M-m-m And The 1857-58 Utah War

[Pahoran]

He knew his term of office was drawing to a close and he knew that Buchanan was not his political ally.

But had he been properly notified that he had been replaced?

An honorable man would have tendered his resignation upon the inaguration of the new President and would have thenceforth continued temporarily in his duties, only at the President's pleasure. That is the way I read the political history of the times. If you have examples of governors acting differently, I'd be happy to read them.

I fail to see how "honourable" means "following standard conventions." In every generation there have been honourable men willing to withstand the pressure of such conventions.

Brigham was one of them. I know of no evidence impugning his honour.

How many other territorial governors of the period were appointed because they were the natural leaders of the dominant population groups in their respective territories? Utah could not be governed without Brigham's co-operation, and appointing him was the most efficient and convenient way to secure that.

Brigham Young was not without his legal counsel, of course, and he knew he could continue in his duties until properly retired from office.

All of which waffle simply amounts to an admission that he hadn't been sacked.

But what would have notice of an immediare dismissal from Buchanan have accomplished?

Doing the thing properly, you mean? Since it was never tried, I guess we'll never know. But we do have enough to go on with to make an educated guess.

You see, in the event, once Brigham had received sufficient assurances of the good conduct of the army, he let them in. By your own admission, he would have let the civilian officers in without the army had they the courage to come on and assume their posts. (Only the paranoia of the times, which some people are still misguided enough to imagine has any historical validity, prevented their doing so.) Once Cumming was able to present Brigham with his proper credentials, Brigham stepped aside.

As he would have done had the affair been handled properly instead of being bungled from the outset.

With no replacement yet in Salt Lake City, to take over, the Territory's Lieut. Gov. would have become acting Governor (assuming Young obeyed the dismissal)

A fairly save assumption, I think.

and so the reins of the Terriorial Government would have remained under Young's implicit control, if not his explicit control.

And this was a problem--why?

No -- Cumming's appointment was to become active upon his arrival in Utah. The Territory could not be left without a chief executive for the several weeks' time needed to get the replacement to Utah.

So the unpalatable Brigham was left in charge. What would have been so hard about sending Brigham a letter by fast post, notifying him that he had been replaced, that he was to step down as governor when Cumming arrived, and that he was to do everything in his power to ensure that Cumming got there safely? Why did Buchanan stop the mails and send the largest single body of federal troops along as an "escort?" Can't you see that, to those in the path of this army, these actions raised questions with only one answer?

So, what was Young's response, and how/when did the government officials in Washington, D.C. learn of that response. The publication there, in the "paper of record," read as follows:

Very good. BTW, your quote doesn't make it especially clear where Brigham's proclamation ends and your unfriendly editorialising begins. You might want to work on that.

Now: despite your commentary, how "bizarre" is it really that Brigham invoked the law from which his authority derived? Do you understand the concept of "rule of law?" Governments are subject to laws just like citizens are; did you not realise that? Brigham had been properly appointed. By law, he was governor until he was properly removed, and--by your own admission--he had not been. You pontificated, above, about what an "honorable man" would have done. I put it to you that abandoning his post, and the people who looked to him for leadership, just because a crisis was looming, would have been the very antithesis of an honourable act; and that furthermore, had he done so, you would not hesitate to criticise him therefor.

Based upon how previous federal officials had fared in Utah

Some of the more corrupt ones had had to leave the territory in disgrace. So?

-- based upon the many murders reported in the territory at that period

As distinct from the number of murders actually committed in the territory at that period, which are two very different numbers.

-- based upon the fact that the hostile Indians along the route were mainly Utah's allies -- based upon the Utahans' attacks upon federal supply trains

Your footwork is getting fancier, Dale. As you know, those attacks were done against Johnston's army; IOW, they were part of the defence against the invasion. No invasion, nothing to defend.

-- and based upon the rhetoric I read in the "Desert News" of that period, I think it safe to assume that the federal appointees, riding from Fort Laramie to Salt Lake City, essentially unarmed and with no escort, would have been taking their lives in their hands

Thank you for admitting that you were merely assuming that.

