Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[Calm]

Here are some: http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/notes-fr...-mack-faragher/

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/?p=325

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/ne...eadows-massacre

Apparently it should be available in audio sometime today: http://www.kcpw.org/podcasts

[Calm]

Pahoran--a transcript of a lecture you might be interested in on the subject (that is if you haven't already seen it): http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37745

I could have stuck it on here, but I suspect it will get more readers in a new thread.

[William the Conqueror]

Pahoran--a transcript of a lecture you might be interested in on the subject (that is if you haven't already seen it): http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37745

I could have stuck it on here, but I suspect it will get more readers in a new thread.

I've been reading Blood and Thunder by Hampton Sides. It is about the settlement and exploration of the southwest region in the 1800s. He does mention Brigadier General Carlton in New Mexico and has a short section on Mountain Meadows which Carlton investigated in 1859. Carlton's conclusion was that the Mormons should be made, "..children of the mist.." which was the same view he had of the Navajos in New Mexico and Arizona territories. Carlton was raised a New England Calvinist and was a real martinet in the Army.

[Calm]

Carlton's conclusion was that the Mormons should be made, "..children of the mist.."

Meaning what exactly?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've been reading Blood and Thunder by Hampton Sides. It is about the settlement and exploration of the southwest region in the 1800s. He does mention Brigadier General Carlton in New Mexico and has a short section on Mountain Meadows which Carlton investigated in 1859. Carlton's conclusion was that the Mormons should be made, "..children of the mist.." which was the same view he had of the Navajos in New Mexico and Arizona territories. Carlton was raised a New England Calvinist and was a real martinet in the Army.

Carleton's "children of the mist" rant is quoted in the prologue to the new book. I cited it in a post on this thread many days ago.

In effect, Carleton was advocating a Lilburn Boggs-style extermination order, not just against the massacre perpetrators but against all Mormons on U. S. soil -- give them a year to be gone, otherwise let the army make "children of the mist" of them, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned.

Carleton is a textbook example of why we should -- and do -- have a civilian as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

[Scott Lloyd]

Meaning what exactly?

Here's the statement, in Carleton's letter to his commanding officer's assistant adjutant general after Carleton's return to California:

I would to God that General Clarke with an adequte force, and with his hands unfettered by red tape, could have the management of those damned Mormons just one summer, and that 'I could be there to see.' Major, it is no use to talk or split hairs about that accursed race. All fine spun nonsense about their rights as citizens, and all knotty questions about Constitutional Rights should be solved with the sword. Self preservation, the first law, demands that this set of ruffians go out from amongst us as a people. .... Give them one year, no more; and if after that they pollute our soil by their presence make literally Children of the Mist of them.

I think Carleton's meaning is clear from context.

The expression "children of the mist" appears to have come from the history of the McGregor clan in Scotland, which were outlawed, stripped of their lands and had a bounty placed on their heads.

http://home.globalcrossing.net/~macisme/macgreg.html

[Calm]

If this was the guy investigating the MMM for the Feds, I can understand why some LDS might have been reluctant to speak fully with him.

Eventually I'll be able to read the book myself rather than just look at the cover, lol. It is on my husband's nightstand and if he can keep himself from falling asleep too soon each night, I might get it sometime in the next month or so. (We have tried to 'share' books in the past, but as I read faster than he does...especially since I stay awake all night...I tend to lose his place and he ends up missing stuff, so out of respect, I'm letting him read it uninterrupted by me, if not by his sleep.)

[William the Conqueror]

Here's the statement, in Carleton's letter to his commanding officer's assistant adjutant general after Carleton's return to California:

I think Carleton's meaning is clear from context.

The expression "children of the mist" appears to have come from the history of the McGregor clan in Scotland, which were outlawed, stripped of their lands and had a bounty placed on their heads.

http://home.globalcrossing.net/~macisme/macgreg.html

In Sides' book he states that Carleton determined that children above the age of eight as well as all adults were massacred. He was first told it was done by Paiute indians, which Carleton believed were not that ominous in the west. Then after interviewing the young children who survived, he found that the perpetrators were white men dressed up as indians.

