Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[LeSellers]

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

It has not been shown that anyone in Salt lake City felt that this train was significant in any way, different from the dozens of others that passed through the city every summer.

I searched for information on George A. Smith's whereabouts in connection with the Fancher-Baker train and found nothing that indicated that he was in SLC when they arrived there, but that he camped near them on his way back north.

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

You read the word "imbecile" exactly where in my message?

In the next part you have “Commander” Smith preparing the So. Utah militias.

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

I did not say he was "not capable of carrying a message", what I said was that he was not up to carrying a time-sensitive message. His weight was a major hindrance to speedy travel. Any battle plan that would involve getting the Paiutes to participate, or that was as complex as that which happened would require that the man-on-the-spot would get there as early as possible.

George A. was a great orator, and his job was to get the people (particularly the men of the militia) mentally and physically (including logistically) prepared to fight Johnston's Army when it came. This was a far greater threat to the security of the Territory than a wagon train.

IF Apostle Smith gave the orders to wipe out the Fancher train, I don’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.

Yet he was their commander. If they had received orders from him to do "the dirty deed", why did they not raise this as a defense?

Finally, and not totally unrelated to this question, what was Brigham Young's motive for attacking and destroying the Fancher-Baker train? Even though they had wealth with them in the form of cattle and currency, in 1857, the Saints were relatively rich. Killing the Arkansans simply makes no sense, from the perspective of Salt lake City. The southern Utahns had a whole lot of reasons to deal with the train, including stark fear, but this did not apply to Brigham Young and the church as a whole.

The whole idea that Brigham Young ordered this is ridiculous.

Lehi

[Analytics]

It has not been shown that anyone in Salt lake City felt that this train was significant in any way, different from the dozens of others that passed through the city every summer....

Finally, an not totally unrelated to this question, what was Brigham Young's motive for attacking and destroying the Fancher-Baker train?

Do you think Eleanor Pratt arrived in Salt Lake City from Arkansas near the same time that the news of Johnsonâ??s Army arrived? Do you think she was pleading for vengeance of her husbandâ??s murder?

After the deed, Brigham Young said that the victimsâ?? grave marker should read, "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little." Why do you think he claimed their death should be regarded as God having taken a little vengeance?

[LeSellers]

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.

But they would work just as well against a wagon train. Starve them out, essentially.

In the end, the tactics actually used at MM worked well.

Not as well as you make it out. The original attack was frontal, and the wagon train repelled it. This attack became a siege, which worked when the travelers ran out of ammunition, but this took several days. I do not know why the local Saints did not simply keep the train under siege and let them starve (if their original intent was to kill them all), but instead they concocted the rather stupid "cease fire"/"safe conduct" ploy. This didn't work out nearly as well as they'd have liked because a couple of people had escaped the siege.

The whole thing was clumsy, and it all smacks of impromptu planning by mediocre military minds. Brigham was much better at this kind of planning than those who actually did it. Again, even though a soldier faces different situations in his career, he usually resorts to similar tactics (and strategies). Nothing Brigham ever did is remotely like the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It does not bear his fingerprints.

How could have attacking in a canyon kill them any more effectively than what they did? How could less evidence have been left?

Driving off their cattle, keeping them distressed and sleepless, blockading water holes, dropping rocks on them in the narrow valleys; all of these (used, BTW, in the harassment of Johnston's Army) would create a "natural" disaster that could not easily be traced to the LDSs. More importantly, it would have required far fewer men to do it, and make the "cover up" more efficient. As I recall, there were dozens of men who participated. Five or six men using guerrilla tactics would have sufficed nicely, and Brother Brigham was more than up to planning such an operation had there been any reason for him to do so.

As I mentioned in an earlier message, I still have never found any believable motive for Brigham to have ordered the massacre of these people. Without one, the case against him falls apart before it gets off the ground.

Lehi

[gmormon]

...Even though they had wealth with them in the form of cattle and currency, in 1857, the Saints were relatively rich...

Define relatively rich. From my understanding, ( and this can be seriously brought inot question ,) the Saints had struggled many years and where just starting to see a return for their efforts, that is in the north, the southern colonies where still struggling.

[LeSellers]

Do you think Eleanor Pratt arrived in Salt Lake City from Arkansas near the same time that the news of Johnson’s Army arrived?

Don't know, don't care.

Do you think she was pleading for vengeance of her husband’s murder?

