on how much money and where it all went.

I'd like to know also.

In one of my previous postings I cited some federal documents that include estimates of the wealth

that some of the emigrants were taking with them. Probably the greatest wealth was just in their

livestock, wagons, clothing and personal possessions. However some of the federal documents

mention large sums of money as well.

I would think that just the value of a few of the cattle taken from the murdered emigrants should

have been enough to feed and pay the survivor children's other expenses.

Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

I would think that just the value of a few of the cattle taken from the murdered emigrants should

have been enough to feed and pay the survivor children's other expenses.

Uncle Dale

Here is what a report from Elias N. Conway, the Governor of Arkansas, had to say, in 1860:

...The party was considered the wealthiest in horses, mules, cattle, wagons, carriages,

money and other property, of any party that attempted to cross the plains in the year 1857.

The Arkansas train consisted of, say, forty wagons. There were a few tents besides, which

the emigrants used in addition to these wagons when they encamped. There seemed to be

about forty heads of families, many women -- some unmarried -- and many children. A doctor

accompanied them. The train seemed to consist of respectable people, well to do in the world.

They were well dressed, were quiet, orderly, genteel, had fine stock; had three carriages along

and other evidences which went to show that this was one of the finest trains that had been seen

to cross the plains...

This train was undoubtedly a very rich one. It is said the emigrants had nearly 900 head of fine

cattle, many horses and mules, and one stallion valued at $2,000. That they had a great deal of

ready money besides. All this the Mormons at Salt Lake saw as the train came on. The Mormons

knew the troops were marching to their country, and a spirit of intense hatred of the Americans

and towards our government was kindled in the hearts of this whole people, by Brigham Young,

Orson Hyde, and other leaders, even from the pulpits. Here opportunely, was a rich train of

emigrants -- American gentiles; and not only that but these gentiles were from Arkansas, where

the saintly Pratt had gained his crown of martyrdom. Is not here some thread which may be

seized as a clue to this massacre? This train of rich Arkansas gentiles was doomed...

That same web-page

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/SO/miscsou2.htm

reproduces a number of early reports concerning the survivor children

Uncle Dale

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nice, that be some killer reporting. Let's take a look!

...The party was considered the wealthiest in horses, mules, cattle, wagons, carriages,

money and other property, of any party that attempted to cross the plains in the year 1857.

Granted they were well-to-do. I wonder how our esteemed Governor knows they were the wealthiest to travel hence?

The Arkansas train consisted of, say, forty wagons.

Say, it consisted of, say, let's say, a rough estimate ought to do it. Nevermind who told me how many wagons there were, I'm my own substantiated source, d___it!

There were a few tents besides, which

the emigrants used in addition to these wagons when they encamped. There seemed to be

about forty heads of families, many women -- some unmarried -- and many children. A doctor

accompanied them.

We don't need an aproximation of numbers based on any sources, as Governor, my rough guess ought to do.

The train seemed to consist of respectable people, well to do in the world.

They were well dressed, were quiet, orderly, genteel, had fine stock; had three carriages along

and other evidences which went to show that this was one of the finest trains that had been seen

to cross the plains...

Undoubtedly they had a nice train. But again, a source would help, your honorable one!

This train was undoubtedly a very rich one. It is said the emigrants had nearly 900 head of fine

cattle, many horses and mules, and one stallion valued at $2,000. That they had a great deal of

ready money besides.

Source? I believe they did have a lot of goods, and nice belongings, etc. But I'd like to know where the info is coming from. And does our Governor take the opportunity to explain how he nows the Mormons took all the booty? Ah, that's right, he only implies this.

All this the Mormons at Salt Lake saw as the train came on.

Flat-out misrepresentation alert! The Mormons at Salt Lake were aware of "all this?" Ok... Wait a minute.....oh...wait....say....Nope.

The Mormons knew the troops were marching to their country, and a spirit of intense hatred of the Americans and towards our government was kindled in the hearts of this whole people, by Brigham Young,

Orson Hyde, and other leaders, even from the pulpits.

Survey says? X

Oh, sorry! Actually, the rhetoric from the pulpit in Salt Lake varried from complete patriotism of American ideals to anger with corruption in government, specifically leaders, which in some cases was unwarranted, in other cases warranted.