Which is not safe, of course.

An escort of, say, fifty armed men would have been entirely sufficient to protect the federal appointees until they reached SLC. But fifty men would in no wise have posed a military threat or provocation to the good citizens of Utah.

-- just as Elder Almon Babbit did, when he attempted the same journey and was murdered in the plains at roughly the same time.

Yes, he was killed by Cheyenne Indians. But his was a very small party. I'm astonished that you can't think of any better plan than sending several regiments of infantry with cavalry support and artillery and calling it an "escort." And stopping the mails so that no-one would find out that they were on their way.

See above --

Given that the "above" cites the US authority upon which Brigham relied, I fail entirely to see how it could be construed as "Brigham's declaration of independence." Did Jefferson's Declaration of Independence cite the authority of the king?

Or is that why you chose to call it "bizarre?" Because you wanted it to reject US federal authority, and it did no such thing?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

But had he been properly notified that he had been replaced?

I do not know -- such communications were generally tendered in private. Brigham had proxies in the

nation's capital, such as Bernhisel, the non-voting representative in Congress, etc. Were Babbit still

alive, he would have possessed the Democratic connections to have served as a courier to Brigham.

Probably the only way we will ever know, is to search through Brigham's preserved papers, to see

what his private communications were back and forth with the Mormon reps and lobbyists in D.C.

I fail to see how "honourable" means "following standard conventions." In every generation there have been honourable men willing to withstand the pressure of such conventions.

Brigham was one of them. I know of no evidence impugning his honour.

At any rate he knew that Buchanan would not be keepong him on as Governor, and he knew that there

were only scant months remaining in his term. So what were Brigham's expectations as time ran out?

I'd suppose that he was looking for a way to hang onto power -- but his options were not many.

How many other territorial governors of the period were appointed because they were the

natural leaders of the dominant population groups in their respective territories? Utah could

not be governed without Brigham's co-operation, and appointing him was the most efficient

and convenient way to secure that.

Utah could be governed without his active participation -- but not with his active antagonism. What

eventually happened is that he got Cumming to serve as a figurehead Governor, while Brigham

remained in control of a great deal of what happened in the territory. But, without official office, his

direct control was broken and Utah ceased to be a theocracy. In fact, a new term came into use,

which was theo-democracy (a society where the church had great influence but not direct control).

At any rate, the times were changing -- non-Mormon emigration was exploding -- mineral wealth was

being discovered in places previously thought uninhabitable -- the railroad came closer every year --

as did the telegraph lines. The day was rapidly approaching when Utah could be governed without

the co-operation of the LDS President. And, as the demographics changed -- as more non-Mormons

came to Utah, the role of the LDS President's "co-operation" changed. Brigham must have seen this

coming, yet he struggled to hold onto power. Was it really God's will that 1857-58 played out as they

did? Had Brigham not overplayed his hand, I think there might have been a behind-the-scenes political

compromise, that would have brought very few federal troops to Utah. But it did not work out that way.

All of which waffle simply amounts to an admission that he hadn't been sacked.

Like I said earlier, it was not a matter of his being "sacked," -- it was a matter of his not being again

appointed in his office, which change he knew was coming, unless something drastic happened. The

1857-58 Utah War was something drastic, but events did not work out so that Brigham held into power.

Let's update the 1857-58 situation to modern times -- say the US Territory of Guam, right after the

Japanese left. Let's say that a new Governor had been appointed there in 1945 and that he forbid the

entrance of the US Army and Navy to his realm. Would that be legal? The guy could yell and scream

about how the military was an armed mob, come to destroy his people's way of life, etc., -- but he

still would have no authority, as appointed chief executive of a territory, to forbid entrance of US troops.

He might say that his replacement had not yet arrived -- but he could not legally forbid a naval vessel

carrying that very same replacement Governor to dock at Guam.

That's the situation Brigham found himself in at the end of 1857 -- and why he did what he did, I cannot

fathom. Unless he really truly believed that the Millennium was coming in 1858, or some such thing.