Assume she was. So what?

Brigham was much more pragmatic than to get involved in the matter as you are painting it; he had much bigger problems to deal with, including an impending war. For him to use badly needed resources to avenge Elder Pratt's murder would have been ruinous, and there is no reason to suspect that he didn't know this.

After the deed, Brigham Young said that the victims’ grave marker should read, "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

CFR. You have said this several times, but I have found no evidence to support it. He did make the statement, as best i can tell, but the "grave marker" was already in place when he did, and it did not include this sentence.

Why do you think he claimed their death should be regarded as God having taken a little vengeance?

Why not? If we assume that Sister Pratt had been in Salt Lake City "pleading for vengeance of her husband's murder" (by her ex-husband), their deaths may have seemed like the justice she was seeking. There is still no clear link between Brigham Young and the planning or the execution of the massacre.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Define relatively rich. From my understanding, ( and this can be seriously brought inot question ,) the Saints had struggled many years and where just starting to see a return for their efforts, that is in the north, the southern colonies where still struggling.

The newer settlements were always struggling, it's the nature of pioneering ventures.

However, as a whole, the Saints were doing quite well, and those in established settlements, including Salt Lake City and environs, were very wealthy. The wagon trains going to the gold fields of California had brought much material prosperity over the preceding seven years, the starving times of the early 50s were over, and there was more than enough food to feed the new immigrants as they came into the valleys. There was so much that Brigham could counsel the Saints to store up seven years' supply of food (this was hyperbole, of course, but it underscores the idea nonetheless) in the face of the coming onslaught.

In 1857, on the very day that messengers brought "official" word of the coming of Johnston's Army, the Saints were in Little Cottonwood Canyon, celebrating the decennial of the arrival of the pioneer company. A huge USmerican flag flew over their feast. They were celebrating, in fact, their wealth. Ironically, Brigham had said that if they could have ten years unmolested in the valleys, that the devil himself could not wrest them from the mountains. It was, as I said, ten years to the day that the devil, in the form of Johnston's Army, was coming to try.

Lehi

[selek]

Define relatively rich. From my understanding, ( and this can be seriously brought inot question ,) the Saints had struggled many years and where just starting to see a return for their efforts, that is in the north, the southern colonies where still struggling.

Read a little more carefully, G.

The sentence after next says:

The southern Utahns had a whole lot of reasons to deal with the train, including stark fear, but this did not apply to Brigham Young and the church as a whole.

Empasis mine.

The southerners had a financial motive, Young did not.

The southerners stood to gain financially, the Church anf Young did not.

It is simply ludicrous to see the orders coming from Salt Lake if the incentive for the murders was financial.

Here's another angle to consider- the Fancher party travelled through Salt Lake on their way south.

If Brigham wanted them dead, he could have had it done anywhere south of Provo. There were would have been more men available to ensure no one escaped, and they still could have blamed it on the Indians, and Brigham could have had first dibs on the loot.

No- any rational, reasoned, look at the evidence makes it clear that this was a conspiracy by the southerners executed without authorization from Salt Lake.

The only way to find evidence incriminating Young is to start with that assumption a priori and then ignore inconvenient facts and forge the accounts- as Bagley did.

[stn9]

I heard through the grapevine that a website for the books is intended, and that it will contain far more than what is in the books--that there is a row of shelves the length of the Church Office Building's east wing which is full of research done for the book and much of it will go on the website.

[gmormon]

The newer settlements were always struggling, it's the nature of pioneering ventures.

However, as a whole, the Saints were doing quite well, and those in established settlements, including Salt Lake City and environs, were very wealthy. The wagon trains going to the gold fields of California had brought much material prosperity over the preceding seven years, the starving times of the early 50s were over, and there was more than enough food to feed the new immigrants as they came into the valleys. There was so much that Brigham could counsel the Saints to store up seven years' supply of food (this was hyperbole, of course, but it underscores the idea nonetheless) in the face of the coming onslaught.

In 1857, on the very day that messengers brought "official" word of the coming of Johnston's Army, the Saints were in Little Cottonwood Canyon, celebrating the decennial of the arrival of the pioneer company. A huge USmerican flag flew over their feast. They were celebrating, in fact, their wealth. Ironically, Brigham had said that if they could have ten years unmolested in the valleys, that the devil himself could not wrest them from the mountains. It was, as I said, ten years to the day that the devil, in the form of Johnston's Army, was coming to try.