[alter idem]

I have Bagley's now from the library and I bought Brooks so I should be good. Of course now I am sort of out of the interest again. LOL Thanks!

I just wish this book had come out last summer when I was reading about Mountain Meadows and very interested in the topic. Then when I found out the book only covers up to the massacre, I haven't had much interest to run out and read it. I may wait till the second volume comes out to read them both at the same time.

[gmormon]

I have read the book once and have put it down without looking at it again. However something still bothers me, what is the new evidence they found? I will admit I didn't sit down and go completely through all the notes, but nothing really stood out either. And then I read the transcript from the Massacre Panel and there was mention of the new findings that where denied Brooks and Bagley what where they? Where the new findings denoted in th book and I was just in a hurry to finish it the first time I missed them?

[emeliza]

I didn't think it was anything really new per say as just more documentation that had been previously unavailable to the general public.

[gmormon]

I didn't think it was anything really new per say as just more documentation that had been previously unavailable to the general public.

Where these new documents noted in the endnotes as such? I don't have my copy of the book with me to look at.

[emeliza]

Where these new documents noted in the endnotes as such? I don't have my copy of the book with me to look at.

Neither do I. I would actually have to compare Brooks and Bagley to the new book. I don't believe it is notated (new information or new source).

[TAK]

Where these new documents noted in the endnotes as such? I don't have my copy of the book with me to look at.

I read the book last weekend. There is really not much new in terms of disclosure - the end notes and such are supposed to be published one day. However it took seven (?) years to produce this book so you may have a wait.

[gmormon]

I read the book last weekend. There is really not much new in terms of disclosure - the end notes and such are supposed to be published one day. However it took seven (?) years to produce this book so you may have a wait.

as was pointed out by

I didn't think it was anything really new per say as just more documentation that had been previously unavailable to the general public.

whether they change the end result or not.

My question is are these new sources noted in the book so that I as nonhistorian would recognize them as a new source. ?

[gmormon]

When is the next edition of "BYU Studies" due out? I have subscribed to it, for the first time, but I am not aware of its release schedules.

[Doctor Steuss]

as was pointed out by

whether they change the end result or not.

My question is are these new sources noted in the book so that I as nonhistorian would recognize them as a new source. ?

IIRC, the location each document is housed is noted (i.e. CHL, etc.).

[Scott Lloyd]

I read the book last weekend. There is really not much new in terms of disclosure - the end notes and such are supposed to be published one day. However it took seven (?) years to produce this book so you may have a wait.

What are you talking about? The end notes run from page 281 to 408.

[Doctor Steuss]

IIRC, the location each document is housed is noted (i.e. CHL, etc.).

gmormon,

I just realized that my response didn't really answer your question (sorry). I don't believe there is anything to trigger a nonhistorial to know that a source was previously untapped. You could guess whether or not one was if it was housed in the FPV, and there are some sources that they readily admit were previously unused (in the intro), but other than that... *shrugs*

[Scott Lloyd]

as was pointed out by

whether they change the end result or not.

My question is are these new sources noted in the book so that I as nonhistorian would recognize them as a new source. ?

Some newly found material is indicated by this paragraph in the preface:

Among the most significant discoveries in the church's collection were the field notes of assistant church historian Andrew Jenson, who collected several reminiscent accounts of the massacre in 1892. This discovery, in turn, led to the full collection of materials in the First Presidency's archives. In this collection, massacre insiders told what happened, at times defensively but in some cases with self-incriminating honesty. The nineteenth-century historian Orson F. Whitney had used these materials in his History of Utah, but perhaps because he did not cite sources, his work did not get into the historical mainstream. Schlars of the massacre were unaware of its importance or chose to ignore it.

