Massacre At Mountain Meadows

[gmormon]

Don't bother me, I'm reading

[LeSellers]

If that [that the Paiutes had attacked and killed the Fancher-Baker party] was what they wanted Young to think, why did they send a messanger to Salt Lake explaining the situation and asking for advice?

The messenger left before the arrival of the train, and obviously before the massacre. Conditions changed on the ground â?? the train wanted to buy supplies, the Saints refused to sell (because Johnston's Army was on its way to destroy the Church, and they needed their food for themselves). This was only one of many issues of friction between the Saints and the emigrants, all of which combined to exacerbate the problem.

The Saints were already at war with the USmerican government (or vice versa); Buchanan had already sent one army, there was no reason for the Saints to discount the travelers' threats to return with another to "balance" their grievances (imagined, in my view). The southern Utah Saints had no defense that would withstand any assault by an actual military force. There was likewise little hope of assistance from the north â?? those Saints would be facing their own army at the crucial moment.

So, while they wanted new guidance from Salt Lake City, there is no reason (except a desire to pin this on Brigham Young) to think that they were asking whether to kill them or do something else to them. Furthermore, the changes I mentioned above all occurred after the their messenger left for Salt Lake City anyway, so that they asked for new guidance is in many ways moot.

Except for charging me with spinning the facts (which I do not believe I have done in the least), you have not addressed the fundamental issue: the Saints were scared, they were terrified, they had good reason to believe that they and their families would soon be under lethal assault by an army who was (at least widely believed) bent on obliterating them. One commander, later, said that if he were not constrained, he'd put the whole race (his word) of "Mormons" in the Tabernacle and "train the guns of Fort Douglas on them." The threat was both real and believable.

The question is, what would you (or any of us), under similar circumstances, have done?

As I have said, given their state of mind, I am hard-pressed to come up with a different response. And I am not under any such threat, do not have to live with the consequences of whatever choice I'd made. When all choices are ill, one opts for the one that seems, at least, to offer the best cost benefit ratio. They chose poorly, but they were forced to select from among a spectrum of evil alternatives.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

And yet he [George A. Smith] beat them [the Fancher-Baker Party] down there and was passing them on his way back up as you have said your self.

The train waited near Salt Lake City two weeks for some others (the Bakers, actually) to join them before leaving on the southern trail. Some left earlier (by the northern route).

Your supposition is also flawed in that you assume that Elder Smith left after the Fancher-Baker train got to Salt lake City. He left earlier, and his mission had nothing to do with them. He went to prepare the southern Utah Saints for the oncoming war.

If he had anything to do with the massacre, it was nothing more than that the Saints were justifiably more wary of attack based on his information and warnings.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

The question is, what would you (or any of us), under similar circumstances, have done?

Gee--NOT ATTACKED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????? (Kind of like Brigham Young advised them.) By the time the emigrants were at Mountain Meadows, they were not any kind of threat to the Utahans. President Isaac Haight had many days to "cool off" after a handful of the emigrants mouthed off at Cedar City and yet he chose to attack them anyway--in spite of disapproval from his military superior William Dame and several prominent citizens. If there was any justification for the attack, it should have happened when they passed through Cedar City. As it was, not one single Utahan was physically assaulted by anyone in the wagon train and yet Isaac Haight saw fit to exterminate them all. Brigham Young could recognize meaningless name calling and threats for what they were, and Isaac Haight could not.

[LeSellers]

NOT ATTACKED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????? (Kind of like Brigham Young advised them.)

The immediate danger was past, as you note. however, the ongoing threat, in light of the reality of the war at their doorstep, that another army would return over the California trail through their homesteads, remained.

As it was, not one single Utahan was physically assaulted by anyone in the wagon train and yet Isaac Haight saw fit to exterminate them all. Brigham Young could recognize meaningless name calling and threats for what they were, and Isaac Haight could not.

That is probably true. Yet Haight was on the ground, and it was he who was terrified, he and many others with him.

Your view is understandable from your position, but I proposed that we examine the situation from their vantage point.

How, for instance, should we assess the threat of the Fancher-Baker Party to bring back a hostile force to wipe out those Saints, especially knowing that they had no effective defense, and no hope of help from any quarter?

Lehi

[Jaybear]

The immediate danger was past, as you note. however, the ongoing threat, in light of the reality of the war at their doorstep, that another army would return over the California trail through their homesteads, remained.

That is probably true. Yet Haight was on the ground, and it was he who was terrified, he and many others with him.

