Mountain Meadows Massacre

[why me]

Mountain Meadows Massacre

The same week that Captain Van Vliet appeared in Salt Lake City, a tragic event took place nearly three hundred miles to the south; it can best be understood in the context of the war hysteria surrounding the approach of federal troops to Utah. As soon as it was known that an army was coming, George A. Smith, who was responsible for the southern settlements, went to southern Utah to mobilize troops and put that region on war alert.¹⁰

About this same time the Fancher Train—an emigrant company composed of several families from Arkansas and a group of horsemen who called themselves the Missouri Wildcats—made its way through central Utah. They were taking the southern route to California because of the lateness of the season.¹¹Since Utah was under martial law, the party was unable to buy grain and supplies. Some of the travelers, however, pilfered from local farmers. Some also boasted about participating in the Haun’s Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith, and other mob actions against the Mormons. A few local settlers connected the group from Arkansas with the recent brutal murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in that state. Some of the Saints thought this party was a scouting or reconnoitering party in advance of the federal army.¹²

The Indian problem in southern Utah complicated these circumstances. The Saints had endeavored to cultivate good relationships with the Indians, but there was still danger. The Indians distinguished between the “Mericats” (any Americans traveling through Utah), whom they entirely distrusted, and the “Mormonee,” whom they generally liked. The possibility existed, however, that the Indians would turn on the Mormon settlers.¹³

On Tuesday, 7 September 1857, a band of Indians attacked the Fancher Train, which was camped thirty-five miles from Cedar City. The emigrants were well armed, and the Indians were forced to retreat.

Meanwhile, the citizens in Cedar City had met and discussed what course to pursue relative to the Fancher Train. Some of those with quicker tempers argued that the emigrants should be destroyed. They were afraid the emigrants might join a California-based army and fight against the Saints as they had publicly threatened to do. It was decided to dispatch a messenger, James Haslam, to seek the advice of Brigham Young. With little rest or sleep, Haslam reached Salt Lake City in only three days and obtained a letter from President Young urging the Saints to let the emigrants go in peace. As Haslam left Salt Lake City, Brigham urged, “Go with all speed, spare no horse flesh. The emigrants must not be meddled with, if it takes all Iron county to prevent it. They must go free and unmolested.”¹⁴Haslam hastened to Cedar City, arriving on Sunday, 13 September, two days too late.

John D. Lee, who had been appointed “Indian Farmer” by Brigham Young in the absence of Jacob Hamblin, the Indian agent, had been sent to quiet the Indians. He arrived at the Indian camp shortly after the first skirmish between them and the emigrants had occurred. Finding the Indians highly excited, Lee was in the dangerous situation of being the only white man present. He finally convinced the Indians that they would get their revenge, and he was allowed to leave.

Later that night, more Indians arrived at the camp together with a few white men from Cedar City. Sometime during the night, a diabolical plan was concocted, partly to placate the angry Indians. The next day, the morning of 11 September, the whites promised the emigrants protection if they would give up their weapons. The men of the Iron County militia, acting under orders from their local commanders, killed the men, while Indians slew the women and older children, approximately 120 in all. Only eighteen very young children were spared. They were later returned, with government help, to relatives in the East.¹⁵

The dead were buried in shallow graves, and commitments were made to blame the massacre entirely upon the Indians. More than two weeks after the tragedy, John D. Lee was sent to Salt Lake City to report the incident to Brigham Young. Lee placed all the blame on the Indians as had previously been agreed. Later Brigham Young learned that members of the Iron County militia had been full participants in the affair. He offered Governor Alfred Cumming full support in an investigation, but none was undertaken at the time because the Mormons had been pardoned for all alleged crimes in connection with the Utah War.¹⁶

For the next two decades, rumors and allegations continued to circulate, and finally the case came to trial in the 1870s. John D. Lee, a key participant, but certainly not the only officer responsible for the deed, was the only Latter-day Saint indicted. Lee was tried twice. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. Lee was finally convicted in September 1876 and a year later was taken by federal officials to the area of Mountain Meadows and executed.

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-nine-the-utah-war?lang=eng

I think that when the background is known of the event and the situation that the saints faced from the east and from the west, the event becomes more clear. But one thing I can now say is: the church is not hiding its history.

[blackstrap]

And that was essentially what I was taught in Seminary 50 years ago.

[Nevo]

I think that when the background is known of the event and the situation that the saints faced from the east and from the west, the event becomes more clear. But one thing I can now say is: the church is not hiding its history.

Unfortunately this version of the story is pretty inaccurate and barely improves on Joseph Fielding Smith's claim that the massacre "was the deed of enraged Indians aided by a number of white men" (Essentials in Church History, 511). A much better example of the Church's commitment to transparency on the subject is the publication of Richard E. Turley Jr.'s article, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," in the September 2007 Ensign. Turley notes that the traditional story that "Indians became enraged and followed the emigrants to the Mountain Meadows, where they either committed the atrocities on their own or forced fearful Latter-day Saint settlers to join them in the attack...[is] not accurate." It was "Cedar City leaders"—not Indians—who planned the initial attack and who took the decision to massacre the entire company. It was whites who pressured the Indians to participate rather than the other way around.

