Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Massacre At Mountain Meadows


Scott Lloyd

Recommended Posts

Do you know if there is a transcript available? Also in the radio program, was there a clash with any of the conclusions of previous authors on MMM, e.g. Bagley or Denton?

Early in the program the authors state that they wanted to do their own research and "turn over every rock" as Richard Turley put it, as opposed to making the book a response to previous works. The authors praise Juanita Brooks, but do not mention Bagley or Denton by name. Turley also said one mistake that previous authors had made was relying too much on secondary sources.

There is no transcript of these programs that I am aware of, which is too bad, because there are some choice quotes in them, and things which would make for interesting threads on this board.

Link to comment
26th of July, 1857
Whether you believe Bagley's story is what happened or you don't, why can we say with certainty that it couldn't have happened? Six weeks would seem like plenty of time to send a message 300 miles.

Forgive my ignorance (and be aware that I'm going from memory), but I thought the Fancher party didn't enter Utah until early August(?) If (and thatâ??s a big "ifâ?) my memory is right, how were they on Brigham's radar in late July enough to warrant him issuing an extermination order? And how did he know they would take the Southern route?

(Ducking for eventual thumping of my repeatedly flawed memory)

Thanks,

Stu

Link to comment
Whether you believe Bagley's story is what happened or you don't, why can we say with certainty that it couldn't have happened? Six weeks would seem like plenty of time to send a message 300 miles.

So I guess your thinking is that anything is in the realm of possibility. Going for the stuff that isnt really supported by the facts.

However is there any evidence that BY did send a letter in those 6 weeks?

If no, then I dont see how any one could reasonably argue that BY had anything to do with this.

Link to comment
So I guess your thinking is that anything is in the realm of possibility. Going for the stuff that isnt really supported by the facts.

However is there any evidence that BY did send a letter in those 6 weeks?

If no, then I dont see how any one could reasonably argue that BY had anything to do with this.

He sent Geo A Smith .. who left SL Valley the morning the Fancher Train arrived.

Link to comment
Forgive my ignorance (and be aware that I'm going from memory), but I thought the Fancher party didn't enter Utah until early August(?) If (and thatâ??s a big "ifâ?) my memory is right, how were they on Brigham's radar in late July enough to warrant him issuing an extermination order? And how did he know they would take the Southern route?

(Ducking for eventual thumping of my repeatedly flawed memory)

Thanks,

Stu

According to Bagley, Eleanor Pratt--widow of Parley P. Pratt and the guy who murdered him--flew from Arkansas to Utah, passing the wagon train which was from the area where Pratt was murdered. Bagley claims that Eleanor was pleading for revenge.

Presumably, this would put the wagon train on the radar. If Brigham Young felt that these folks were somehow responsible (or maybe proxy's for those who were responsible?) for some of the injustices the Saints faced, it is conceivable that he felt revenge was justified.

My point of this is my understanding is that Pahoran claims that Bagley's position is that the masacre was ordered on September 1--giving the messangers only 6 days to travel 300 miles and organize the attack--which Pahran says is logistically impossible.

So I guess your thinking is that anything is in the realm of possibility. Going for the stuff that isnt really supported by the facts.

However is there any evidence that BY did send a letter in those 6 weeks?

If no, then I dont see how any one could reasonably argue that BY had anything to do with this.

Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal

We visited the Mountain Meadow Monumentput up at the burial place of 120 persons... The pile of stone was about 12 feet high... A wooden Cross was placed on top with the following words: Vengence is mine and I will repay saith the Lord. President Young said it should be Vengence is mine and I have taken a little.

This cooborates what John D. Lee wrote in his diary in 1861:

Pres. Young Said that the company that was usede up at the Mountain Meadowes were the Fathers, Mothe[rs], Bros., Sisters & connections of those that Muerders the Prophets; they Meritd their fate, & the only thing that ever troubled him was the lives of the Women & children, but that under the circumstances [this] could not be avoided.

This helps explain why Juanita Brooks said,

Brigham Young was accessory after the fact, in that he knew what happened, and how and why it happened....Evidence of this [Youngâ??s involvement] is abundant and unmistakable, and from the most impeccable Mormon sources.

If Brigham Young thought that the murder of the settlers was justifiable as a little of God's vengence after it happened, it isn't that unlikely that he held the same view before it happened.

