Bagley Slanders B. Young = Lots of Attention / Bagley's Slander Proven Bogus and Dishonest = No Attention

[maklelan]

False, Bagley never implements the passage about "allies" into the argument. Where has Bagley said that word was important to his argument? I am willing to meet you in September at the Utah Historical meeting where Bagley will doubtless be and we will ask. Lets wager a bet that Bagley will tell you that word was not important to his argument. You pay me one dollar if I am right, if you are right, I will take my own life right then and there. Fair enough?

I'm not in Utah and I won't be in Utah in September. Smac already quoted a UVU panel discussion in which Bagley said "allies" was a "key word" in the text. Since Bagley said that meeting was what sealed the fate of the Fancher party, and the only thing in the text that supports a relationship to the outcome is the interpolation of "allies," that "key word" is clearly very important to his argument. You've already been told this repeatedly and you've just barked "Nu-uh!" back in our direction. Please do it one more time just to prove that you are knowingly refusing to engage this discussion honestly.

[mysteryman]

But he never seems to explicate his exegesis of the passage. He just shares the passage and declares it proof of Young's implication in the event. When historians do this a lot of the time it's because their convictions rest more on a subjective impression rather than on an actual objective interpretation of the text. I've pointed out how the sense of the text changes with each variant and others have shown that he recognized his error was grave and that it influenced the interpretation of the passage. You've not responded to any of these concerns, you've just barked that you've already proven all possibly future criticisms null and void. Now that it's been shown that even Bagley recognizes that that word was the lynch pin you just keep trying to reassert your original position. It's transparent and childish. Please stop.

This is what Bagley argues using the passage.

[mysteryman]

I'm not in Utah and I won't be in Utah in September. Smac already quoted a UVU panel discussion in which Bagley said "allies" was a "key word" in the text. Since Bagley said that meeting was what sealed the fate of the Fancher party, and the only thing in the text that supports a relationship to the outcome is the interpolation of "allies," that "key word" is clearly very important to his argument. You've already been told this repeatedly and you've just barked "Nu-uh!" back in our direction. Please do it one more time just to prove that you are knowingly refusing to engage this discussion honestly.

Nope, I have engaged the text demonstrating the word makes no difference in the argument made before the quote and the argument made after the quote. You are simply wrong on the key word. Bagley didn't identify "allies" as a key word to his argument at UVU. I have engaged it, I am the only one that has extensively engaged the text, no one has challenged me there. Now one had meticulously gone through the text and showed what would have to be changed above the quote or after it. No one has been able to point to where what changes in what he says above the quote and after if the word reads grains. That is why the soft cover version only changed grains. Too bad he hadn't discovered that as the "key word" that needed to be changed when he did that huh. No one has yet demonstrated using the text where and when the allies issue becomes part of his argument. If the word becomes grains, as it is in the soft cover version, that word mandates nothing in what Bagley argues in those three pages period. Now engage the text and actually read it.

[maklelan]

It's easy to win arguments when the opponents are discussions you conjure up in your head, and your evidentiary standards come from the same place. I don't see any value in continuing to try to talk a respectable amount of sense into you.

[USU78]

It's not all that complicated, to my way of thinking.

Bag asserted the "allies" was the critical piece that made his circumstantial case fall into place.

Bag later quietly removes the reference to "allies" in his new edition.

Bag still later admits he greatly erred in his transcription.

Rehashing the circumstantial case, weak as it is, doesn't address the critical problem in the OP:

Do the facts and circumstances surrounding Bag's acts establish scienter for slander?

[William Schryver]

Is it really possible that "mysteryman" could be as authentically obtuse as he puts on? It's got to be an act, right? Or someone is paying him to stick to his argument no matter how silly he is made to look? Just keep muddying the waters with interminable posts that repeatedly ignore the devastating counter-arguments to which he has been subjected.

I can tell you one thing for sure: no one could pay me enough money to defend Will Bagley's house-of-cards indictment of Brigham Young. I'd feel more confident taking on something like the moon-landing hoax or the gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas or alien crash landings in Roswell.

As Pahoran said so well:

No, your hero is not a linker of syllogistic chains; he is a propagandist. He builds his case, not upon logic and evidence, but upon atmosphere, innuendo and hints.

