1838 executive order to exterminate Mormons!

[mapman]

Ceeboo:

Obviously this is an emotional topic for Mormons especially those with Mormon families going back to the days when these types of things happened. Our focus on family and genealog at least for me gives me an emotional bond with my ancestors. I grew up hearing in church and at my home stories of how my ancestors were treated in Missouri and Illinois. For example one story I heard a few times was that of Anson Call. I don't remember if it was in Missouri or Nauvoo, but it shows the kind of things that the Mormons had to face at the time. Anson came home one day to find that his home was on fire. He went out in the cornfield where he finally found his family, including a baby, hiding out in the cold night air. They had to leave the place with what they had on their backs.

What the Saints had to face was horrible and unfortunately some did not face it as well as they should've. There was some Mormon violence with the Danites (which Joseph Smith did not approve of) and I think that Sidney Rigdon's 4th of July Speech and Salt Sermon were not wise.

However I think that the main reason for the violence was intolerance and misunderstanding of Mormon beliefs, and the extermination order was in no way justified.

[frankenstein]

Are you claiming that the US military gives it's soldiers license to rape?

are not you the one who has attempted to pronounce your astounding perceptions and deduction of "logic" and reading comprehension? perhaps you need to revisit those logic and reading courses you have allege to have taken. I believe ErayE has addressed the absurdity you propose.

[cinepro]

From the Wikipedia entry...

Late in the evening of October 24, 1838, Captain Samuel Bogart of the Missouri state militia patrolled the northern part of Ray County, and Buncombe's Strip, a 6 mile strip of land between Ray and Caldwell County that was administered by Ray County. He "accosted at least two Mormon settlers in their homes, ordering them to leave the state, and took three Mormons prisoner,"[20] taking them to the state militia camp at Crooked River just down the road from the Mormon spy headquarters in Parson's home. One of the members of the Mormon Arson and Destruction Company was Thoret Parsons, who was told by Bogart that he was free to go, but had "to leave by ten o'clock the next day and remarked that he expected to give Far West "hell" before noon the next day."[21] Captain David Patten led a detachment of Mormon Danites[citation needed] to rescue the prisoners,[22] resulting in four fatalities: three among the Mormons (including Patten) and one from the state militia, an incident that became known as the Battle of Crooked River.[20] An exaggerated report was sent to Governor Lilburn Boggs which stated that "Captain Bogart and all his company, amounting to between fifty and sixty men, were massacred at Buncombe, twelve miles north of Richmond, except three," and that Richmond was "to be laid in ashes this morning."[23] Boggs, who just a few hours before had received word of the Mormon destruction of Daviess County, concluded that the Mormons were at war against the State and should be removed altogether. Missouri Executive Order 44 was issued October 27, to General John B. Clark of the Missouri State Militia.

While I obviously don't agree with his actions, if Governor Boggs really believed the reports he had heard, I don't blame him for his actions.

[ttribe]

From the Wikipedia entry...

While I obviously don't agree with his actions, if Governor Boggs really believed the reports he had heard, I don't blame him for his actions.

Uggh.

[the narrator]

are not you the one who has attempted to pronounce your astounding perceptions and deduction of "logic" and reading comprehension? perhaps you need to revisit those logic and reading courses you have allege to have taken.

touche.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Uggh.

(Shakes head). There was a girl walking down the street wearing slutty clothes and drunk at 2 am in the morming . She got raped. I told the guy that did it that I didn't agree with his actions but I don't blame him for doing it.

[the narrator]

How do you reconcile the negative facts you choose to read about, with your faith as an LDS member?

i don't feel a need to do any reconciling. i simply remember that Mormons are human.

Do you also read publications by LDS authors (and I don't mean Quinn).

Yes, including historians such as Richard Bushman (who I am currently studying with), Davis Bitton (whose book I just edited), Mark Staker (whose book I just edited), and Leland Gentry (whose book I just edited).

[blueadept]

However I think that the main reason for the violence was intolerance and misunderstanding of Mormon beliefs,

IMO, there's much more to the story of why hostilities were growing between Mormons and the Missouri state government besides simple 'misunderstandings' of the LDS faith. It's well stated of all the positive things that Mormons can bring to a new community. There is more to the story...

and the extermination order was in no way justified.

agreed

[the narrator]

(Shakes head). There was a girl walking down the street wearing slutty clothes and drunk at 2 am in the morming . She got raped. I told the guy that did it that I didn't agree with his actions but I don't blame him for doing it.