The Church has been very open and honest about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But then it can afford to be since nothing important is at stake: Brigham Young did not order the attack, and in fact tried to prevent it. The real test is whether the Church can be completely transparent about things that might actually tend to undermine members' testimonies.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Nevo

[swfarnsworth]

Are you kidding? Brigham obviously ordered the attack! It says so on this website that obviously has no bias or alterior motives! http://1857massacre.com/

/s

[why me]

Unfortunately this version of the story is pretty inaccurate and barely improves on Joseph Fielding Smith's claim that the massacre "was the deed of enraged Indians aided by a number of white men" (Essentials in Church History, 511). A much better example of the Church's commitment to transparency on the subject is the publication of Richard E. Turley Jr.'s article, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," in the September 2007 Ensign.

From my quotation:

Meanwhile, the citizens in Cedar City had met and discussed what course to pursue relative to the Fancher Train. Some of those with quicker tempers argued that the emigrants should be destroyed. They were afraid the emigrants might join a California-based army and fight against the Saints as they had publicly threatened to do

I don't see this version different from your own. I think that the quotation pretty much covers the possibilities. History is always open to interpretation. My point was simple: the massacre is taught. Some exlds begin to doubt because they claim that the church hides this aspect of its history.

[Bob Crockett]

Several inaccuracies in this church statement. I will comment on two. The statement says that only one was indicted, John D. Lee. However, I am not aware of any grand jury ever indicting anybody for the crime. Instead, Judge Cradelbaugh issued arrest warrants on his own initiative (an unlawful process, really) for several people, including John D. Lee. Four or 5 different people were eventually arrested, including John D. Lee. By the first day of the first trial, all of the arrestees were released except for Stake President William Dame and former Indian agent John D. Lee.

On the first day of the first trial (or perhaps the day before), the charges were dismissed against Dame so that jeopardy would not attach (thus reserving the right to future prosecution) and trial proceeded only against Lee.

He offered Governor Alfred Cumming full support in an investigation, but none was undertaken at the time because the Mormons had been pardoned for all alleged crimes in connection with the Utah War.

This isn't all that accurate. Half the government prosecutors believed the amnesty covered the massacre, the others did not. They fought among themselves over jurisdiction and then the civil war intervened and hauled everybody away. Federal marshals were still, at various times, investigating the crime. At one time, Brigham Young through a representative told the federal marshal that the Mormon territorial marshal could arrest the perps and bring them to justice because he knew where they were, or could find them, but the marshal refused to deputize the Mormon out of sheer hatred of the Mormons. Every time the federal marshals came to southern Utah to effect arrest, the Mormons closed ranks and helped their fathers and brothers escape.

Remarkably, at the very same time the perps were evading the U.S Marshal service with the help of family members, some of the perps were on the federal payroll as guides to the Powell expedition. The federal surveyors knew full well the perps were wanted men. The diaries of the expedition showed that the federal surveyors would play pranks on their guides to make them think that the marshals were in the area

The number of inaccuracies in the statement demonstrates that the Church does not have a divine mandate to report out its history, but only to maintain a faithful history. The archives can be as much of a mystery often to professional historians as to lay persons. I was invited to meet with Rick Turley and several archivists as they were working on one phase of the first book (there is no other), and it was interesting to see how they reacted to reading some Brigham Young letterbooks for the first time -- the different takes on them, the inconsistencies, the differences. (Often the letterbooks are undecipherable; crabbed handwriting and faded ink.) My take on reading the letterbooks was that Brigham Young was as clueless about the massacre as most other informed persons for the first few months after the massacre. I didn't cite to any of those letters in my article because it was in editing at the time and I didn't want to add more material.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[why me]

The number of inaccuracies in the statement demonstrates that the Church does not have a divine mandate to report out its history, but only to maintain a faithful history. The archives can be as much of a mystery often to professional historians as to lay persons.

As you knw bob history is open to interpretation and also revised according to new discoveries. And it is open to those who write it. All of this as nothing to do with maintaining a faithful history, but it does have to do with knowledge and what to explain to young people and how. Maybe that section of the manual will be revised based on new information.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't think there is a need to make some details clear. Whether somebody was indicted or arrested on the basis of a judge's warrant is not important. That fact however is not subject to interpretation. Either there was a grand jury or there was not. It does show that massacre historians are often clueless.

[Rivers]

All I can say is that I am very much looking forward to the sequel to Massacre at Mountain Meadows. I am very eager to learn more about the aftermath of the massacre. Anybody have any idea when After the Massacre will be finished?

[happy]

Are you kidding? Brigham obviously ordered the attack! It says so on this website that obviously has no bias or alterior motives! http://1857massacre.com/

/s

All that intense dialogue. I was moved. Either the director was psychic, had a time machine, or some journel was found I don't know about.

[cinepro]

All I can say is that I am very much looking forward to the sequel to Massacre at Mountain Meadows. I am very eager to learn more about the aftermath of the massacre. Anybody have any idea when After the Massacre will be finished?