Lehi

Read a little more carefully, G.

The sentence after next says:

Empasis mine.

The southerners had a financial motive, Young did not.

The southerners stood to gain financially, the Church anf Young did not.

...

Don't misunderstand me I don't think that MMM occured because of the wealth that the Francher's party carried, as inferred in Mrs Denton's fiction, However even though there where some who where doing quite well there, especially in the north, I wouldn't necessarily call them wealthy either. Even in the southern colonies there was always some who where relatively rich incomparison with their neighbors. And as I stated, "...the Saints had struggled many years and where just starting to see a return for their efforts, that is in the north, the southern colonies where still struggling." I recognize that wealth was starting to be made...

[selek]

Don't misunderstand me I don't think that MMM occured because of the wealth that the Francher's party carried, as inferred in Mrs Denton's fiction, However even though there where some who where doing quite well there, especially in the north, I wouldn't necessarily call them wealthy either. Even in the southern colonies there was always some who where relatively rich incomparison with their neighbors. And as I stated, "...the Saints had struggled many years and where just starting to see a return for their efforts, that is in the north, the southern colonies where still struggling." I recognize that wealth was starting to be made...

Hence the qualifier "comparatively".

[gmormon]

Hence the qualifier "comparatively".

What qualifier? Do you mean "relatively" which started this line of thought for me? "Relatively or comparatively" are kinda wide open qualifiers, thus my original request...

[Analytics]

CFR. You have said this several times, but I have found no evidence to support it. He did make the statement, as best i can tell, but the "grave marker" was already in place when he did, and it did not include this sentence.

CFR. You have said this several times, but I have found no evidence to support it. He did make the statement, as best i can tell, but the "grave marker" was already in place when he did, and it did not include this sentence.

You make it sound as if Brigham Young is the one that put up the original marker. If you concede that he made the statement, why the CFR?

Here is what I'm claiming:

1- A large, pious group of Mormons murdered committed an atrocious, execution-style mass murder.

2- After the bodies were looted, their bodies were left on the ground or in shallow graves where animals dug them up.

3- The local people and authorities had so little regard for the victims that they were left there exposed.

4- Two years later a group of U.S. Army soldiers attempted to make a dignified grave and put up a marker that said, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord."

5- Shortly thereafter, Brigham Young remarked that the marker should say, "I have taken a little."

It is simply ludicrous to see the orders coming from Salt Lake if the incentive for the murders was financial.

I find it ludicrous to think that this group of pious individuals could do such a thing for mere financial reasons.

[LeSellers]

You make it sound as if Brigham Young is the one that put up the original marker. If you concede that he made the statement, why the CFR?

Sorry, I misread your statement as saying that he had composed the statement for the marker, and that it actually did say "... and I have taken a little."

I find it ludicrous to think that this group of pious individuals could do such a thing for mere financial reasons.

I don't believe anyone has said this. I hold that if this were one of the reasons, it exonerates Brother Brigham, because there was not enough wealth in the train to tempt him.

Absent a believable motive, which no one has offered, there is no reason to believe that Brigham Young ordered the attack. I have given several other reasons to disbelieve that he was involved. I have further shown that is is improbable that his supposed agent, George A. Smith, did or even could have delivered this hypothetical order.

To believe that Brigham Young ordered the massacre is ridiculous.

Lehi

[selek]

I find it ludicrous to think that this group of pious individuals could do such a thing for mere financial reasons.

We agree- financial reasons cannot justify the atrocity- nor can I think of any reasons that would justify the atrocity.

That notwithstanding, the fact that this horrific crime cannot be justified does not ipso facto make it part of a larger conpiracy.

We are told that, "Sufficient unto itself is the evil of the day."

By the same token, there was sufficient hatred, greed, fear, and jealousy in the southern areas to spark the massacre. We need not borrow any from Salt Lake to explain it.

[Zakuska]

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.

That is assuming that no other Imigrant trains took the northern route in a contemporary time frame of course. Have you looked into that possiblility?

[katherine the great]

Define relatively rich. From my understanding, ( and this can be seriously brought inot question ,) the Saints had struggled many years and where just starting to see a return for their efforts, that is in the north, the southern colonies where still struggling.