[Ceeboo]

CRAZY, BIAS FILLED, NON-PUNDIT, CATHOLIC MAKES HIS RULING !!!!! ( If anyone cares )

As an interested lurker to the 13 pages of this thread ( and having no dog in the fight ), I would lean heavily in favor the LDS position here. It seems clear to me that Bagley ( at the very least ) was " sloppy " in his work.

END OF DISCUSSION !!!! ( Sorry, saw that posted somewhere else and kinda got a kick out of it )

Peace,

Ceeboo

[LifeOnaPlate]

CRAZY, BIAS FILLED, NON-PUNDIT, CATHOLIC MAKES HIS RULING !!!!! ( If anyone cares )

As an interested lurker to the 13 pages of this thread ( and having no dog in the fight ), I would lean heavily in favor the LDS position here. It seems clear to me that Bagley ( at the very least ) was " sloppy " in his work.

END OF DISCUSSION !!!! ( Sorry, saw that posted somewhere else and kinda got a kick out of it )

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Analytics]

It's not all that complicated, to my way of thinking.

Bag asserted the "allies" was the critical piece that made his circumstantial case fall into place.

Bag later quietly removes the reference to "allies" in his new edition.

Bag still later admits he greatly erred in his transcription.

Rehashing the circumstantial case, weak as it is, doesn't address the critical problem in the OP:

I agree that that is the accusation made in the OP. The contested issue is whether Bagley asserted that "allies" was the critical piece that made his case fall into place.

[William Schryver]

I agree that that is the accusation made in the OP. The contested issue is whether Bagley asserted that "allies" was the critical piece that made his case fall into place.

Well, it was, until it was conclusively demonstrated to not be "allies," but rather "grain."

[USU78]

The contested issue is whether Bagley asserted that "allies" was the critical piece that made his case fall into place.

Perhaps the issue is really that the headlines Bag uncontestedly craves, which definitely did call the "allies" the critical piece to the puzzle, don't match his actual rhetoric then?

Of course, then we'd have to question Bag's reported position that the "newly discovered" letters, written years after the fact by soldiers and such, are now the critical piece to the puzzle.

Such a conundrum.

What are we to make of it?

[J Green]

Young hopes that the gentile retaliation will result with destruction of the Fancher's. Bagley later argues that this does not happen, the Indians were reluctant to join in the massacre and only wanted to steal the cattle. Bagley argues the massacre was a Mormon job, not Indian. Never does Bagley implement the line containing "allies" into the argument, not once.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. The text with the original wording ("grain") puts BY's cattle policy vis-a-vis the coming siege into perspective. This is about food and not about retaliation and Indians acting as the battle-ax in a violent context, which is clearly the perspective that Bagley gives it from 112-114. That's why the one word changes everything. Bagley has built his argument around the fact that BY's cattle/overland policy was violent in orientation. Yet Turley et al contend that the policy was non-violent and geared toward gathering a store of cattle in the mountains for the coming siege. Who is right? Turley et al provide a better array of sources on this point than Bagley, and the DH Passage read with "grain" gives us the Turley context for the Sep 1 meeting. "Allies" changes the dynamic and injects the violence back into the passage. Sorry, but the word change clearly matters.

Regards

[smac97]

I agree that that is the accusation made in the OP. The contested issue is whether Bagley asserted that "allies" was the critical piece that made his case fall into place.

Or "a critical piece" (instead of "the [only] critical piece").

As I mentioned previously, Bagley's emphasis on the September meeting included two components:

1) Brigham Young inducing the Indians to rustle cattle from emigrant wagon trains; and

2) Brigham Young inducing the Indians to "raise [allies] & fight."

The second one is plainly incorrect. It was indeed, as Bagley admitted - and contrary to MysteryMan's denials, a "grave error" about a "key word" that requires correction in future editions of BOTP.

The first one is partially correct. Brigham Young was crafting an essentially bloodless guerrilla response to an oncoming hostile force (which, I think we can all agree, was preferable to drawing up battle plans and resorting to pitched battles between the United States Army and an ousted religious group defending their lives and property).

But I do not believe that Brigham Young was trying to get the Indians to rustle cattle from emigrant wagon trains, but rather from the Army.

