Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


smac97

Recommended Posts

Interpolation? He treated it as a restoration. The question would then be whether it was accurate. It turned out that it was not, but that is not the point of the discussion. The point of this discussion is whether he is somehow a bad scholar for having done this. Unless you are privy to the conditions under which he made this "restoration," then you are not really justified in impugning his honesty on the issue.

One generally makes such tentative restorations and marks them with brackets and the like to indicate honestly that it is an arguable point. If he wanted to be dishonest, he probably would have excluded the brackets.

I've not said in this thread that he was dishonest; only careless and reckless.

And what you are saying in effect is that Bagley thought Huntington should have written "allies," even though he didn't. And that's what I've been saying. Bagley's preconceptions colored his perception.

Again, look at the graphic. Even allowing for illegibility of an aging document, how do you get anything even remotely close to "allies" out of "grain"?

Link to comment

No, Scott. People rely on their notes all the time. People are prone to error. Few are so precious as to suggest this is all inexcusable somehow.

Well, I gotta run. I'll check in later.

Historians are accountable for for the accuracy of their work. Reputable historians take pains to ensure that accuracy. If and when they fail, they freely and transparently acknowledge error; they don't try to slide it under the radar.

Link to comment

His conclusion thereby loses documentary support. If the Indians were going to raise "allies," it would support the conclusion that they intended to attack the Fancher train; if they were going to raise grain, then there would be no such support.

And Bagley's weak conjecture alleging Brigham Young's complicity can ill afford to lose support.

This claim of "[h]e understood it was likely that innocent women and children would die in the Indian attacks" is definitely weakened if the tribes had stated there wouldn't be any "Indian attacks".
Link to comment

I got to page five on this thread and I have to wonder. Just how many of you have actually read the books in question? Have you read Will Bagley's book--or just the review? Have you read "Massacre" or just the threads about it?

Will Bagley's book is well researched. I did not agree with many of his conclusions or the way he presented the information, but at least I could read the references myself and there were footnotes galore. I like that.

I also appreciated reading Bob's review--it helped me see some of the areas Bagley didn't cover and I enjoyed the lawyer persective he brought to it. I also appreciated his footnotes--lots of good stuff.

I really enjoyed "Massacre" because it was objective. But I'm annoyed they haven't finished the second volume--I'm tired of waiting for it.

And as for the whole raise "grain" vs. raise "allies", I think while the word changes the meaning of the sentence, it's not worth all this vitriol. In "Massacre", the authors acknowledge Brigham Young wanted the Indians as allies against the coming army.

This is what we should expect from Brigham Young, he was not one to be caught off guard or not have a plan. And for all they knew, the Fed. Govt. had declared war against the saints and they were going to be destroyed. They would have been foolish not to try and get the Indians on their side so that they could defend themselves better.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure Will Bagley has said it was a mistake, not a deliberate falsification and throwing around accusations of deliberately falsifying is misrepresenting the situation.

Link to comment
Furthermore, the passage still demonstrates a reluctance but slight willingness to fight, but in one they seem to suggest they will raise allies to fight.

How so? With "grains" the tribes are not the "we" in the "we might fight" but rather they are telling the Mormons to do their own fighting (the "we" being the group that the "I" belongs to).
Link to comment

How so? With "grains" the tribes are not the "we" in the "we might fight" but rather they are telling the Mormons to do their own fighting (the "we" being the group that the "I" belongs to).

That is ridiculous! What difference does the word grains or allies have any bearing on the "we" in the passage? You can argue all day over the "I" and the "we," it is a choppy passage, but the word allies or grains has nothing to with who the "I" or the "we" is in the passage. Not that your interpretation matters, what is important to the argument is how does Bagley interpret the passage an how does he use it to further his argument. Again, 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?

Link to comment

How so? With "grains" the tribes are not the "we" in the "we might fight" but rather they are telling the Mormons to do their own fighting (the "we" being the group that the "I" belongs to).

That's how I read it as well. The Indians are saying that, instead of going to the trouble of stealing the cattle, they will raise grain instead.

Link to comment

That is ridiculous! What difference does the word grains or allies have any bearing on the "we" in the passage? You can argue all day over the "I" and the "we," it is a choppy passage, but the word allies or grains has nothing to with who the "I" or the "we" is in the passage. Not that your interpretation matters, what is important to the argument is how does Bagley interpret the passage an how does he use it to further his argument. Again, 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?