Nowhere was it stated the Mormons "hated" the "Americans."

And here we have the common representation that the little people only believed what Big Brigham told them. The people had enough reason from personal experience to be warry of the government.

Despite all this the saints continued to petition for statehood, celebrate the 4th of July, teach that the constitution is inspired, hoist the flag, which was hoisted within days of arriving in Salt Lake Valley, etc. etc. etc. We are only getting one side of the story here.

Here opportunely, was a rich train of

emigrants -- American gentiles; and not only that but these gentiles were from Arkansas, where

the saintly Pratt had gained his crown of martyrdom. Is not here some thread which may be

seized as a clue to this massacre? This train of rich Arkansas gentiles was doomed...

Doomed. This assumes that any train with money from Arkansas would have, at any point, doomed. Unsubstantiated claim.

Or, as I said earlier, the writer is his own substantiated source. Where he gained this insight and omnipotence the reader is left to imagine.

[alter idem]

I'd like to know also.

In one of my previous postings I cited some federal documents that include estimates of the wealth

that some of the emigrants were taking with them. Probably the greatest wealth was just in their

livestock, wagons, clothing and personal possessions. However some of the federal documents

mention large sums of money as well.

I would think that just the value of a few of the cattle taken from the murdered emigrants should

have been enough to feed and pay the survivor children's other expenses.

Uncle Dale

A conservative estimate from 1859 was 18 wagons, 820 cattle, a large amount of household goods, money estimated at 80,000 to 90,0000 dollars. (James Lynch 1859 affidavit to James Buchanan)

In my opinion, the money may be a high estimate, however, I'd believe the rest is probably accurate. They were traveling to California and would have had a great deal of usable stuff, clothing, blankets etc. They had a large number of cattle because this was one of the things that caused problems--the Emigrants' cattle were grazing on the settlers' winter feeding areas as they passed through Deseret.

There are varying stories of what happened to the goods--But one thing we do know is that none of this stuff was ever recovered and returned to those surviving children or their relatives.

[Pahoran]

Here is what a report from Elias N. Conway, the Governor of Arkansas, had to say, in 1860:

That same web-page

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/SO/miscsou2.htm

reproduces a number of early reports concerning the survivor children

Uncle Dale.

Come on, Dale. You can do better than a blatant appeal to authority. What is this fellow's claim to first-hand knowledge of events in Utah? Oh, that's right--he was the governor of Arkansas! And that puts him on the scene--how, exactly?

Can't you see that he is merely reporting the angry anti-Mormon sentiments we can expect, given the time and place?

And incidentally, just how deep and abiding was Governor Conway's love of America and its institutions? Here he wraps himself in the flag in 1860; what flag was flying over the state house a twelvemonth hence?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

Come on, Dale. You can do better than a blatant appeal to authority. What is this fellow's claim to first-hand knowledge of events in Utah? Oh, that's right--he was the governor of Arkansas! And that puts him on the scene--how, exactly?

Can't you see that he is merely reporting the angry anti-Mormon sentiments we can expect, given the time and place?

And incidentally, just how deep and abiding was Governor Conway's love of America and its institutions? Here he wraps himself in the flag in 1860; what flag was flying over the state house a twelvemonth hence?

Regards,

Pahoran

What I was trying to do was to locate and cite the first detailed description of the wealth of the

Francher train. I never said it was fully accurate -- but it is a beginning. If anybody can find an

earlier source, I'd be happy to see it.

As for government documents, I earlier cited claims filed by relatives of the massacred emigrants --

so, this is not a case of the Arkansas Governor saying things about the wealth which are nowhere

else addressed.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that this was an exceptionally poor wagon train -- with

only a couple of broken-down nags, a single milk cow, and two or three wagons -- no cash at all.

How would such a characterization of those people in any way help out the Mormon side of

the argument (that John D. Lee and the Indians were the only ones meriting great blame)???

If Lee's purpose was not to rob the train, then what do Mormons say his purpose was? Surely he

had never heard Mrs. McLean-Pratt's claim, that these were the people who had killed Apostle Pratt.