You've completely completely missed the point.

If Boggs thought the Mormons were waging war against the Missourians, then it would have been his duty to defend the state.

Your analogy should have been.

"There was a man who thought he saw someone about to rape a girl. He attacked the possible rapist. I told the guy that did it that I didn't agree with his actions but I don't blame him for doing it."

And I'm really done now.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You've completely completely missed the point.

Perhaps. I think the break down in communication is that when people say things such as "The church has a purcecution complex" Or "I don't blame him". We think you all are tying to give a justification for what they did. I can't forsee any reason why some one would issue a blanket extermination order on a group of people if only 60 or 70 were inovled. That is the break down I see. I can't understand or relate to that action. You guys can I guess and that is were the break down is.

If Boggs thought the Mormons were waging war against the Missourians, then it would have been his duty to defend the state.

I don't think that this case can be made that the Mormons were waging war. I think a case could be made that 60-70 were waging a war. And even then that might be a strech. I don't wish to debate the latter part though.

Your analogy should have been.

"There was a man who thought he saw someone about to rape a girl. He attacked the possible rapist. I told the guy that did it that I didn't agree with his actions but I don't blame him for doing it."

This is good actually. I think we could even one up it. We could say that the guy shot the alleged rapist instead of attacked him. Even then for me I could not say to the guy that shot the alleged rapist that "I don't blame you for wanting to protect the drunk girl and shooting the alledge rapist". My reaction would be" Why did you not get more facts and why did you choose such a drastic action?"

And I'm really done now.

Why? We are having such a good converstation now.

[wenglund]

Right, its my fault. I said something that you don't necessarily disagree with. So I left you with no choice but to restate my opinion to something you find offense.

To use your "reasoning", the only relevant fact is whether YOUR statement inflammed the issue. It did.

Ouch...don't you just hate being bit by your own argumentational teeth. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jigglysaint]

There, that is my contribution to the subject.

[cinepro]

This is good actually. I think we could even one up it. We could say that the guy shot the alleged rapist instead of attacked him. Even then for me I could not say to the guy that shot the alleged rapist that "I don't blame you for wanting to protect the drunk girl and shooting the alledge rapist". My reaction would be" Why did you not get more facts and why did you choose such a drastic action?"

At a certain point, critiquing a military commander for decisions made in the middle of a war with limited information becomes pointless.

Certainly, you can always say that he needed more information, but what's the point? If Governor Boggs had "enough information", he probably would have joined the Church.

[ERayR]

At a certain point, critiquing a military commander for decisions made in the middle of a war with limited information becomes pointless.

Certainly, you can always say that he needed more information, but what's the point? If Governor Boggs had "enough information", he probably would have joined the Church.

If someone makes a horrendous decission with imperfect information it is still a horrendous decission and he/she is still responsible for that decission.

[ttribe]

Jaybear - unfinished business: Post Link. Do you intend to respond?

[Doctor Steuss]

At the risk of calling upon myself considerable ire:

Am I the only one seeing an interesting parallel in this thread with MMM threads (i.e. it doesn

[cinepro]

If someone makes a horrendous decission with imperfect information it is still a horrendous decission and he/she is still responsible for that decission.

So, when judging history, whose standard of "horrendousness" do we use?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

At a certain point, critiquing a military commander for decisions made in the middle of a war with limited information becomes pointless.

Certainly, you can always say that he needed more information, but what's the point? If Governor Boggs had "enough information", he probably would have joined the Church.

My main point was not really about misinformation or lack of info although that was part of it. It was at what a horrible decision he made and what he chose to do. That is what I find so interesting about this thread. I don't think there is much from the extermination order that I can understand or say "I don't blame him" on. Maybe if we were fighting in a foreign land, but he gave an excecution order for a bunch of locals. That to me seems so extreme that for me it is impossible to understand his thought process. For me, it seems that you and the Narrator understand were he was comming from, and to a certain extent can see a valid reason for doing what he did do.