As Pahoran has previously explained:

Just before the massacre--on 1 September in fact--BY met with two groups of Indian chiefs in SLC to get their help resisting the army, and promised them the army's cattle as spoils of war. Everyone who knows anything knows that taking spoils of war is not "stealing." Note that the attack started too soon after the meetings for the chiefs present to get back to their homes in time to organise it, only a very small minority actually commanded the territory through which the train was moving, and they were still in SLC for several days after the massacre.

...

[brigham Young] offered [the Indians at the September 1 meeting] all the cattle that the army might take on the Southern Route.

We have been paying a lot of attention to Bagley's false interpolation, and have not focused much on his other accusation (that Brigham Young was inducing the Indians to rustle cattle from emigrant wagon trains).

I'm not really interested in talking with MysteryMan anymore. He's had his say, I've had mine.

However, I would like to invite others to participate in a discussion about Brigham Young's cattle-rustling propensities. A few questions to get that discussion going:

1. When Brigham Young referred to "Americans" just prior to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was he referring to A) Johnston's Army exclusively, B) Non-Mormon emigrant wagon trains exclusively, or C) a combination of A and B?

2. When Brigham Young referred to the "southern route," what was he talking about? What is the location and course of this route?

3. During the September 1 meeting with some Indian leaders, did Brigham Young induce them to steal cattle from A) Johnston's Army exclusively, B) Non-Mormon emigrant wagon trains exclusively, or C) a combination of A and B?

Thanks,

-Smac

[J Green]

However, I would like to invite others to participate in a discussion about Brigham Young's cattle-rustling propensities. A few questions to get that discussion going:

Interesting questions, Smac.

In my mind, the DH passage about Americans refers to the approaching Army. But I'm not sure that the southern route reference is as clear. On the one hand, the DH passage seems to link the southern route to the coming of the Americans, which I agree refers to the Army. OTOH, BY linked the approaching Army to a new policy against emigrant overland routes in his speech on Aug 16th (see Turley, 137). There were two overland routes: A northern and a southern, and just a few days prior to the Sep 1 meeting, Indians had stampeded the cattle of an emigrant wagon train on the northern route. The local bishop who reported it seemed to attribute this to BY's policy (Turley, 137). Of course, this is clearly the Bishop's interpretation rather than actual fact. But aside from this, Turley also notes the growing pattern of resistance to the emigrant trains on the overland routes. Due to this (acknowledgedly scant) data set, I think it hard to argue that it's clear that the policy was only directed against the Army and not the wagon trains as well.

Thoughts?

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting questions, Smac.

In my mind, the DH passage about Americans refers to the approaching Army. But I'm not sure that the southern route reference is as clear. On the one hand, the DH passage seems to link the southern route to the coming of the Americans, which I agree refers to the Army. OTOH, BY linked the approaching Army to a new policy against emigrant overland routes in his speech on Aug 16th (see Turley, 137). There were two overland routes: A northern and a southern, and just a few days prior to the Sep 1 meeting, Indians had stampeded the cattle of an emigrant wagon train on the northern route. The local bishop who reported it seemed to attribute this to BY's policy (Turley, 137). Of course, this is clearly the Bishop's interpretation rather than actual fact. But aside from this, Turley also notes the growing pattern of resistance to the emigrant trains on the overland routes. Due to this (acknowledgedly scant) data set, I think it hard to argue that it's clear that the policy was only directed against the Army and not the wagon trains as well.

Thoughts?

If Brigham was looking ahead to the possibility that the army would first invade Salt Lake City and then head south to occupy other Mormon settlements, then the "southern route" could have direct reference to the army. Also, part of the Church's resistance strategy was to abandon Salt Lake City and make the "move south." In fact, they did this. If the army were to pursue them, then the "southern route" instructions would have application there as well.

[Analytics]

Or "a critical piece" (instead of "the [only] critical piece").

As I mentioned previously, Bagley's emphasis on the September meeting included two components:

1) Brigham Young inducing the Indians to rustle cattle from emigrant wagon trains; and

2) Brigham Young inducing the Indians to "raise [allies] & fight."

The second one is plainly incorrect...