Your view is understandable from your position, but I proposed that we examine the situation from their vantage point.

How, for instance, should we assess the threat of the Fancher-Baker Party to bring back a hostile force to wipe out those Saints, especially knowing that they had no effective defense, and no hope of help from any quarter?

Lehi

Who said the Fancher-Baker Party threatened to bring back a hostile force to wipe out the Saints? I can see that that US would want to send in the army to restore order, protect the emmigrants, and bring the guilty to justify. But I was not aware it was US policy to exterminate innocent civilians.

[katherine the great]

If that was what they wanted Young to think, why did they send a messanger to Salt Lake explaining the situation and asking for advice?

Actually, according to this book (and it makes sense to me now), the reason Isaac Haight sent the express to Brigham Young is that he met up with unexpected local opposition. Haight was the Stake President and the highest ranking militia man in Cedar City. He didn't expect internal opposition. His military superior was William Dame from the neighboring community of Parowan. Haight was also confronted by one of his high councilmen, Laban Morrill, who was a very well respected man in the community. Morrill openly and vehemently challenged Haight's ecclesiastical authority on the attack by reminding him of the very basic Christian ethic to "return good for evil." He also challenged his military right to order the attack by demanding to see orders from Dame (which were non existent at the time.) Morrill demanded that no further action be taken until Brigham Young could be notified. He was completely unaware that Lee and about 50 militia men had already gathered at the site and were already starting to pick people off.

If you don't have this book, please read it right away. I understand that skeptics may view it warily, but it is really answering a lot of my questions about the event and I think you will agree that it is VERY intelligently written, and well documented and was worth the wait.

The more I read this book, the angrier I am becoming with Isaac Haight. It seems clear that the attack was his idea, he was geared up for "action" that was not forthcoming from any actual military attack, he was increasingly annoyed at emigrant trains coming through and grazing their cattle and making snide comments about their ugly town and crude remarks to and about their women. He had some legitimate, human complaints, but absolutely nothing to justify the massacre. He used John D. Lee (the man who had saved his life the previous year) as his own pawn to execute the attack and then he could claim he was innocent because he wasn't present for the attack. John D. Lee, of course, was equally guilty, but I think Haight should have been executed beside Lee. The only two people who never waivered in their execution of the attack were Haight and Lee. Everyone else seemed to have had second thoughts along the way.

[katherine the great]

The immediate danger was past, as you note. however, the ongoing threat, in light of the reality of the war at their doorstep, that another army would return over the California trail through their homesteads, remained.

That is probably true. Yet Haight was on the ground, and it was he who was terrified, he and many others with him.

Your view is understandable from your position, but I proposed that we examine the situation from their vantage point.

How, for instance, should we assess the threat of the Fancher-Baker Party to bring back a hostile force to wipe out those Saints, especially knowing that they had no effective defense, and no hope of help from any quarter?

Lehi

I do try to examine it from their viewpoint. These are my people we are talking about here. My ancestors lived there, labored together, suffered together, worked together and killed a bunch of people together. The Fancher-Baker party did not make threats. A handful of them did. Are you reading this book? There are many accounts of settlers who reported that the train was by and large very civilized. It was only a few of them who were obnoxious. The original idea was to kill the men who had made the threats and steal a bunch of their cattle. (something attested to by Isaac Haight's own words.)

[Analytics]

Actually, according to this book (and it makes sense to me now), the reason Isaac Haight sent the express to Brigham Young is that he met up with unexpected local opposition. Haight was the Stake President and the highest ranking militia man in Cedar City. He didn't expect internal opposition. His military superior was William Dame from the neighboring community of Parowan.....

Thanks for the insightful post. I'll read the book.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for the insightful post. I'll read the book.

So in other words... the Local Leaders appealed to a Higher Authority thinking that it would persuade the local disenters.

[katherine the great]

So in other words... the Local Leaders appealed to a Higher Authority thinking that it would persuade the local disenters.

I'm not sure they knew, at that point, what it would accomplish. I think Haight just bowed to the objections from the High Council. The original letter to Brigham Young doesn't exist now, but the people who read it characterized it as being quite vague and not saying anything about a slaughter--just asking permission to deal with the "insulting" and "threatening" emigrants. Brigham Young's reply told them to leave them alone and let them leave (since they were already past the last settlement.)

[Glenn101]

So because YOU "can't imagine" things being any other way then, by definition, it must really be the way you CAN imagine it, the facts notwithstanding. Do I have that right?Glenn - I bolded part of your message; did you really mean "DOES", or was that a typo?