Bagley, of course, interprets it to say Brigham Young is telling the Indians to attack the wagon train. Which is why he needs the passage to read "allies" and not "grain".

Link to comment

Again, to the degree the change supports Bagley's stated purpose of deliberately trying to prove that Young ordered the massacre, it implicates him as a worse and worse scholar in that instance.

To call it a "change" is to suggest it was clear, even to him, that it was something else before he suggested the restoration. This is precisely what we do not know. Everyone is prone to restoring documents in accordance with their understanding of the context. That is simply how it usually falls out. That you imagine this making him "a worse and worse scholar" in this instance is an exaggeration. You do not have sufficient information to judge. You were not with him when he made this restoration. You have not seen the document that he saw as he saw it.

Confirmation bias is a phrase that has been much bandied about on these boards. Everyone is prone to it. It fits this situation quite well, without going to the silly hyperbole of calling him "a worse and worse scholar."

Link to comment

That's how I read it as well. The Indians are saying that, instead of going to the trouble of stealing the cattle, they will raise grain instead.

It seems an awkward reading to me for them to state on the one hand they are afraid to fight the Americans and instead are going to raise grain...thus removing their need for the cattle and a pretty clear statement of choosing peaceful coexistence over stealing and then make the comment that they might fight anyway, while it makes clear sense that the person reporting is told they--the tribes---are planning on raising grain instead of stealing but that the Mormons might fight if they are so inclined but with what appears to me a clear statement they would be doing it on their own.

The point of this argument being that Brigham Young, if he was at that meeting, would have left with the belief that the Mormons were more or less on their own in the South at least, iow "his plan to stop overland emigration on the southern road" was a nonstarter. (and the comment about being afraid of the Americans directly contradicts the comment in the BY journal about being barely able to restrain them from exterminating so I am wondering now if that comment even refers to the same meeting as IIRC there is a debate whether or not BY (have I misread the comment, is he referring to two meetings one on the 1st and the other on a Tuesday or is it the same date...got to go review my book on this one and stop just relying on memory.)

Link to comment

To call it a "change" is to suggest it was clear, even to him, that it was something else before he suggested the restoration. This is precisely what we do not know. Everyone is prone to restoring documents in accordance with their understanding of the context. That is simply how it usually falls out. That you imagine this making him "a worse and worse scholar" in this instance is an exaggeration. You do not have sufficient information to judge. You were not with him when he made this restoration. You have not seen the document that he saw as he saw it.

Confirmation bias is a phrase that has been much bandied about on these boards. Everyone is prone to it. It fits this situation quite well, without going to the silly hyperbole of calling him "a worse and worse scholar."

"Confirmation bias" works for me as applied to this instance. I just think professional historians -- like professional journalists -- should strive to rise above it, even accounting for individual biases and prejudices. Can we agree on that much?

Link to comment

That is ridiculous! What difference does the word grains or allies have any bearing on the "we" in the passage? You can argue all day over the "I" and the "we," it is a choppy passage, but the word allies or grains has nothing to with who the "I" or the "we" is in the passage. Not that your interpretation matters, what is important to the argument is how does Bagley interpret the passage an how does he use it to further his argument. Again, 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?

Its a pivital point when Bagley starts accusing BY of not being completely honest.

Link to comment

It seems an awkward reading to me for them to state on the one hand they are afraid to fight the Americans and instead are going to raise grain...thus removing their need for the cattle and a pretty clear statement of choosing peaceful coexistence over stealing and then make the comment that they might fight anyway, while it makes clear sense that the person reporting is told they--the tribes---are planning on raising grain instead of stealing but that the Mormons might fight if they are so inclined but with what appears to me a clear statement they would be doing it on their own.

The point of this argument being that Brigham Young, if he was at that meeting, would have left with the belief that the Mormons were more or less on their own in the South at least, iow "his plan to stop overland emigration on the southern road" was a nonstarter.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Even so, I understand the members of the emigrant trains were often their own worst enemies with their reckless behavior toward the Indians, so Brigham Young's change in policy whereby he refused to continue to restrain the tribes could be viewed as an act of passive resistance to the coming of Johnston's Army.

Link to comment

And what you are saying in effect is that Bagley thought Huntington should have written "allies," even though he didn't. And that's what I've been saying. Bagley's preconceptions colored his perception.

Again, look at the graphic. Even allowing for illegibility of an aging document, how do you get anything even remotely close to "allies" out of "grain"?