When Jenson went to southern Utah to gather this material, the First Presidency gave him a letter asking church members to cooperate. "There is an opinion prevailing that all the light that can be obtained [on the massacre] has not been thrown upon it," the letter read. "We are anxious to learn all that we can upon this subject, not necessarily for publication, but that the Church may have the details in its possession for the vindication of innocent parties, and that the world may know, when the time comes, the true facts connected with it." Today, more than a century later, we are the beneficiaries of this foresight, though Jenson did not enjoy his experience.

In view of the foregoing, I direct your attention to page 271 of the book, the start of the section "Abbreviations Used in Notes." You will observe there that the abbreviations "AJ1" and "AJ2" refer to the information collected by Jenson from the interviews he conducted, what the authors refer to as being "among the most significant discoveries in the church's collection." Thus, wherever you see an end note with the citation "AJ1" or "AJ2", that would reflect newly found material.

Bear in mind also that we only have half the book so far that was originally conceived. We must await volume 2, which may well contain the more significant material in terms of new findings.

[gmormon]

gmormon,

I just realized that my response didn't really answer your question (sorry). I don't believe there is anything to trigger a nonhistorial to know that a source was previously untapped. You could guess whether or not one was if it was housed in the FPV, and there are some sources that they readily admit were previously unused (in the intro), but other than that... *shrugs*

Thanks Doc and no prob!

Some newly found material is indicated by this paragraph in the preface:

In view of the foregoing, I direct your attention to page 271 of the book, the start of the section "Abbreviations Used in Notes." You will observe there that the abbreviations "AJ1" and "AJ2" refer to the information collected by Jenson from the interviews he conducted, what the authors refer to as being "among the most significant discoveries in the church's collection." Thus, wherever you see an end note with the citation "AJ1" or "AJ2", that would reflect newly found material.

Bear in mind also that we only have half the book so far that was originally conceived. We must await volume 2, which may well contain the more significant material in terms of new findings.

Thanks! This will help when I review the book again. With a little thought I would have figured some this out, however a big label, where I could see it, stating this was new material would have been nice. How about the documents that where denied to Brooks and Bagley any specifically as to what documents these are? Again when is the next edition of "BYU Studies" due out?

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks! This will help when I review the book again. With a little thought I would have figured some this out, however a big label, where I could see it, stating this was new material would have been nice. How about the documents that where denied to Brooks and Bagley any specifically as to what documents these are? Again when is the next edition of "BYU Studies" due out?

I would guess neither Brooks nor Bagley were allowed access to holdings in the First Presidency vault, where the Andrew Jenson material was contained. Can't answer you on BYU Studies.

[Scott Lloyd]

In Sides' book he states that Carleton determined that children above the age of eight as well as all adults were massacred. He was first told it was done by Paiute indians, which Carleton believed were not that ominous in the west. Then after interviewing the young children who survived, he found that the perpetrators were white men dressed up as indians.

I have no doubt that's true. However, it doesn't excuse Carleton advocating, in effect, the extermination of all Mormons on U.S. soil. In effect, he was thus guilty of blaming an entire group of people for the offenses of a few, which is precisely what the massacre perpetrators did.

[Pahoran]

I have no doubt that's true. However, it doesn't excuse Carleton advocating, in effect, the extermination of all Mormons on U.S. soil. In effect, he was thus guilty of blaming an entire group of people for the offenses of a few, which is precisely what the massacre perpetrators did.

Exactly. It is entirely unclear to me how that makes Carleton superior to those he wishes to make "children of the mist."

While there's leaves in the forest

And foam on the river,

MacGregor, despite them,

Shall flourish forever!

Could well be said of the Latter-day Saints, too.

Regards,

Pahoran

[katherine the great]

I just wish this book had come out last summer when I was reading about Mountain Meadows and very interested in the topic. Then when I found out the book only covers up to the massacre, I haven't had much interest to run out and read it. I may wait till the second volume comes out to read them both at the same time.

It's worth the read. It gives us plenty to ponder in the mean time!