Is the way you phrased this the way that Bagley does, or the way you do? On the second point, it would be more succinct to simply say "Brigham Young inducing the Indians to fight". The grain/allies distinction is important to understand exactly what was said, and it was amazingly sloppy that he made this mistake, but I honestly don't see how it changes or diminishes his argument at all.

That's why I don't think Bagley's alleged slander has been proven bogus and dishonest, which is why I think nobody is paying attention to it.

[Calm]

Now again engage the text. In one version the Indians are reluctant, but will go and raise allies and "might fight." In the other, they are reluctant, but will go and raise grain and "might fight." So in both they might fight. But that isn't the argument Bagley is making anyway

Which is a good thing if true because as Smac demonstrated, not even Bagley interprets the "raise grain and we might fight" in that way:

Note that Bagley earlier characterized the Indians as "telling Brigham Young, that he encouraged them to murder Americans, that they didn't want to do it, they were going to stand aside and let the Mormons and the Army fight, and whoever won, they would help pick up the pieces."

This sounds exactly like Rick's description of the Indians as saying "we're going to go out, we're going to raise grain, as this account said, we're going to go up in the hills, we'll negotiate with the victor."

So Bagley agrees with Rick.

from Smac's post...

[smac97]

Is the way you phrased this the way that Bagley does, or the way you do?

Well, that's the lovely thing about sly implications. Bagley implies, we infer.

Bagley thinks that Huntington's recollection of the September 1 meeting implicates Brigham Young in planning the massacre. He pretty much treats the inculpatory value of the journal excerpt as a self-evident thing.

I've said this before: I don't get Bagley's argument about cattle-rustling. I don't see how he goes from BY and cattle rustling to BY and massacring emigrants. The causal link between instructions to rustle cattle and instructions to massacre emigrants is not self-evident.

On the other hand, Bagley originally quoted Huntington's journal for the proposition that he was trying to get them to "raise [allies] and fight." Now these sound like fightin' words. A causal link between instructions to "raise [allies] and fight" and instructions to massacre emigrants is more discernible (though, in my view, still highly speculative and debatable).

On the second point, it would be more succinct to simply say "Brigham Young inducing the Indians to fight".

Except that's now how Bagley portrayed it. He interpolated the word "allies," so that the journal excerpt read that the Indians would "raise allies & fight" rather than "raise grain & fight."

Omitting Bagley's "key word" (his words) is not a matter of succinctness. It's a matter of glossing over a "grave error" (again, his word).

I agree that it was a "grave error." It was also a "grave error" to extrapolate conclusions on his incorrect recitation of historical sources. It was also a "grave error" to not revise those extrapolated conclusions once his "grave error" was admitted.

The grain/allies distinction is important to understand exactly what was said, and it was amazingly sloppy that he made this mistake, but I honestly don't see how it changes or diminishes his argument at all.

Ah, well. I've said my piece on that point.

That's why I don't think Bagley's alleged slander has been proven bogus and dishonest, which is why I think nobody is paying attention to it.

Honestly, I don't think there are that many people interested in the subject. And of those that are, many are are critics of the Church and so aren't inclined to pay attention to LDS rebuttals of Bagley's claims. And of those that are interested and are LDS, there has been some attention paid. Crockett. Coates. Reeve. Parshall. Pahoran. LoaP. Scott Lloyd. Me.

-Smac

[J Green]

If Brigham was looking ahead to the possibility that the army would first invade Salt Lake City and then head south to occupy other Mormon settlements, then the "southern route" could have direct reference to the army. Also, part of the Church's resistance strategy was to abandon Salt Lake City and make the "move south." In fact, they did this. If the army were to pursue them, then the "southern route" instructions would have application there as well.

Certainly a good possibility, Scott. And I think the DH passage reads well this way.

Regards

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, that's the lovely thing about sly implications. Bagley implies, we infer.

Bagley thinks that Huntington's recollection of the September 1 meeting implicates Brigham Young in planning the massacre. He pretty much treats the inculpatory value of the journal excerpt as a self-evident thing.