That was a typo. I do not know why I left out the not. I was thinking it. Another senior moment?

Glenn

[ttribe]

That was a typo. I do not know why I left out the not. I was thinking it. Another senior moment?

Glenn

Yeah...it seemed out of place. That's why I asked.

[Scott Lloyd]

In his FAIR Conference presentation yesterday, Daniel Peterson mentioned a discussion he has been having on another message board with individuals who are certain the new book is a whitewash, that it is full of lies, etc., this without their having ever laid eyes on it.

Hate to say it, but such a reaction is rather predictable from some quarters. One would hope as the book becomes better known generally, such ignorant dismissal will be increasingly viewed as unacceptable.

Katherine and gmormon, I'm glad you are enjoying (if that's the right word) the book. Analytics, I'm glad you have pledged to read it. It would seem that Katherine has powers of persuasion that others of us lack.

[Glenn101]

Yeah...it seemed out of place. That's why I asked.

I fixed it.

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

I do try to examine it from their viewpoint. These are my people we are talking about here. My ancestors lived there, labored together, suffered together, worked together and killed a bunch of people together. The Fancher-Baker party did not make threats. A handful of them did. Are you reading this book? There are many accounts of settlers who reported that the train was by and large very civilized. It was only a few of them who were obnoxious. The original idea was to kill the men who had made the threats and steal a bunch of their cattle. (something attested to by Isaac Haight's own words.)

One of the unfortunate consequences for those who cling stubbornly to a fanciful "Brigham Young did it" conspiracy theory is that they miss the opportunity to learn from a more factual analysis of the event, how otherwise decent people, regardless of stripe or persuasion, can get caught in a spiral wherein they end up doing horrific things. If any good can come of a study of this event, it is the sort of self-introspection that would help each of us personally to avoid getting involved in anything of this nature.

From page 12 of the book:

For the most part, the men who committed the atrocity at Mountain Meadows were neither fanatics nor sociopaths, but normal and in many respects decent people. The modern age, confronted with mass violence and killings, has rediscovered a fundamental aspect of old theology. "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of them and destroy them," wrote Russian Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn. "But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who wants to destroy a piece of his own heart."

Another thought: the notion that one would not expect such behavior from pious Mormons, therefore they must have had a "religious motive" (under orders from Brigham Young) strikes me as self-contradictory.

[Scott Lloyd]

Who said the Fancher-Baker Party threatened to bring back a hostile force to wipe out the Saints? I can see that that US would want to send in the army to restore order, protect the emmigrants, and bring the guilty to justify. But I was not aware it was US policy to exterminate innocent civilians.

The Mormon settlers could not know what the federal government's intent was, as it chose not to inform them of the purpose of the army's coming and had even cut off mail service to the territory. (One of the first acts of a conquering despot is to cut off all outside communication to the area under seige.)

The Mormons had very recently experienced government-approved oppression and violence when they were in Missouri (and, to some degree, in Illinois). The oppressor was the state, not the federal government, but the federal government refused to intervene to safeguard the rights of the Mormons. Moreover, at this time, there was a general feeling of antipathy in the country toward Mormons, engendered by the eastern press and by hostile politicians.

Under the circumstances, the Mormons in 1857 had very justifiable and understandable reasons to fear the approach of an armed force. And even with the retrospective of 150 years, I'm not at all certain Johnston's army would have behaved honorably had they not encountered resistance when they got to Utah.

Regarding the emigrants' threats to send back a hostile force, here's a passage from the book:

Some of the emigrants went looking for Haight at his nearby house in Old Town, perhaps wanting to complain about waht happened at the mill and store [exorbitant price for grain and the unavailability of needed goods for purchase]. Haight was, after all, town mayor and manager of the Deseret Iron Company. One account said that "cursing" and "drunk" men went to Haight's house and demanded that he come out "if he was a man." The men also yelled threats about sending an army from California to seize Young, Haight, Dame, and "every other damn Mormon in the country."

(page 133)

[LeSellers]

The Fancher-Baker party did not make threats. A handful of them did. ... It was only a few of them who were obnoxious.

At least you bear out the fact that there were threats. The charge, that the Fancher-Baker Party made threats, was never meant to mean that they were monolithic in this. But, given the environment of war, it takes only one, or a very few, making credible threats like this to instill the kind of fear that would lead to the massacre.

As I have said several times, fear and greed are the two most powerful (and basic) human emotions. Fear, especially when it involves one's family's safety, is the more difficult to overcome, and few people do it successfully. These people did not.