No, that is not what I am saying, and if you are aware of the process of reading manuscripts in bad condition or fragmentary/damaged inscriptions, then you understand that this is not how it works. When a person runs across a partially legible or illegible portion of the text, they offer a learned suggestion for the restoration of the missing or illegible portion. That is quite a different thing from simply placing words in Huntington's mouth willy-nilly. There is nothing illegitimate, slack, or dishonest in doing this. It is simply part of the process of working with imperfect documents.

Obviously his understanding of the context guided him in his perception and judgment. The question that has been at issue in this thread is the degree to which he is culpable for making what is, after all, probably a fairly minor error.

As for the graphic, I did look at it. And I have commented that I do not know the process by which the graphic was made. It could have been enhanced. To know how Bailey got "allies" out of grain, one would probably have to look at the same copy under the same conditions as Bagley. Your imagination is not sufficient.

Link to comment

Historians are accountable for for the accuracy of their work. Reputable historians take pains to ensure that accuracy. If and when they fail, they freely and transparently acknowledge error; they don't try to slide it under the radar.

In an ideal world, sure. We would all love to have the time to correct every error, to make everything perfectly clear, etc. I have run across similar issues frequently in my field. I recall reading a commentary that relied entirely on a previous scholar's notes about a manuscript. I argued against a particular reading based on these notes at a conference, only to find later that the scholar backed away from his previous reading. Did he make an announcement to the world? Did he say, in "Book X" I mistakenly once thought it read "Y"? No. Do I think he is a disreputable hack? No. He is a human being and still a decent scholar.

Link to comment

To call it a "change" is to suggest it was clear, even to him, that it was something else before he suggested the restoration. This is precisely what we do not know. Everyone is prone to restoring documents in accordance with their understanding of the context. That is simply how it usually falls out. That you imagine this making him "a worse and worse scholar" in this instance is an exaggeration. You do not have sufficient information to judge. You were not with him when he made this restoration. You have not seen the document that he saw as he saw it.

I tend to pay the utmost attention to the linchpins of an argument. If my reading of an historical event hinges largely on one bit of documentary evidence I would make damn sure I knew the document inside and out, in person, in as many ways as possible.

Confirmation bias is a phrase that has been much bandied about on these boards. Everyone is prone to it. It fits this situation quite well, without going to the silly hyperbole of calling him "a worse and worse scholar."

You forgot to quote my whole sentence. Try again.

Link to comment

Sounds reasonable to me.

Even so, I understand the members of the emigrant trains were often their own worst enemies with their reckless behavior toward the Indians, so Brigham Young's change in policy whereby he refused to continue to restrain the tribes could be viewed as an act of passive resistance to the coming of Johnston's Army.

This is what I read as the issue with Bagley's commentary here--just how "encouraging" was BY himself in the attempts to get the tribes to fight the Americans as well as is Bagley's assumption that BY was there supported by the quoted material.

Link to comment

In an ideal world, sure. We would all love to have the time to correct every error, to make everything perfectly clear, etc. I have run across similar issues frequently in my field. I recall reading a commentary that relied entirely on a previous scholar's notes about a manuscript. I argued against a particular reading based on these notes at a conference, only to find later that the scholar backed away from his previous reading. Did he make an announcement to the world? Did he say, in "Book X" I mistakenly once thought it read "Y"? No. Do I think he is a disreputable hack? No. He is a human being and still a decent scholar.

Did the scholar's misreading involve accusing someone of capital murder?

Link to comment

Bagley, of course, interprets it to say Brigham Young is telling the Indians to attack the wagon train. Which is why he needs the passage to read "allies" and not "grain".

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?

Link to comment

As for the graphic, I did look at it. And I have commented that I do not know the process by which the graphic was made. It could have been enhanced. To know how Bailey got "allies" out of grain, one would probably have to look at the same copy under the same conditions as Bagley. Your imagination is not sufficient.

Enhanced?

Link to comment

Well, maybe he didn't anticipate such a hew (sic) and cry about his restoration. Maybe, like mysteryman, he did not find that his argument was compromised by the difference.

I've seen nothing to persuade me that Bagley is even capable of such sophisticated thought. Bagley manifests a classic two-dimensional mentality. His propaganda is riddled with internal inconsistencies and contradictions. He simply lacks the capability to keep the "big picture" clear in his mind, and therefore isn't even aware of the inconsistencies he introduces into his narrative.

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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