So, if not to "get gain," why did the adopted son of Brigham Young kill all of those people -- knowing

that one day God would reveal to his father, at the head of the Church, that Lee had done the deed?

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

why did the adopted son of Brigham Young kill all of those people -- knowing

that one day God would reveal to his father, at the head of the Church, that Lee had done the deed?

What a deep question. Why do any of us do stupid things?

[Uncle Dale]

What a deep question. Why do any of us do stupid things?

Simple answer -- he was full of hate for the Americans, and his Church superiors evidently were

not able (or willing) to replace that hate with the love of Jesus.

Also, I think Lee expected that the Utahans would win the 1858 war -- and that what he did, was just the

beginning of what would soon be a tremendous amount of bloodshed. In other words, that his small

"massacre" would only be a tiny part of a much greater war, which his side would win -- and never

hold him to account thereafter.

But his side lost and his "stupid thing" became more and more evident over the years. After Bishop

Klingensmith began talking, at the beginning of the 1870s, Lee's fate was sealed.

I wonder if he ever considered sneaking up on Klingensmith and putting a bullet in his head?

UD

.

[alter idem]

If Lee's purpose was not to rob the train, then what do Mormons say his purpose was? Surely he

had never heard Mrs. McLean-Pratt's claim, that these were the people who had killed Apostle Pratt.

So, if not to "get gain," why did the adopted son of Brigham Young kill all of those people -- knowing

that one day God would reveal to his father, at the head of the Church, that Lee had done the deed?

UD

John D. Lee says he did it because he was ordered to by his superiors in the Militia. He was told to enlist the help of the Indians and to gain they cooperation, offering a share in the spoils--but it doesn't seem to me that plunder was the reason for the attack. If that was the case, there were certainly numerous opportunities to rob passing travelers--plenty of wealthy trains came through their towns.

[Pahoran]

Simple answer -- he was full of hate for the Americans, and his Church superiors evidently were not able (or willing) to replace that hate with the love of Jesus.

Presuming they knew it existed.

I'd be interested if you have any facts in support of your "full of hate" supposition.

Also, I think Lee expected that the Utahans would win the 1858 war -- and that what he did, was just the

beginning of what would soon be a tremendous amount of bloodshed. In other words, that his small

"massacre" would only be a tiny part of a much greater war, which his side would win -- and never

hold him to account thereafter.

But his side lost and his "stupid thing" became more and more evident over the years. After Bishop

Klingensmith began talking, at the beginning of the 1870s, Lee's fate was sealed.

I wonder if he ever considered sneaking up on Klingensmith and putting a bullet in his head?

I've no idea. But I suppose you could start a thread asking for documentation about it, and in the absence of conclusive proof that he did not, perhaps you could further speculate about how much encouragement he had from Brigham in considering such things, whether he did or not.

After all, there's no conclusive, smoking-gun proof that no Mormon anywhere ever considered holding the Fancher children as hostages, therefore it must have been some kind of tacit Church policy. Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

Simple answer -- he was full of hate for the Americans, and his Church superiors evidently were

not able (or willing) to replace that hate with the love of Jesus.

Aside from the fact that your statement is what engineer's call a W.A.G., Dale, there is one teeny, tiny, almost miniscule problem with your bare-butted assumptions.

John D. Lee, Brigham Young, and the majority of all the other Mormons at that point were Americans.

Despite all the abuses, neglect, and blatant hostility offered to the Mormons by the government, it was the Stars and Stripes that was hoisted at Winter Quarters. It was the American flag that flew from Mormon forts and settlements in Utah. Brigham Young's authority as territorial governor came from the United States government.

Unless, of course, you can miraculously conjure up a statement in some obscure yellow Anti-Mormon tabloid in which the members of the Church renounced their citizenship, either singularly or collectively. Merely moving to the Utah territories won't cut it, I'm afraid.

Also, I think Lee expected that the Utahans would win the 1858 war -- and that what he did, was just the

beginning of what would soon be a tremendous amount of bloodshed. In other words, that his small

"massacre" would only be a tiny part of a much greater war, which his side would win -- and never

hold him to account thereafter.

Have you any proof of this wild assertion? Everytime you post, Lee becomes more and more of a Paul Bunyan figure. Every syllable that escapes your keyboard paints a greater picture of both ambition and depravity, yet it is a classic "the house that Jack built" fallacy.