Link to comment
He sent Geo A Smith .. who left SL Valley the morning the Fancher Train arrived.
Maybe you could demonstrate how Brigham knew what to tell the S. settlements in regards to the Fancher train, and why they were singled out by Brigham. Or, hey, provide anything besides bald assertions that fly in the face of actual historical inquiry.
If Brigham Young thought that the murder of the settlers was justifiable as a little of God's vengence after it happened, it isn't that unlikely that he held the same view before it happened.
Have you read the new book? Certainly doesn't sound like it.
Link to comment
Maybe you could demonstrate how Brigham knew what to tell the S. settlements in regards to the Fancher train, and why they were singled out by Brigham. Or, hey, provide anything besides bald assertions that fly in the face of actual historical inquiry.Have you read the new book? Certainly doesn't sound like it.

At this point, it might be useful to quote again some passages I have already cited from the new book. On page 71, the authors note that in the publication Mormonism Unveiled, confessions of John D. Lee published posthumously, Lee's attorney almost certainly fabricated quotes from Lee to the effect that Lee had always believed George A. Smith was sent south to prepare the people to exterminate the Fancher train, and that he was sent for that purpose by command of Brigham Young. An endnote indicates that Both Bagley and Denton used these quotes as key evidence.

The book goes on:

These statements, however, would have required remarkable prescience on Smith's part. Even if he knew which trains would take the northern or southern routes to California, it is doubtful that he knew their behavior on the road would include making threats against southern Utah people.

... Just moments before Lee's execution â?? and after he had supposedly written the words in Mormonism Unveiled, â?? Lee talked with a reporter from the then unabashedly anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune . The reporter pressed Lee to know what Smith had said to him before the massacre.

"Did he preach hostile to the emigrants?" the reporter asked.

"He was visiting all the settlements and preaching against the emigrants," Lee said. Then referring to the people killed at Mountain Meadows, he added, "I don't know that he meant those particular emigrants." This â??Lee's final statement on the subject â?? makes it unlikely that he made the statement attributed to him in Mormonism Unveiled, especially since he had been offered his life by prosecutors if he would just charge Smith and Young with ordering the massacre. He went to his death instead.

Also, the authors point out that nothing in Brigham Young's recorded statements about the murder of apostle Pratt indicate a disposition to take revenge. On the contrary, he seems remarkably tranquil about it and willing to leave the matter in God's hands.

Bagley's rendition strikes me that he is ordering evidence and circumstances to support a preconceived notion (likely driven by the bogus Lee quotes), not arriving at a conclusion from an examination of evidence and circumstances.

Link to comment
At this point, it might be useful to quote again some passages I have already cited from the new book. On page 71
These statements, however, would have required remarkable prescience on Smith's part. Even if he knew which trains would take the northern or southern routes to California, it is doubtful that he knew their behavior on the road would include making threats against southern Utah people.

Could you explain the significance of this? Are they saying that because the immigrants made some threats that the Saints got pissed and decided to murder all of them? It seems to me that in the "Brigham Young ordered it" scenario, that they would have been murdered regardless of their behavior. So why does it matter whether he knew what their behavior would be?

Regarding which path to take, it's conceivable that if Brigham Young wanted them to go a certain way into an ambush, he could have planted somebody to give them some friendly advice that that is the way to go.

Also, the authors point out that nothing in Brigham Young's recorded statements about the murder of apostle Pratt indicate a disposition to take revenge. On the contrary, he seems remarkably tranquil about it and willing to leave the matter in God's hands.

Yet after the fact he said that revenge was taken.

Link to comment
But I knew when I saw that, that this was a calculated act of vengeance---that the orders came from Brigham Young, and they originated when the apostles met on the evening of the 26th of July, 1857, at Salt Lake, and Brigham Young, recording their discussion, and Brigham Young wrote, "We discussed our enemies," and underlined "enemies" three times.

It seems more likely that the enemies were Johnston's army, whose upcoming visit they had just learned of two days earlier.

Link to comment
Could you explain the significance of this? Are they saying that because the immigrants made some threats that the Saints got pissed and decided to murder all of them? It seems to me that in the "Brigham Young ordered it" scenario, that they would have been murdered regardless of their behavior. So why does it matter whether he knew what their behavior would be?
It has to do with the participants own justification for the murders, of course. To say nothing of the completely out-of-character "order" Brigham is said to have given, which flies in the face of personal letters, journals, and actions in other scenarios involving, among other things, the Utah War.
It seems more likely that the enemies were Johnston's army, whose upcoming visit they had just learned of two days earlier.
No way. The Fancher's et. al. were much bigger enemies to the entire LDS people than the friggin' US Army. Wait a minute.
Link to comment
It has to do with the participants own justification for the murders, of course. To say nothing of the completely out-of-character "order" Brigham is said to have given, which flies in the face of personal letters, journals, and actions in other scenarios involving, among other things, the Utah War. No way.