I believe that the Saints of Parowan were in terror of their lives. I can imagine no other motivation sufficient to impel them to such drastic, uncharacteristic action. The people of Parowan were not devils, they were not monsters, they were not depraved. They were sacred.

The original idea was to kill the men who had made the threats and steal a bunch of their cattle.

That may very well have been true. But, as they found out, too late, it is not possible to cut out the cancer effectively without taking some of the healthy tissue as well. And there is always the issue of witnesses. Eventually, the surgery kills the patient, and, in this case, the surgeon, too.

My primary goal in this discussion has been to defend Brigham Young against charges of his being the instigator of the massacre, not to defend those who actually planned and carried it out. But even these people deserve to have us understand their motivations. They did an evil thing, an unconscionable thing. But they were not evil and conscienceless. Something forced them into a position that they felt their only escape was brutal murder.

Lehi

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just finished it. A heavy book. Gripping, tragic, and heavy.

[LeSellers]

Who said the Fancher-Baker Party threatened to bring back a hostile force to wipe out the Saints?

See the quote at the end of Scott's message, 217, here: <{POST_SNAPBACK}>.

I can see that that US would want to send in the army to restore order, protect the emmigrants, and bring the guilty to justify. But I was not aware it was US policy to exterminate innocent civilians.

The government wouldn't kill "innocent civilians", but it would do all it could to paint them as guilty of something.

There was no disorder. The only thing that was unusual was the the Saints refused to sell supplies to the Fancher-Baker Party who felt they had a right to buy what they wanted. It is interesting that under ordinary circumstances, they could have bought what they needed, but it was because the US government was at war with the Saints that the Fancher-Baker train was unable to resupply.

One wonders how the whole "Utah War" (aka "Buchanan's Blunder") fits in with your hypothesis, or the statement that, if a future commander were not being restricted by higher-ups, he'd round up the whole "race of Mormons in the Tabernacle and train the guns of Fort Douglas on them."

I wish I could find my copy of Holy Smoke to quote a few more interesting tidbits like this, but someone had moved it, and it'll take weeks or months before I find it.

Lehi

[Zakuska]

One of the unfortunate consequences for those who cling stubbornly to a fanciful "Brigham Young did it" conspiracy theory is that they miss the opportunity to learn from a more factual analysis of the event, how otherwise decent people, regardless of stripe or persuasion, can get caught in a spiral wherein they end up doing horrific things. If any good can come of a study of this event, it is the sort of self-introspection that would help each of us personally to avoid getting involved in anything of this nature.

It's intresting that those type of people gravitate to places that can't be named. I wouldn't put it past some of them.

[katherine the great]

At least you bear out the fact that there were threats. The charge, that the Fancher-Baker Party made threats, was never meant to mean that they were monolithic in this. But, given the environment of war, it takes only one, or a very few, making credible threats like this to instill the kind of fear that would lead to the massacre.

As I have said several times, fear and greed are the two most powerful (and basic) human emotions. Fear, especially when it involves one's family's safety, is the more difficult to overcome, and few people do it successfully. These people did not.

I believe that the Saints of Parowan were in terror of their lives. I can imagine no other motivation sufficient to impel them to such drastic, uncharacteristic action. The people of Parowan were not devils, they were not monsters, they were not depraved. They were sacred.

That may very well have been true. But, as they found out, too late, it is not possible to cut out the cancer effectively without taking some of the healthy tissue as well. And there is always the issue of witnesses. Eventually, the surgery kills the patient, and, in this case, the surgeon, too.

My primary goal in this discussion has been to defend Brigham Young against charges of his being the instigator of the massacre, not to defend those who actually planned and carried it out. But even these people deserve to have us understand their motivations. They did an evil thing, an unconscionable thing. But they were not evil and conscienceless. Something forced them into a position that they felt their only escape was brutal murder.

Lehi

Okay. First of all, why do you keep referring to the people of Parowan? There was not one single militia man from Parowan present at the attack. William Dame (from Parowan) was vehemently opposed to the attack. Parowan leaders had recently overreacted to one Parowan citizen who gave some vegetables to a teenaged friend who was trying to catch up with the emigrant wagon to travel with them. The man was beaten almost senseless for "trading with an emigrant." (The poor boy was later the first person killed in the attack.) I don't know if this incident pricked Dame's conscience or if he simply didn't want to be involved in the attack, but he was not at all supportive of the massacre--nor was anyone from Parowan (that anyone knows about.)