Doing the thing properly, you mean? Since it was never tried, I guess we'll never know. But we do have enough to go on with to make an educated guess.

You see, in the event, once Brigham had received sufficient assurances of the good conduct of the army, he let them in. By your own admission, he would have let the civilian officers in without the army had they the courage to come on and assume their posts. (Only the paranoia of the times, which some people are still misguided enough to imagine has any historical validity, prevented their doing so.) Once Cumming was able to present Brigham with his proper credentials, Brigham stepped aside.

As he would have done had the affair been handled properly instead of being bungled from the outset.

A fairly save assumption, I think.

And this was a problem--why?

So the unpalatable Brigham was left in charge. What would have been so hard about sending Brigham a letter by fast post, notifying him that he had been replaced, that he was to step down as governor when Cumming arrived, and that he was to do everything in his power to ensure that Cumming got there safely? Why did Buchanan stop the mails and send the largest single body of federal troops along as an "escort?" Can't you see that, to those in the path of this army, these actions raised questions with only one answer?

Very good. BTW, your quote doesn't make it especially clear where Brigham's proclamation ends and your unfriendly editorialising begins. You might want to work on that.

See the web-document, where my comments appear in easily identifiable marron-colored text.

I am not an expert on the Utah Expedition -- and since whole books have been written about the subject,

and since we are now in the bi-centennial of those events, and can anticipate a number of restrospective

papers to be published next year, anything I say here will be "small potatoes." My opinions don't mean

much, when dedicated, professional historians are about ready to offer their weighty reports.

Now: despite your commentary, how "bizarre" is it really that Brigham invoked the law from which his authority derived? Do you understand the concept of "rule of law?" Governments are subject to laws just like citizens are; did you not realise that? Brigham had been properly appointed. By law, he was governor until he was properly removed, and--by your own admission--he had not been. You pontificated, above, about what an "honorable man" would have done. I put it to you that abandoning his post, and the people who looked to him for leadership, just because a crisis was looming, would have been the very antithesis of an honourable act; and that furthermore, had he done so, you would not hesitate to criticise him therefor.

Some of the more corrupt ones had had to leave the territory in disgrace. So?

As distinct from the number of murders actually committed in the territory at that period, which are two very different numbers.

Your footwork is getting fancier, Dale. As you know, those attacks were done against Johnston's army; IOW, they were part of the defence against the invasion. No invasion, nothing to defend.

Thank you for admitting that you were merely assuming that.

Which is not safe, of course.

An escort of, say, fifty armed men would have been entirely sufficient to protect the federal appointees until they reached SLC. But fifty men would in no wise have posed a military threat or provocation to the good citizens of Utah.

Yes, he was killed by Cheyenne Indians. But his was a very small party. I'm astonished that you can't think of any better plan than sending several regiments of infantry with cavalry support and artillery and calling it an "escort." And stopping the mails so that no-one would find out that they were on their way.

Given that the "above" cites the US authority upon which Brigham relied, I fail entirely to see how it could be construed as "Brigham's declaration of independence." Did Jefferson's Declaration of Independence cite the authority of the king?

Or is that why you chose to call it "bizarre?" Because you wanted it to reject US federal authority, and it did no such thing?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm not sure how to answer you. When we get into the realm of opinions, I assume that yours will be

that Brigham was operating under Divine inspiration -- and you can assume that my opinion is just the

opposite.

I'm not sure how to get over that divide. So, I think I'll wait for you to supply some source material

that we can all read over. I'm near the end of my stuff, unless I can possibly locate the MMM childrens'

testimony, as taken in Utah by Cradlebaugh before the two older boys were sent to Washington, D. C.

But -- while I wait for your additions, I'll keep looking.

If you wish to re-phrase your questions in the form of documented assertions, perhaps I would be

able to offer more useful commentary, than just trying to justify my opinions. Can you try that?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

I donâ??t think Buchanan would have made the decision if it had not been for Drummond. Or at the very least, there would have been a substantial delay (until similar accusations were made by another source) before the decision was made.