On another note did Boggs ever offical go to war with the Mormons before the extermination order?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, when judging history, whose standard of "horrendousness" do we use?

Maybe Woodrow Wilson?

[cinepro]

My main point was not really about misinformation or lack of info although that was part of it. It was at what a horrible decision he made and what he chose to do. That is what I find so interesting about this thread. I don't think there is much from the extermination order that I can understand or say "I don't blame him" on. Maybe if we were fighting in a foreign land, but he gave an excecution order for a bunch of locals. That to me seems so extreme that for me it is impossible to understand his thought process. For me, it seems that you and the Narrator understand were he was comming from, and to a certain extent can see a valid reason for doing what he did do.

If the "extermination order" were instead an "expulsion order", simply telling the Mormons to leave, would that be less offensive?

Otherwise, what were the options he should have considered? What would you have done? Should he have a permanent military presence garrisoned in the area to keep the peace? If so, who should they be, and under whose command?

Should he build a physical "wall" cordoning off the settlements? Should he try to bring the two sides together in peace, signing treaties and accords? Should he treat it like a criminal matter, and send in law enforcement to investigate both sides and try to bring individuals to justice?

Obviously, I don't think kicking the Mormons out was a fair or ideal solution to the problem. And even if it were, the implementation of the removal was "horrendous". But I can understand if it seemed like the most practical solution, and ultimately (for the peace of the state and the indigenous settlers), it probably was the best one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Obviously, I don't think kicking the Mormons out was a fair or ideal solution to the problem. And even if it were, the implementation of the removal was "horrendous". But I can understand if it seemed like the most practical solution, and ultimately (for the peace of the state and the indigenous settlers), it probably was the best one.

So tell me then, under what circumstances would it be a practical solution? How can you say that it was probably the best one? That just makes no sence to me. I really can't see how this was at all practical or the best solution. That is were I am having a problem. I can't see how any one could think that it was a good solution.

Not that you think that it was but it seems you think that part of it some were was reasonable other wise you would not be arguing that you could see his point of view.

[ttribe]

Obviously, I don't think kicking the Mormons out was a fair or ideal solution to the problem. And even if it were, the implementation of the removal was "horrendous". But I can understand if it seemed like the most practical solution, and ultimately (for the peace of the state and the indigenous settlers), it probably was the best one.

If by "most practical" you mean expeditious and politically popular, then yes. Otherwise, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the idea that "kick 'em all out or kill 'em" could be characterized as the "best [solution]" under the circumstances.

[cinepro]

If by "most practical" you mean expeditious and politically popular, then yes. Otherwise, I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the idea that "kick 'em all out or kill 'em" could be characterized as the "best [solution]" under the circumstances.

ttribe and MRSR, my opinion is formed only by my inability to see any better, real-world solutions.

In other words, "the Extermination Order was the worst possible solution, except for all the others" (admitting that even Boggs should have worded it as an "expulsion" order.)

If you can think of any other realistic options that Governor Boggs had in that time and place, I'd be interested to hear them.

[Jaybear]

So tell me then, under what circumstances would it be a practical solution? How can you say that it was probably the best one? That just makes no sence to me. I really can't see how this was at all practical or the best solution. That is were I am having a problem. I can't see how any one could think that it was a good solution.

Not that you think that it was but it seems you think that part of it some were was reasonable other wise you would not be arguing that you could see his point of view.

How many people died from skirmishes between Mormons and non Mormons after the order issued?

How many people died from skirmishes before the order issued?

How would you suggest that he put an end to the skirmishes?

[Glenn101]

How many people died from skirmishes between Mormons and non Mormons after the order issued?

How many people died from skirmishes before the order issued?

How would you suggest that he put an end to the skirmishes?

Whatever the answers to your questions are ,they are irrelevant.

Do you believe that it is okay to order the expulsion of a class of people or their extinction without giving them a fair and impartial hearing? Do you believe that it is okay to give in to bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, and hatred?

I grew up in a section of the country infamous for racial intolerance. Otherwise good and honest men would think little or nothing about burning a cross or even physical violence against another of God's children because of the color of their skin. Of course it was never defined that way. It was always because such an one had done something wrong, stolen, raped, murdered, asked a white woman for a date. Mostly with little or no evidence. The situation in Missouri was very little different.

Glenn