I completely agree with you. What a ridiculous thing to say. The southern colonies were struggling enormously! The Cedar City saints were beginning to become somewhat well established. The Washington colony though had only been settled a few months before the attack and they were almost desperately poor. They had been called to leave their farms in Payson (which were just starting to prosper) and settle in an environment that they really knew nothing about. They were still living in dugouts, caves and wagons. They were also fighting water related illness (possibly Cholera or Malaria.) They were NOT rich and it wouldn't surprise me if the Cedar City saints were feeling a wee bit resentful of having to offer them financial support when they, themselves, were still struggling.

COOL! My book just arrived. I'm gonna go read it!

[katherine the great]

I find it ludicrous to think that this group of pious individuals could do such a thing for mere financial reasons.

I do too, but I don't think a massacre was the original plan. I'll report back if this new info changes my mind.

[LeSellers]

I completely agree with you. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Good thing that's not what I said, then, isn't it?

The southern colonies were struggling enormously!

Yes, they were, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Unless you are making the case the the Saints in Parowan were coveting the Fancher-Baker wealth, and killed them for it (which may have been the case in some of their minds). My view of their motive is that the F-B folks were mad about not being able to buy what they wanted, and were threatening the Saints with a reprisal in the form of US Army Troops from California. Given that Johnston's Army was enroute at that very minute, the threat was more than just credible. Their primary motivation was abject fear, as I see the situation.

To make the claim that the Saints were poor, as a whole, is ludicrous. These Saints were, but that only serves to exonerate the Church and Brigham Young from any participation in the planning and execution of the massacre, and may implicate the southern Utah Saints by virtue of their desperate need. Nonetheless, their impetus for killing the F-B travelers was fear, not greed. Fear and greed are the two most basic instinctual motivators among men. They succumbed to the former, at least.

The Cedar City saints were beginning to become somewhat well established. The Washington colony though had only been settled a few months before the attack and they were almost desperately poor. They had been called to leave their farms in Payson (which were just starting to prosper) and settle in an environment that they really knew nothing about. They were still living in dugouts, caves and wagons. They were also fighting water related illness (possibly Cholera or Malaria.)

Yes, that's the nature of pioneering enterprises. "Struggle"" is (or ought to be) a synonym for the verb "pioneer".

They were NOT rich and it wouldn't surprise me if the Cedar City saints were feeling a wee bit resentful of having to offer them financial support when they, themselves, were still struggling.

Not to mention that they were under counsel from the leaders of the Church to store their food for their own use over the long haul — for what could be a sustained assault by the US government. Brother Brigham sent George A. Smith to counsel the Saints not to sell the emigrants any food stuffs because they would be needing it themselves. This led to much bitterness on the part of the Arkansans who expected to be able to buy whatever they wanted, at prices they wanted to pay to resupply themselves. But supply, having dried up, meant that demand could not be met at their favored price, so they got mad at the Saints. (BTW, there is no reason that someone must sell another person anything, just because that person wants to buy it, even if the other person offers more and more money for the thing in question. The Saints were under no obligation to sell their flour and grain or vegetables to the Arkansans, irrespective of the emigrants' need.)

Lehi

[gmormon]

... They were also fighting water related illness (possibly Cholera or Malaria.)...

Don't forget the possibility of amthrax.

...COOL! My book just arrived. I'm gonna go read it!

I am jealous. The post office is still holding mine hostage

[LeSellers]

I do too, but I don't think a massacre was the original plan.

Attacking them without their total destruction, a massacre, would have been an nonviable option. What alternative do you propose? Simple theft?

We must look at their motivation. The only one that makes the grade as far as I can tell is their deep-seated fear of their own destruction. Theirs was a preemptive defensive strike. Ill-timed, ill-conceived, and wholly beyond the pale, it is at least understandable when we consider the times and threats they faced. What motivation could have prompted them to attack without massacring them?

The only reason for the Saints to have attacked was to keep them from reaching their destination so their threat of retaliation by means of the Army could not be realized.

Lehi

[TAK]

Le Sellers

I searched for information on George A. Smith's whereabouts in connection with the Fancher-Baker train and found nothing that indicated that he was in SLC when they arrived there, but that he camped near them on his way back north.

I believe that was cited in both Bagley and Brooks. â?? Did you read either of those books?

Le Sellers

â?¦what I said was that he was not up to carrying a time-sensitive message. His weight was a major hindrance to speedy travel.