At least thatâ??s my silly uneducated opinion.

As mentuoned in some of my comments attached to the 1857-58 news articles transcriptions, I've been

reading Stampp's "America in 1857," which I think gives a fair reconstruction of the times. He's a noted

professional historian and he steers a mid-course between blaming Brigham and blaming Buchanan for

the Utah War (only one chapter in his lengthy text).

As for Drummond's accusations, I tend to believe at least some of them -- the blood oaths, for one thing.

We cannot discuss such things in MA&D threads, but I'll say that what is here mentioned is not the typical

endowment promises Mormons know today. It was not just Drummond who was then saying such things.

Writers like John Hyde (who went directly from missionizing in Hawaii for the Church to writing his expose)

also brought up the subject, as did the less reliable but better known ex-Apostle William Smith. See also

various mentions by Lyman Wight, John E. Page, Sidney Rigdon, Bishop Miller, etc. over the years.

But an even better source is patriarchal blessings given in Utah during the 1850s. I have some of these,

for ancestral family members -- and sections on avenging the blood of Joseph and Hyrum are prominent.

I'm told that some blessings given in 1858 have sections on avenging the blood of Parley P. Pratt.

I wish that the Church authorities would allow the texts of the old oaths to be published -- so that once

and for all we could know just how much "vengeance" was included during the "Reformation" period,

and what other secret oaths were given, besides those administered at Nauvoo and in the SLC Endowment

House. I'm no expert, and I view it all through a biased RLDS lens, of course.

But I give Drummond a 50% score on attempted truthfulness and about a 25% score on reliability.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

So . . . we have the following, none of which is necessarily exclusive of any of the others:

1. Southern interests in gaining a "jumping off point" for forays into California and control of the gold fields.

2. Southern interests in gaining control of the "crossroads of the West."

3. Northern interests in gaining a "jumping off point" for forays into California and control of the gold fields as well as into the Oregon Territory with its ill-defined boundaries, which would later lead the US to the brink of a 3rd war with Britain.

4. Northern interests in gaining control of the "crossroads of the West."

5. Buchanan's political debts for:

a. Southern Senators' support for his election; and

b. War Contractors, control of which likely rested in his supporters.

6. Northern and Southern Senators' and the Administration's interests in diverting attention away from the Slavery/Succession issue which was on the verge of igniting into a holocaust.

7. &ct., including but not limited to Satan raging in the hearts of men.

Why do we need to identify but one cause, unless it is the conclusory # 7?

USU "Weary and Sad" 78

So then, Horatio -- you have come full circle back to my orginal posting here --- that the popular notion

(among anti-Mormons, at least), that Johnston's Army came to punish the perpetrators of MMM is both

faulty and over-simplistic.

We can see that the factors on Buchanan's side of the equation are many and mixed -- but among them

was the realization that the Oregon and California Trails must be kept open and that the territories

(like Kansas and Utah) could not slip out of federal control altogether.

So, we can more or less picture the situation from a Washington, D.C. viewpoint.

But what about the view from Temple Square and the Lion House in Great Salt Lake City?

What was REALLY going on in the minds of Young, Wells, Smith, et al.?

Here are some interesting, pre-MMM excerpts from a George A. Smith lecture, given on the eve of his

departure, to stoke up the fire of Mormon zeal in Iron County:

There are a great many... who were finally driven from Missouri, not to say anything of the hundreds

and thousands and tens of thousands who are dead, whose deaths were more or less caused

by the sufferings and distress that were brought upon them by their extermination.... Prophets and

High Priests were arrested and put in prison, numbers of them were murdered, women were

ravished, goods and property stolen, houses burnt, and children butchered, and every possible

cruelty was invented to cure men of their religion....

He was determined to use her up so he put her down and held her under till she was dead...

Soon after we arrived... here came a captain with troops into this city.. and began to insult the people,

and then tried to cover up their wickedness by the dignity of Uncle Samdom. Passing along they came

to a lone house, and there undertook to ravish a woman in open daylight... After this outrage

the officers of the company were soon told that if they did not take their troops out of the city, the

"Mormons" would cut all their damned throats...

