False Stories that Caused the Utah War

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I can't help but note that you seem to have no idea what Buchanan heard that was true, yet you have no problem dismissing it (whatever it is) as not being enough to cause his actions. Well, as they say, don't let the evidence get in the way of your predetermined conclusion (are you a believer in global warming too?).

In your mind, what verifiable acts on the part of the settlers in Utah Territory justify the heavy-handed, menacing and foolish actions that comprise Buchanan's Blunder?

I would be very interested in exactly what evidence you think makes it crystal clear that Buchanan acted based on false reports and would not have acted absent the false reports. I admit I am a bit puzzled since whatever it is was obviously overlooked by those that have carefully studied the events in question (see links provided by Aquilifer).

LOAP in a previous post here has given a link to a servicable account of the excesses committed by the scoundrels who were appointed as territorial officials. I don't think it's necessary for me to give you a history lesson.

Yeah, that's it. It's impossible to be more accurate in one sentence.

I thought we were all agreed that a Primary class is not the appropriate place to go into the intricacies of the Utah Expedition. What was called for was a concise explanation of why construction of the Salt Lake Temple was interrupted. The existing content in the manual serves that purpose reasonably well; I'm sorry you don't agree.

I can see that to you there is no problem with using half-truths to reaffirm and maintain faith.

I reject out-of-hand that accusation. The sentence in the Primary teacher's manual is substantially correct, and it is not misleading. You seem to be implying that if everything cannot be said about a topic, then nothing should be said. That is absurd.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The manual is misleading because it implies that the falsehoods were the only reason Buchanan sent an army to Utah. Sure Buchanan probably heard some false stories, but, judging from the research I quoted above, he also heard a lot of true stories, both of which combined to cause him to send an army to Utah.

this is getting a little silly. What level of detail is required by folks like dbl? Something like this: The Mormons deserved to have a federal army sent out to put them down because they were following a false religion."

I suspect we would not hear protests from "dblagent" were the manual to be revised with the above statement.

This morning my wife told me I would be hungry before my night class and so she had purchased a frozen meal for me and put it in the fridge. But this is misleading because it leaves out the fact that at the store she was assisted in her purchase by a cashier.

What if the primary teacher said "the president of the United States had heard true stories that Church members were not obeying the law, so he sent an army to restore order."

This doesn't deny that false stories also existed and played into the president's decision making. They are just omitted from the statement.

It doesn't deny false stories also existed, but it grossly distorts the historical record. Further, it fails to discuss the alternatives available to the President, whose decision made certain war contractor buddies of his quite wealthy in the venture. You left that out? How misleading.

[Scott Lloyd]

this is getting a little silly. What level of detail is required by folks like dbl? Something like this: The Mormons deserved to have a federal army sent out to put them down because they were following a false religion."

I suspect we would not hear protests from "dblagent" were the manual to be revised with the above statement.

This morning my wife told me I would be hungry before my night class and so she had purchased a frozen meal for me and put it in the fridge. But this is misleading because it leaves out the fact that at the store she was assisted in her purchase by a cashier.

It doesn't deny false stories also existed, but it grossly distorts the historical record. Further, it fails to discuss the alternatives available to the President, whose decision made certain war contractor buddies of his quite wealthy in the venture. You left that out? How misleading.

My parents (now deceased) had their courtship and marriage during the Great Depression. But in telling my kids about their grandparents, I better not mention the Depression, because it would take too long to explain to them what it was, all the causes and circumstances that led up to it, how long it lasted, what conditions were like during it, what its long-term impacts were, who was to blame for it, how it ultimately ended, etc. Since I cannot give them such an exhaustive treatise, better not to bring it up at all.

[dblagent007]

In your mind, what verifiable acts on the part of the settlers in Utah Territory justify the heavy-handed, menacing and foolish actions that comprise Buchanan's Blunder?

Have I ever said this? If not, why should I need to justify it?

LOAP in a previous post here has given a link to a servicable account of the excesses committed by the scoundrels who were appointed as territorial officials. I don't think it's necessary for me to give you a history lesson.

I read that article, but I didn't see the "false reports" that you apparently found to be so prevalent. Where is the evidence that so clearly shows that "false reports" were the cause of the Utah war?

I reject out-of-hand that accusation. The sentence in the Primary teacher's manual is substantially correct, and it is not misleading. You seem to be implying that if everything cannot be said about a topic, then nothing should be said. That is absurd.

The statement in the manual is no more correct than if "true reports" was substituted for "false reports," yet for some reason the former clearly offends your sensibilities. All that needs to happen is a slight revision of the sentence to make it clear that "false reports" were not the only reason that Buchanan sent troops. I could easily draft a revised version that would be similarly compact, but much more accurate.

[handys003]

Perhaps the false reports were HF's blessings. After all this adventure of Union troops caused a treasury debt in financing the campaign. The troops hardships (winter) and desertion rates were high. Buchanan's Blunder it was labeled. This caused a backlash in the Eastern papers that it helped undermine his repeat as president and enabled Lincoln to take the lead.

[Scott Lloyd]

Have I ever said this? If not, why should I need to justify it?

This is what you wrote:

The manual is misleading because it implies that the falsehoods were the only reason Buchanan sent an army to Utah. Sure Buchanan probably heard some false stories, but, judging from the research I quoted above, he also heard a lot of true stories, both of which combined to cause him to send an army to Utah.

If you think Buchanan "heard true stories" that to some extent caused him to send the army to Utah, you must be able to cite some that, in your view, justified the draconian measures Buchanan took.

I read that article, but I didn't see the "false reports" that you apparently found to be so prevalent. Where is the evidence that so clearly shows that "false reports" were the cause of the Utah war?

The episode of the "runaway officials" actually occurred before Buchanan's administration, but the reports undoubtedly influenced him, as he campaigned with a vow to replace Brigham Young as governor of Utah. A more proximate cause of Buchanan's reaction were the reports from later territorial officials, the worst of them coming from Associate Judge William W. Drummond, an incompetent scoundrel whose public letter of resignation to the Buchanan administration contained a tirade of false charges. A pretty good summary account is in the CES Text Church History in the Fulness of Times. You can read it on line here. Scroll down to the beginning of Chapter 29, "The Utah War," on page 368 and read from there.

The statement in the manual is no more correct than if "true reports" was substituted for "false reports," yet for some reason the former clearly offends your sensibilities.

This, of course, is absurd. What you have suggested would be, as LOAP put it, a gross distortion; the statement as it appears in the manual, on the other hand, is a reasonably accurate one-sentence summary.

All that needs to happen is a slight revision of the sentence to make it clear that "false reports" were not the only reason that Buchanan sent troops. I could easily draft a revised version that would be similarly compact, but much more accurate.

Based on the mindset you've displayed here, I wouldn't trust you to teach my kids in Primary, much less revise the manual from which they are instructed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps the false reports were HF's blessings. After all this adventure of Union troops caused a treasury debt in financing the campaign. The troops hardships (winter) and desertion rates were high. Buchanan's Blunder it was labeled. This caused a backlash in the Eastern papers that it helped undermine his repeat as president and enabled Lincoln to take the lead.

Buchanan's failure to be re-elected was undoubtedly a blessing. But the "Utah Expedition," could hardly be characterized as such, as it amounted to a colossal waste of resources and manpower and caused significant suffering, both to the soldiers who were dispatched to Utah and to the residents of the territory, whose defensive "move south" was a dreadful hardship.