And yet he beat them down there and was passing them on his way back up as you have said your self. Again your logic is flawed.

Le Sellers

Yet he was their commander. If they had received orders from him to do "the dirty deed", why did they not raise this as a defense?

Quite possibly they (Dame and Haight) were all protected by the BY in exchange for keeping their mouths shut. Remember the only person to be punished was Lee. Lee who lost the immunity of BY was quoted as saying that GA Smith was down there for that very purpose.

Le Sellers

Finally, and not totally unrelated to this question, what was Brigham Young's motive for attacking and destroying the Fancher-Baker train? Even though they had wealth with them in the form of cattle and currency, in 1857, the Saints were relatively rich. Killing the Arkansans simply makes no sense, from the perspective of Salt lake City. The southern Utahns had a whole lot of reasons to deal with the train, including stark fear, but this did not apply to Brigham Young and the church as a whole

I donâ??t know what his motive might have been but BY has been shown to use Indians to steal cattle. It may have started and simply that â?? to steal more than 1000 head of cattle and horses. Young was preparing for war â?? stockpiling weapons and food. Food not only for SL but the colonies as well. IF BY had a desire to have the Fancher Train harmed harm, it may have been to divert the oncoming US Army away from SL to Southern Utah to protect the emigrant routes to California and deal with the hostiles. That said there could be a number of reasons. For the record I am on the fence as to whether BY wanted the Fancher Train destroyed.

[katherine the great]

I am jealous. The post office is still holding mine hostage

Are they too lazy to deliver it?

[gmormon]

Are they too lazy to deliver it?

I live in a very small town that doesn't deliver, we all have PO Boxes. So if I don't make it home in time from work I can't get my packages.

[Analytics]

We are told that, "Sufficient unto itself is the evil of the day."

By the same token, there was sufficient hatred, greed, fear, and jealousy in the southern areas to spark the massacre. We need not borrow any from Salt Lake to explain it.

I agree that there were plenty of dark reasons why an ordinary group of people in these circumstances might take this course of action. But what my mind keeps coming back to is the fact that these weren't "ordinary" people. These were pious, dedicated Latter-day Saints. I just can't believe these particular folks didn't have enough dedication to their religious principles to counterbalance the hatred, greed, fear, and jealousy. There must have been a religeous reason for them believing their duty entailed leaving no witnesses.

We must look at their motivation. The only one that makes the grade as far as I can tell is their deep-seated fear of their own destruction. Theirs was a preemptive defensive strike. Ill-timed, ill-conceived, and wholly beyond the pale, it is at least understandable when we consider the times and threats they faced. What motivation could have prompted them to attack without massacring them?

The only reason for the Saints to have attacked was to keep them from reaching their destination so their threat of retaliation by means of the Army could not be realized.

Lehi

Brigham Young perceived the massacre as being a little of God's vengeance. Helping God have his vengeance could be a possible motivation.

I donâ??t know what his motive might have been but BY has been shown to use Indians to steal cattle. It may have started and simply that â?? to steal more than 1000 head of cattle and horses. Young was preparing for war â?? stockpiling weapons and food. Food not only for SL but the colonies as well.

Excellent point. It is totally conceivable that the plan in Salt Lake on July 27th included the Saints in Southern Utah stealing some wartime booty from Fancher party, with a green light to use violence if necessary. The rationalization for authorizing violence against these passerbyers would have been the blood of the prophets, including that of Parley P. Pratt. The orders could have entailed something like, â??To protect the good name of our people, you must take any and all steps are necessary to ensure that the Indians get the blame.â?

[ttribe]

I agree that there were plenty of dark reasons why an ordinary group of people in these circumstances might take this course of action. But what my mind keeps coming back to is the fact that these weren't "ordinary" people. These were pious, dedicated Latter-day Saints. I just can't believe these particular folks didn't have enough dedication to their religious principles to counterbalance the hatred, greed, fear, and jealousy. There must have been a religeous reason for them believing their duty entailed leaving no witnesses.

And you reached that conclusion absent any bias regarding your opinions of the LDS Church, right?

Brigham Young perceived the massacre as being a little of God's vengeance. Helping God have his vengeance could be a possible motivation.

So the facts that: 1) Brigham Young was prone to hyperbole; and 2) there is no good evidence which places him at the head of this scheme, are irrelevant? You're just going to take this alleged statement by BY regarding "vengeance" and make as much hay as possible?