The talk now is that they are going to bring 2500 soldiers into this Territory... They are determined

to send who they please for Governor, who they please for Judges, and who they please for our

territorial Officers, and to permit those men whom they send to place their interpretation upon the

acts of our Territorial Legislature, and upon the condition of things as they surround us, and

I care but little what comes next....

If I had the command of thunder and lightning, I would never let one of the damned scoundrels

get here alive......

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc1.htm#081257

There's much more of the same blood and rape talk -- and even stronger than this to the Iron County Militia,

when G.A.S. got "down to Dixie:" holy instruction and sacred testimony, pouring straight from the prophetic

mouth of a "special witness for Jesus Christ," who had been anointed "prophet, seer, revelator and translator,"

along with his apostolic brethren ------ Certainly the "word of God" to small, frightened minds like those of

Haight, Dame, Higbee and Lee, (as they looked nervously over their shoulders for blue-coated Gentiles).

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc1.htm#092357

Uncle "Oh, once I lived in Cottonwood..." Dale

.

[Neighbor]

But it seems that all of this would have come together, entirely without the MMM events.

At what point in 1857 or 1858 did the Mormon leadership realize, and admit openly, that God would

not give the Mormons a military victory -- nor a negotiated peace that left them in charge of all

the governmental offices in the Territory?

My guess, is that the straw that broke the camel's back, was the loss of Indian allies in Idaho -- which

put in doubt the theological precept that the Lamanites would rage through the wicked gentiles, like

"young lions," and bring about the establishment of the political kingdom.

In other words, it was not a fake MMM Indian bloodbath that ended Mormon resistance, but the fear of a

real one, potentially directed against the Mormons themselves.

UD

The Lincoln comments were interesting. Of special note is how Republicans and Democrats of their day seem quite at odds with what the parties are known for today. I would rather think this is more the reason for the matter of troops to Utah - that they were against the United States of America, as evidenced by this reported 'oath':

THE MORMON OATH. -- The guilty and treasonable oath which the 40,000 or 50,000 Mormons now in Salt Lake valley, and many others scattered in all parts of the country, have taken upon themselves at the hands of Brigham Young and the Danite followers, reads as follows:

"You do solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God, His holy angels, and these witnesses, that you will avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach the same to your children; that you will from this time hence and forever begin and carry out hostilities against the nation; and to keep the same intent a profound secret, now and forever, so help me God."

[USU78]

For comparison's sake, have a gander at what folks were saying a few years later about the Revolutionary War's Wyoming Valley Massacre, which actually occurred in Pennsylvania, not Wyoming, in 1773. The bombast you see therein is typical of the time, so we must view addresses by G.A. Smith and BY and such folks in their historical context.

In comparision with the hysteria over a mostly military incident where 150-350 were killed in a single battle on the frontier in 1773, roughly 100 years before the above, G.A. Smith, who had living memory of the events he reported, was subdued and sedate.

USU "Fair's fair, pilgrim" 78

[USU78]

The Lincoln comments were interesting. Of special note is how Republicans and Democrats of their day seem quite at odds with what the parties are known for today. I would rather think this is more the reason for the matter of troops to Utah - that they were against the United States of America, as evidenced by this reported 'oath':

Yes, Neighbor, we know. JSJr and HS had it coming. The Mormons in Missouri had it coming. The Mormons in Illinois had it coming. The Mormons in Deseret had it coming. I have it coming. My car's parked outside. My wife's home. Here are the keys to car and house. Have at it.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

But I give Drummond a 50% score on attempted truthfulness and about a 25% score on reliability.

UD

Any man who dies in a grogshop after serving in a House of Correction for stealing postage stamps can't be all that truthful of a fellow...

Out of curiousity, have you read Bells's interview in the New York Herald (Feb 23, 1858)?

Thanks for all of your info and insights Uncle Dale, I truly appreciate it.