I entirely disagree with you that they were "forced" into this position. Until the last day, the outcome could have been changed at any time. Obviously, there were REASONS these things happened, but none of them were good or justifiable reasons. Isaac Haight and John D. Lee entered into an unholy partnership in crime. At least Lee paid the consequences. Haight went into hiding, changed his name and never faced his punishment like a man. Shame on him...

[LeSellers]

I entirely disagree with you that they were "forced" into this position. Until the last day, the outcome could have been changed at any time.

I used the word "forced" because they felt compelled to do what they did, otherwise, there is no reason to believe they would have done it.

Yes, they could have changed the plan, or simply walked away, or any number of things, but for some reason, they did not.

No one wakes up in the morning thinking "I'll go out and do the stupidest thing I can, one that will ruin my life and those of my family and friends." Everything anyone does, he does because he feels it is the best thing he can do, at the time, given his circumstances. Haight, Dame, Lee, and all the others were doing something they felt was necessary. Otherwise, they would not have done it.

Obviously, there were REASONS these things happened, but none of them were good or justifiable reasons.

This is true for you and for me. It does not explain why they felt they had to kill those people, it does not explain what alternatives they considered (if any), it does not explain the values they weighed, nor they way they weighed them, so as to come to the conclusion they did.

And, as I said earlier, my goal here, on this topic, was and is to refute the charge that Brigham Young was the instigator of, or that he had anything to do with, the massacre.

This issue of what the locals did and why they did it, and all the tangential pieces to the puzzle are side tracking. The only reason I have said anything about them is because others have tried to make them out to be devils incarnate, mad men with nothing but greed on their minds.

I do not believe them to have been evil, per se, but their acts were. I do not believe them to have been crazy, but they were not themselves that week, they were crazed with fear. Whether this was rational, I only say I believe it was not. But in their minds this was a rational choice. Had it not been, they would have done something else.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

No one wakes up in the morning thinking "I'll go out and do the stupidest thing I can, one that will ruin my life and those of my family and friends." Everything anyone does, he does because he feels it is the best thing he can do, at the time, given his circumstances. Haight, Dame, Lee, and all the others were doing something they felt was necessary. Otherwise, they would not have done it.

Are you saying that no person is just a plain bad'un? I totally disagree with that. I think some people do wake up in the morning with evil on their minds. The fact here is that Haight and Lee both had huge flaws in their inflated egos that they allowed to overtake their good judgment. They chose to destroy all these people instead of facing the consequences of their bad choices. They were covering their own backsides. Haight could see what was going to happen and didn't want to face up to what he had done. The guy ordered the attack and then didn't even have the guts to go to the site until it was over (and he was sickened by what he saw.) Maybe he wasn't evil. In fact he had many good qualities. But he was a control freak and ended up being a coward and murderer and Brigham Young excommunicated him. You really need to read this book.

[LeSellers]

Are you saying that no person is just a plain bad'un? I totally disagree with that. I think some people do wake up in the morning with evil on their minds.

Of course there are "bad'uns", and they do get up with evil on their minds. What I said was that people don't wake up thinking they will do the "stupidest" things they can. Stupid ≠ evil, but they are not mutually exclusive, either.

People always choose to do the thing that will get them the greatest benefit for the least cost. Haight and Lee must have calculated that killing the people in the wagon train would result in the best cost:benefit ratio possible, given the alternatives that presented themselves.

I have said they were wrong. I will not say they were irrational; they weighed the wrong values, and they weighed them poorly. But they were not irrational, and in their minds, given what they knew, their acts were the best choice they had.

The fact here is that Haight and Lee both had huge flaws in their inflated egos that they allowed to overtake their good judgment.

The outcome shows they made bad judgments. They may not have had any good judgment from our PoV, but they were sure theirs was good at the time.

They chose to destroy all these people instead of facing the consequences of their bad choices. They were covering their own backsides Haight could see what was going to happen and didn't want to face up to what he had done. The guy ordered the attack and then didn't even have the guts to go to the site until it was over (and he was sickened by what he saw.)

Which "those people" was it they chose to destroy, it's not clear whom you meant.

Yes, they did try to cover their butts. They continued to make the best choice they could, based on their values and options. But, and this is critical, their values were not the best possible, or even good as we may judge them. The outcome, because of that set of bad values, was itself extremely bad.

[Haight] was a control freak and ended up being a coward and murderer and Brigham Young excommunicated him.

Justly so.

Lehi