Smac, I'm still trying to figure out Bagley's escape hatch he says he transcribed from the Huntington papers:

20 [september 1857] Arapene came to see Brigham Brigham told him now was the time to helps himself to what he wanted but he sayes he was a squaw he sayes the Americans had not hurt him & he did not want to hurt them but if they would only hurt one of his men then he would wake up he told me that the Piedes had killed [19] the whole of an Emigrant Company & took all of their stock & it was right that was before the news had reached the City he sayed he would go off & stand still & see how the Battle went I told him he might go as far as he could get but the Lord would fetch him out & he must doo the work that God & the prophets had said they must & Josephs Blood had got to be Avenged & they had got to help to do it [20]

Do you see where Bagley has used this in BOTP? Or where any reviews have responded?

[gtaggart]

Yes Bagley interprets that Young encouraged the Indians to attack. But he made that argument without the "allies" reference. If you interpret the grains reading as meaning the Indians were reluctant, then it furthers Bagley's overall argument that it was the Mormons who instigated it and that the Indians were reluctant. Good job Scott! You have demonstrated how the grains reading reinforces Bagley's argument! Ok, back to the real issue. Again I ask, what meaning does Bagley place on the passage and how does he use it to make his argument? If you place grains in the right place, what does Bagley have to change in his argument? Show me from the text of the book, I provided it above.

It has become obvious no one here can answer these questions and can't demonstrate from the text how the "allies" word has any bearing on the argument Bagley makes in his book. All of the silence on trying to answer that question has become deafening. So I won't gloat and force you guys to admit I have PROVED my case beyond doubt, buy now that it has been established that the word "allies" or "grains" has no bearing on the argument of the book, lets move on to the next question.

Why would Bagley deliberately change a word that has no bearing on his argument?

Re the bolded part: No he didn't. He laid out the Dimick quote, bad interpolation and all, for his readers to see. That he didn't refer to the word "allies" in his argument doesn't fully respond to the fact that the word "allies" in the quote supports his argument whereas the word "grain" doesn't. The word "allies" implies that the Paiutes were willing to fight for the cattle, while the word "grain" says they'd rather farm than fight.

[Zakuska]

I've said this before: I don't get Bagley's argument about cattle-rustling. I don't see how he goes from BY and cattle rustling to BY and massacring emigrants. The causal link between instructions to rustle cattle and instructions to massacre emigrants is not self-evidence.

Is there any indication that the cattle were in the corral of wagons with the armed Emigrants?

If the objective were the cattle there would have been no reason to continue once the cattle were rustled from them.

[gtaggart]

False, not one person here has really engaged the text, not one. I have proven the exact opposite theory false and that Bagley never once implements the "allies" sentence into the argument.

I repeat (see post #271): Not true. The fact that he put the Dimick journal entry front and center in his book--even trumpeted it as new and compelling evidence, bad interpolation and all--makes it part of his argument, whether he referred to the word "allies"in what he wrote or not. Or is he such a dimwit that he wouldn't think that his readers might want to read the new and compelling evidence for themselves? Point. Set. Match.

[USU78]

I've said this before: I don't get Bagley's argument about cattle-rustling. I don't see how he goes from BY and cattle rustling to BY and massacring emigrants. The causal link between instructions to rustle cattle and instructions to massacre emigrants is not self-evidence.

You seem to be getting a little

, smac. I get it.

[J Green]

Do you see where Bagley has used this in BOTP? Or where any reviews have responded?

LOAP,

Bagley doesn't give us DH's quote straight in BOTP. He gives us this:

Arapeen, "head chief of the Utahs," brought Young definitive word of the massacre on September 20, 1857. He told the prophet how "the Piedes had killed the whole of an Emigrant Company & took all of their stock." Young encouraged Arapeen to help "himself to what he wanted," but Arapeen's hesitation led the governor to call the Ute leader a squaw. Arapeen countered that the Americans had not hurt him, but if they hurt one of his men "then he would wake up." He would maintain his neutrality and "go off & stand still & see how the battle went." Huntington warned he "he might go as far as he could get but the Lord would fetch him out & he must doo the work that God & the prophets had said they must," Brigham Young's interpreter wrote. "Josephs Blood had got to be avenged & they had got to help do it." For Brigham Young and his followers, the massacre at Mountain Meadows was a battle won, but the war went on. (Bagley, 170)

I googled the DH passage as you've given it and what I found was Kent Fielding's The unsolicited chronicler: an account of the Gunnison massacre, its causes and consequences, Utah Territory, 1847-1859 : a narrative history. Google only has a short clip here.

Regards