I wonder if he ever considered sneaking up on Klingensmith and putting a bullet in his head?

Have you any evidence that he might have, or are you just spreading more character assassination around?

[Uncle Dale]

After all, there's no conclusive, smoking-gun proof that no Mormon anywhere ever considered holding the Fancher children as hostages, therefore it must have been some kind of tacit Church policy. Right?

Regards,

Pahoran

You continue to misunderstand my use of the term "hostages" -- which I put forth as merely one

of several possibilities I deem worth investigating.

You seem to think that the children being "hostages" must mean that Brigham Young was holding them

for ransom, awaiting payment from their relatives or some such thing.

So far as I can tell, Brigham never even mentioned the children in any recorded oral or written

communications, after first being informed of their survival by Apostle Woodruff. So, for an investigation

of what sort of hostages they may have been, I suggest going on down the chain of command, through

George A. Smith, Daniel H. Wells, Col. Dame, President Haight, and elders Higbee, Lee, etc.

What were the rules of combat engagement given the county militias and the Nauvoo Legion, regarding

the capture and holding of possible prisoners of war in the anticipated upcoming battles with Johnston's

dragoons? There must have been such rules issued the troops, for Brigham Young himself forbade the

spilling of innocent blood in quotes cited from him. That is at least one rule of engagement.

Would the killing of a Gentile, under the age of accountability, in the midst of combat with the Americans

in 1857-58, have been considered the shedding of innocent blood by the LDS soldiers? If so, then here

we at least have a possible reason why those kids measuring under the height of the typical eight year

old were spared, while those taller than the stick were murdered after the fighting at The Meadows.

But once spared, to what purpose? Again, I ask to see the rules of engagement, as set down by the

Department of War (headed by Pres. Wells) in the LDS Church during 1857-58.

If the actual document copies have not survived, there is certainly a body of perserved internal

communication between commanders and troops during 1857-58, from which proclamations, orders

and dispatches, we should be able to begin to discern what the rules of combat and captives were.

Uncle Dale

...

Have you any evidence that he might have, or are you just spreading more character

assassination around?

Ask your questions in a proper manner and I'll answer them in a proper manner.

UD

.

[Zakuska]

What a deep question. Why do any of us do stupid things?

Well... for some of us... the reasons are more apparent.

[Uncle Dale]

John D. Lee says he did it because he was ordered to by his superiors in the Militia. He was told to enlist the help of the Indians and to gain they cooperation, offering a share in the spoils--but it doesn't seem to me that plunder was the reason for the attack. If that was the case, there were certainly numerous opportunities to rob passing travelers--plenty of wealthy trains came through their towns.

Some statements given by travelers through Utah, late in 1857, indicate that the people there expected

the immigration routes to be closed down and the wagon trains stopped when Johnston's army entered

Utah's populated areas.

Although I cannot prove it, my estimation is that the Utahans expected to make war upon the civilian

Gentiles in their midst, if the federal troops made war upon the people of the Territory.

I could go through the travelers' statements and compile instances of their getting this impression from

the residents of the Territory -- I could even compile some supporting statements given by Utahans in

published letters, journal entries, etc. from 1857-58, in support of the common opinion that the wagon

trains would be "fair game" once the federal troops began firing upon Mormon civilians.

But that would prove nothing -- for "common opinion" is not the same thing as the official orders given

by the LDS Church's topmost leaders. Without documentary proof, showing that those leaders intended

to sack wagon trains, if and when the situation worsened, I cannot convince the LDS apologists here.

Even "Journal of Discourses texts" and excerpts of leaders' public counsel from the "Deseret News,"

will not satisfy the LDS defenders ---- because those leaders were careful enough NOT to publish any

directives saying "we'll kill the Gentiles in our midst when the U.S. Army attacks us."

Thus, we reach a stand-off, with the LDS saying that any additional speculation beyond the official

explanations given by the Mormon leaders is nothing but speculation.

And, perhaps, they are right about that.

To see what was happening in Utah in 1857-58, to passers-though, read the relevant articles here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/misccal1.htm

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NW/miscnw02.htm

Uncle Dale