[Scott Lloyd]

For comparison's sake, have a gander at what folks were saying a few years later about the Revolutionary War's Wyoming Valley Massacre, which actually occurred in Pennsylvania, not Wyoming, in 1773. The bombast you see therein is typical of the time, so we must view addresses by G.A. Smith and BY and such folks in their historical context.

In comparision with the hysteria over a mostly military incident where 150-350 were killed in a single battle on the frontier in 1773, roughly 100 years before the above, G.A. Smith, who had living memory of the events he reported, was subdued and sedate.

USU "Fair's fair, pilgrim" 78

I have just emerged from a fairly intensive review of the 1832-39 Missouri period in Church history. The atrocities committed in Jackson and surrounding counties are thus fresh in my mind. Therefore, I can scarcely blame George A. Smith for declamatory speechifying, considering that, from the perspective of the saints, persecution was catching up with them, and they were about to be subjected to more of the same. I think I would have been right there cheering Elder Smith on.

Edited to add: Perhaps an appropriate follow-up thread to this one could be titled "1830s Missouri and the Utah War: What was their connection?"

[Uncle Dale]

I have just emerged from a fairly intensive review of the 1832-39 Missouri period in Church history. The atrocities committed in Jackson and surrounding counties are thus fresh in my mind. Therefore, I can scarcely blame George A. Smith for declamatory speechifying, considering that, from the perspective of the saints, persecution was catching up with them, and they were about to be subjected to more of the same. I think I would have been right there cheering Elder Smith on.

Edited to add: Perhaps an appropriate follow-up thread to this one could be titled "1830s Missouri and the Utah War: What was their connection?"

Well, to begin with, we can paint a picture of Joseph Smith, behind the barricades at Far West, with the

Missouri militia closing in on all sides, and every Mormon there ready to fire his musket into the

approaching and overwhelming array of government troops.

And we can paint a picture along side of that, with Brigham Young and all the Utahans, ready to fire upon

any troops coming upon them from the East (only an idiot through Echo Canyon), the North (where the

federals wisely chose to deploy), the West (where California and Oregon volunteers could be summoned)

or the South (where the Iron and Washington county militias were no doubt anticipating an attack).

In my estimation, God was not with either latter day commander as he was passing out the gunpowder.

UD

.

[Scott Lloyd]

The revelations indicate that, in some measure, the saints in Missouri brought their troubles upon themselves. And yet, 170 years later, the Church of Jesus Christ not only survives but thrives, despite the most intense efforts by mobbers in Missouri and Illinois.

As for Utah, what the saints here accomplished was to hold the U.S. Army at bay, without so much as a single battlefield casualty on either side, until peace could prevail through negotiation -- no mean accomplishment, in my book.

By the way, Dale, no Utahn I know writes the word Utahn as Utahan. Webster's New World College Dictionary does back you up, but it also recognizes Utahn as local usage. Were I not from Utah, I should think I would, nevertheless, spell it the way the locals do if, for no other reason, than to avoid branding myself conspicuously as an outsider.

[Uncle Dale]

By the way, Dale, no Utahn I know writes the word Utahn as Utahan....

And no Idahoan I know of writes the word Idahodian, as I've many times heard it pronounced

in Cache Valley and other points north of Brigham City -- as in "I'm sick of this 2-point local swill, and

I'm a'goin' up to Franklin an' bringin' me back a trunkfull a' that there Idahodian beer!"

To each his own, I suppose -- only 16,900 Google "hits" for "Utahan," I see...

UD

[selek]

And no Idahoan I know of writes the word Idahodian, as I've many times heard it pronounced

in Cache Valley and other points north of Brigham City -- as in "I'm sick of this 2-point local swill, and

I'm a'goin' up to Franklin an' bringin' me back a trunkfull a' that there Idahodian beer!"

To each his own, I suppose -- only 16,900 Google "hits" for "Utahan," I see...

UD

Ah yes, "Sparkling Muscatel"......one of the finest wines of Idaho.

[Uncle Dale]

Ah yes, "Sparkling Muscatel"....