Do you think this was in character for the Mormons who actually did it?

The Fancher's et. al. were much bigger enemies to the entire LDS people than the friggin' US Army. Wait a minute.

To answer that, look at who the LDS people murdered.

Link to comment
Could you explain the significance of this? Are they saying that because the immigrants made some threats that the Saints got pissed and decided to murder all of them?

The documented scenario in the book is essentially that against the background of alarm engendered by the advance of the U.S. army, rumors along the trail and the reckless behavior and taunts of some of the emigrants started a spiral that culminated with the massacre. The plan first was to effect a "brush" against the Fancher train, steal some cattle and blame it all on the Indians. It became complicated when some of the surviving emigrants observed participation by white men. Then, it became a matter of leaving no one alive who was old enough to tell any tales.

It seems to me that in the "Brigham Young ordered it" scenario, that they would have been murdered regardless of their behavior.

So why does it matter whether he knew what their behavior would be?

Regarding which path to take, it's conceivable that if Brigham Young wanted them to go a certain way into an ambush, he could have planted somebody to give them some friendly advice that that is the way to go.

At this point, we don't really have anything solid to support a "Brigham-ordered-it scenario," do we? Just Bagley's convoluted conspiracy theory.

Yet after the fact he said that revenge was taken.

He reportedly made a rather cryptic statement that some have interpreted as referring to the taking of revenge. Let's keep things precise here.

Link to comment
Do you think this was in character for the Mormons who actually did it?
Roger, read the book. The circumstances and behavior of the southern Utah settlers precisely fits the scholarship about group dynamics and psychology leading to mass murder. You could ask the same thing about the U.S. soldiers who perpetrated the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
To answer that, look at who the LDS people murdered.
According to the book, Issac Haight and the Iron County militia were prepared to administer the same sort of thing to any invading U.S. soldiers who might be coming through the mountain passes. And that, not the murder of traveling emigrants, apparently had the blessing of George A. Smith.
Link to comment
He sent Geo A Smith .. who left SL Valley the morning the Fancher Train arrived.
You mean the George Albert Smith who weighed over 300 lbs, and had to travel in a special carriage because of his weight? This was the man who Brother Brigham sent with an important, time sensitive message to kill the travelers?

Had one mentioned another of the General Authorities, there might be some reason to accept it (providing the other evidence was substantial). But George A. Smith simply could not have done the job "in time", and anyone who thinks Brigham could have thought he was up to it is patently looking for evidence where none exists.

Then, too, there is the fact that George A. Smith was not in Salt Lake City when the Fauncher train was, he was already in southern Utah, getting the militia (of which he was the commander) prepared for the eventual "Utah War" (aka "Buchanan's Blunder") and Johnston's Army. He was already returning to Salt Lake City when the travelers were finally arriving in the southern part of the Territory. Odd, for a commander to leave the field of battle just when the fighting would begin. But that's the way those who want so badly for their version of history to be true think.

Lehi

Link to comment
The documented scenario in the book is essentially that against the background of alarm engendered by the advance of the U.S. army, rumors along the trail and the reckless behavior and taunts of some of the emigrants started a spiral that culminated with the massacre. The plan first was to effect a "brush" against the Fancher train, steal some cattle and blame it all on the Indians. It became complicated when some of the surviving emigrants observed participation by white men. Then, it became a matter of leaving no one alive who was old enough to tell any tales.

I should have my book tomorrow, but this scenario is exactly the one that is in my mind at the present time. I think greed most definitely factored into it--much more so than any bogus belief that these people were involved in Haun's Mill or Joseph Smith's death. It makes sense that the people were very uneasy, annoyed and poverty stricken. Considering how much John D. Lee benefitted financially from the massacre, I have no doubt that his original plan included helping himself to the cattle and possibly other booty.

Link to comment

Had the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened because Brother Brigham had ordered it, there is more than a slight problem in the tactics used.