Had I been around Deseret in '58, I might have sipped a jar or two of "Valley Tan" myself.

Our estimable Doctor Steuss perhaps can direct you to a cool, frothy glass of Polygamy Porter...

And, speaking of the good Dr., you might enjoy reading his latest citation, on some guy's website, here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/NYherld2.htm#020358

Although Brigham's grocery and dry goods business partner of "$500,000" naturally had a few nice

things to say concerning the saintly leadership, reports of his arrival in California provide a somewhat

different scenerio. Perhaps by then the good Mr. Bell had wet his whistle with a glass or two of muscatel.

But, better yet, I like Bennett's "fanaticism" report in The Herald of the next day -- which says this:

"Fanaticism is an unmanageable thing. Once bloodshed, there would be no quarter, and no possibility of arrangement. To calculate on what has been will not serve as a basis for calculations for what shall be in this case. The Mormons have had trouble with their neighbors, and had battles, or something resembling the tempest in a teapot; but the perusal of their organs and the correspondence from the Territory are sufficiently clear to lead us to the conclusion that this is to be the great struggle. They are under the impression that they are fighting for constitutional liberty, and what they call the "kingdom of God." Brigham strenuously maintains that his interpretation of the organic act of the Territory requires him to oppose the approach of armed bands, which he calls the army, unless that he has been notifued of their approach. This is of course regarded as a mere quibble; but it is enough to satisfy the inhabitants of that Territory that he is right, and that they are right in sustaining him in his opposition. No one has shown them the fallacy of their conclusions, and on this Dr. Bernhisel is reported to ground his claim for a commission....

It is probably premature to speak of withdrawing the troops; but that histilities may be retarded to permit of the last effort being made to settle peaceably the difficulty, by vacating the Territory or by some other compromise, is neither impossible nor improbable. You would be astonished to see how many favor this new move, Mormons are no strangers in Washington, and where they have business and relationship they naturally enough do their utmost to set their version of matters forward....

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/NYherld2.htm#020458

Elder Bernhisel no doubt preferred a dry Oeil-de-Perdrix when dining out with the Washington, D. C. gentry.

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

And no Idahoan I know of writes the word Idahodian, as I've many times heard it pronounced

in Cache Valley and other points north of Brigham City -- as in "I'm sick of this 2-point local swill, and

I'm a'goin' up to Franklin an' bringin' me back a trunkfull a' that there Idahodian beer!"

Unlike Utahn, "Idahoian" is not recognized in an authoritative source as a normative usage, local or otherwise.

To each his own, I suppose

I suppose so. And insisting on referring to residents of a state in a way contrary to the usage that is virtually universal within that state betrays one's own brand of provincialism, I suppose.

And Utahn gets an estimated 142,000 hits.

[Uncle Dale]

Unlike Utahn, "Idahoian" is not recognized in an authoritative source as a normative usage, local or otherwise.

I suppose so. And insisting on referring to residents of a state in a way contrary to the usage that is virtually universal within that state betrays one's own brand of provincialism, I suppose.

Something only a two-horned, carrot-snapping, cricket-stomper would throw in the face of an honest

Gem State russet grower.

UD

[Doctor Steuss]

Had I been around Deseret in '58, I might have sipped a jar or two of "Valley Tan" myself.

Our estimable Doctor Steuss perhaps can direct you to a cool, frothy glass of Polygamy Porter...

The only thing I'm any good at directing people to is LDS LSD... groooooovy.

And, speaking of the good Dr., you might enjoy reading his latest citation, on some guy's website, here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/NYherld2.htm#020358

Speak of the devil.

[...]

But, better yet, I like Bennett's "fanaticism" report in The Herald of the next day -- which says this:

Elder Bernhisel no doubt preferred a dry Oeil-de-Perdrix when dining out with the Washington, D. C. gentry.

UD

Fascinating that fanaticism... As always, thank you Uncle. I swear it doesn't matter how much time I spend blazing cyber-holes into my corneas, there's always something more to be discovered at that "some guy's" website.

That "some guy" must drink Trappist beer.