In the next few months, Brigham ordered the hindering and harassment of Johnston's Army, accomplished without the loss of a single life. People may argue that Brigham was afraid of making martyrs (or whatever) of the soldiers, and didn't care about the travelers, but this completely ignores the fact that the Fauncher party had to travel through true wastelands, narrow canyons, and other places where it would have been easy to attack them, destroy them, and not leave only trivial evidence of involvement. Yet the "Mountain Fox" (my play on Rommel's nickname) chose a plain with hundreds of prospective witnesses nearby. This was messy, exposed the actors to unnecessary risks, and required too many men in the first place. Sloppy for a man who did so much better on all these counts against a much better trained and equipped force.

Commanders usually follow the same tactics time after time: Napoleon tells us that we should not fight the same enemy too often, because he will learn your tricks. Patton was able to defeat Rommel because "[he'd] read your books". The tactics of the Payson militia, supposedly under the orders of Brother Brigham used very different tactics, and was so poorly planned that it deserved to fail (as it ultimately did). But howsoever that may be, they were not Brigham's tactics: they were diametrically opposite of what he did elsewhere.

If we can catch a criminal because of his modus operandi, we ought to be able to pin this on Brigham or exonerate him, based on whether this was his. It was not.

Lehi

Link to comment
Do you think this was in character for the Mormons who actually did it?To answer that, look at who the LDS people murdered.
Read the book.
You mean the George Albert Smith who weighed over 300 lbs, and had to travel in a special carriage because of his weight? This was the man who Brother Brigham sent with an important, time sensitive message to kill the travelers?Had one mentioned another of the General Authorities, there might be some reason to accept it (providing the other evidence was substantial). But George A. Smith simply could not have done the job "in time", and anyone who thinks Brigham could have thought he was up to it is patently looking for evidence where none exists.Then, too, there is the fact that George A. Smith was not in Salt Lake City when the Fauncher train was, he was already in southern Utah, getting the militia (of which he was the commander) prepared for the eventual "Utah War" (aka "Buchanan's Blunder") and Johnston's Army. He was already returning to Salt Lake City when the travelers were finally arriving in the southern part of the Territory. Odd, for a commander to leave the field of battle just when the fighting would begin. But that's the way those who want so badly for their version of history to be true think.Lehi
Analytics could learn this kind of thing by reading the book. Both of your posts are well-reasoned. I endorse them!
Link to comment
He sent Geo A Smith .. who left SL Valley the morning the Fancher Train arrived.

HAHA, is this some kind of a joke?

Link to comment

LeSellers

You mean the George Albert Smith who weighed over 300 lbs, and had to travel in a special carriage because of his weight? This was the man who Brother Brigham sent with an important, time sensitive message to kill the travelers?Had one mentioned another of the General Authorities, there might be some reason to accept it (providing the other evidence was substantial). But George A. Smith simply could not have done the job "in time", and anyone who thinks Brigham could have thought he was up to it is patently looking for evidence where none exists.Then, too, there is the fact that George A. Smith was not in Salt Lake City when the Fauncher train was, he was already in southern Utah, getting the militia (of which he was the commander) prepared for the eventual "Utah War" (aka "Buchanan's Blunder") and Johnston's Army. He was already returning to Salt Lake City when the travelers were finally arriving in the southern part of the Territory. Odd, for a commander to leave the field of battle just when the fighting would begin. But that's the way those who want so badly for their version of history to be true think.Lehi

Yes Apostle George Albert Smith.

What you wrote fails logic and your understanding of the timeline is flawed. Apostle Smith left SL Valley the morning the Fancher train arrived. Itâ??s been shown already that the presence of approaching train was well known before that.

On the one hand you suggest Apostle Smith was a fat incapable imbecile that BY â?? could (not) have thought he (Smith) was up to itâ? ..

In the next part you have â??Commanderâ? Smith preparing the So. Utah militias.

If heâ??s not capable of carrying a message.. How is it he is capable of preparing troops for battle?

IF Apostle Smith gave the orders to wipe out the Fancher train, I donâ??t find it odd that Apostle Smith would not want to be in the area when the killing of emigrants began. He had Dame and Haight to lead the militia and sticking around would only implicate himself to the dirty deed.

LOP

Both of your posts are well-reasoned. I endorse them!

LOL..

Link to comment
According to Bagley, Eleanor Pratt--widow of Parley P. Pratt and the guy who murdered him--flew from Arkansas to Utah, passing the wagon train which was from the area where Pratt was murdered. Bagley claims that Eleanor was pleading for revenge.

Presumably, this would put the wagon train on the radar. If Brigham Young felt that these folks were somehow responsible (or maybe proxy's for those who were responsible?) for some of the injustices the Saints faced, it is conceivable that he felt revenge was justified.

Thank you Analytics for the clarification. In my opinion, I think this still doesnâ??t provide substantial evidence as it would require a foreknowledge that they would be taking the Southern route; which, given their initially starting out on the Northern route would take more prophetic abilities than I think Iâ??m willing to give Brother Brigham.

My point of this is[...]

Fair enough.

Edited to add:

My copy finally arrived yesterday. I have another book I need to finish before I make an attempt on this one. I must say that the cover is quite beautiful (really), but I hope I never loose the dust jacket as Iâ??m not particularly inclined towards purple books.

Link to comment
Thank you Analytics for the clarification. In my opinion, I think this still doesnâ??t provide substantial evidence as it would require a foreknowledge that they would be taking the Southern route; which, given their initially starting out on the Northern route would take more prophetic abilities than I think Iâ??m willing to give Brother Brigham.

Its been a while since I read either Brookes or Bagley but as I recall the Northern route would take the emigrants through the Sierra Mountains and it was believed that it was too late in the season to pursue anything but the Southern even though it was longer. So as to the issue of which route, it was never really in question as to which way the train was going to go.

Link to comment
The documented scenario in the book is essentially that against the background of alarm engendered by the advance of the U.S. army, rumors along the trail and the reckless behavior and taunts of some of the emigrants started a spiral that culminated with the massacre. The plan first was to effect a "brush" against the Fancher train, steal some cattle and blame it all on the Indians. It became complicated when some of the surviving emigrants observed participation by white men. Then, it became a matter of leaving no one alive who was old enough to tell any tales.

Letâ??s back up. All Iâ??m trying to figure out right now is what the significance is of this quote:

These statements, however, would have required remarkable prescience on Smith's part. Even if he knew which trains would take the northern or southern routes to California, it is doubtful that he knew their behavior on the road would include making threats against southern Utah people.

It appears from this quite that they are saying something to the effect, â??Bagleyâ??s theory relies upon Smith having the prescience to know their behavior on the road would include making threats against southern Utah people. Since that is unlikely, his theory fails.â? Is that their point?

At this point, we don't really have anything solid to support a "Brigham-ordered-it scenario," do we? Just Bagley's convoluted conspiracy theory.

We all see what we want to see.

He reportedly made a rather cryptic statement that some have interpreted as referring to the taking of revenge. Let's keep things precise here.

Keeping it precise, Brigham Young said the gravemarker of the victims should read, "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

Had the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened because Brother Brigham had ordered it, there is more than a slight problem in the tactics used.

In the next few months, Brigham ordered the hindering and harassment of Johnston's Army, accomplished without the loss of a single life. People may argue that Brigham was afraid of making martyrs (or whatever) of the soldiers, and didn't care about the travelers, but this completely ignores the fact that the Fauncher party had to travel through true wastelands, narrow canyons, and other places where it would have been easy to attack them, destroy them, and not leave only trivial evidence of involvement. Yet the "Mountain Fox" (my play on Rommel's nickname) chose a plain with hundreds of prospective witnesses nearby. This was messy, exposed the actors to unnecessary risks, and required too many men in the first place. Sloppy for a man who did so much better on all these counts against a much better trained and equipped force.

Commanders usually follow the same tactics time after time...

It would seem to me that the objective of wiping out a party of immigrants might require different tactics than hindering and harassing an Army.

In the end, the tactics actually used at MM worked well. How could have attacking in a canyon kill them any more effectively than what they did? How could less evidence have been left?

Link to comment
Its been a while since I read either Brookes or Bagley but as I recall

Aren't we a fine pair... :P

the Northern route would take the emigrants through the Sierra Mountains and it was believed that it was too late in the season to pursue anything but the Southern even though it was longer. So as to the issue of which route, it was never really in question as to which way the train was going to go.

From what I recall, you are correct that the Southern route was longer (but warmer). However, the party initially started out on the Northern route and only later decided to back-track and take the Southern route (from my recollections).

I should probably go ahead and just stop commenting until Iâ??ve read the new book as it is getting tiresome having to provide a memory disclaimer in every sentence.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...