I'm not sure what Bob meant by this, but hopefully he wasn't saying that there wouldn't be a second book:

I was invited to meet with Rick Turley and several archivists as they were working on one phase of the first book (there is no other),

[emeliza]

Since Utah was under martial law, the party was unable to buy grain and supplies. Some of the travelers, however, pilfered from local farmers. Some also boasted about participating in the Haun’s Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith, and other mob actions against the Mormons. A few local settlers connected the group from Arkansas with the recent brutal murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in that state. Some of the Saints thought this party was a scouting or reconnoitering party in advance of the federal army.¹²

I am trying to remember the book that was published on this a few years ago by church historians. The underlined is not what I am remembering.

On Tuesday, 7 September 1857, a band of Indians attacked the Fancher Train, which was camped thirty-five miles from Cedar City. The emigrants were well armed, and the Indians were forced to retreat. Later that night, more Indians arrived at the camp together with a few white men from Cedar City. Sometime during the night, a diabolical plan was concocted, partly to placate the angry Indians. The next day, the morning of 11 September, the whites promised the emigrants protection if they would give up their weapons. The men of the Iron County militia, acting under orders from their local commanders, killed the men, while Indians slew the women and older children, approximately 120 in all.

If it was done to partly to placate the angry Indians, that was an incredibly small part. Also I don't recall reading that the Indians were the ones to kill the women and children. My, possibly bad, memory recalls that the Indians stepped out of the ordeal fairly early on and were only a party to it because they were promised the emmigrants stuff and it was a really bad year for them.

[Tacenda]

Since Utah was under martial law, the party was unable to buy grain and supplies. Some of the travelers, however, pilfered from local farmers. Some also boasted about participating in the Haun’s Mill Massacre, the murder of Joseph Smith, and other mob actions against the Mormons. A few local settlers connected the group from Arkansas with the recent brutal murder of Elder Parley P. Pratt in that state. Some of the Saints thought this party was a scouting or reconnoitering party in advance of the federal army.¹²

I am trying to remember the book that was published on this a few years ago by church historians. The underlined is not what I am remembering.

On Tuesday, 7 September 1857, a band of Indians attacked the Fancher Train, which was camped thirty-five miles from Cedar City. The emigrants were well armed, and the Indians were forced to retreat. Later that night, more Indians arrived at the camp together with a few white men from Cedar City. Sometime during the night, a diabolical plan was concocted, partly to placate the angry Indians. The next day, the morning of 11 September, the whites promised the emigrants protection if they would give up their weapons. The men of the Iron County militia, acting under orders from their local commanders, killed the men, while Indians slew the women and older children, approximately 120 in all.

If it was done to partly to placate the angry Indians, that was an incredibly small part. Also I don't recall reading that the Indians were the ones to kill the women and children. My, possibly bad, memory recalls that the Indians stepped out of the ordeal fairly early on and were only a party to it because they were promised the emmigrants stuff and it was a really bad year for them.

I don't believe the underlined statements either. I think there was some misrepresentation here.

[why me]

I don't believe the underlined statements either. I think there was some misrepresentation here.

The account was taken from Leonard Arrington's and david Britton's book The Mormon Experience page 167. In fact, it may have been written by Leonard.

[Tacenda]

The account was taken from Leonard Arrington's and david Britton's book The Mormon Experience page 167. In fact, it may have been written by Leonard.

I've read somewhere that some white men killed women and children also. I don't have the reference right now. But could probably find one.

[Tacenda]

The account was taken from Leonard Arrington's and david Britton's book The Mormon Experience page 167. In fact, it may have been written by Leonard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

"The men were paired with a militia escort. When a signal was given, the militiamen turned and shot the male members of the Baker-Fancher party standing by their side. The women and children were then ambushed and killed by more militia that were hiding in nearby bushes and ravines. Members of the militia were sworn to secrecy. A plan was set to blame the massacre on the Native Americans."

[why me]

I've read somewhere that some white men killed women and children also. I don't have the reference right now. But could probably find one.

I think that when the manual was written they may have relied on Leonard Arrington. He was the church historian, I believe. His book that I listed is almost exactly as the manual with MMM. Of course, as more information is uncovered, there should be a rewrite. And Leonard was not known to whitewash lds history. There is no misrepresentation intended.

[why me]

http://en.wikipedia....eadows_massacre

"The men were paired with a militia escort. When a signal was given, the militiamen turned and shot the male members of the Baker-Fancher party standing by their side. The women and children were then ambushed and killed by more militia that were hiding in nearby bushes and ravines. Members of the militia were sworn to secrecy. A plan was set to blame the massacre on the Native Americans."

That description is too brief, especially about the Indians. More more was involved than what is written there.

[why me]

I think that when the manual was written they may have relied on Leonard Arrington. He was the church historian until he was released, I believe. His book that I listed is almost exactly as the manual with MMM. Of course, as more information is uncovered, there should be a rewrite. And Leonard was not known to whitewash lds history. There is no misrepresentation intended. His book was published by Knopf. I think that when he was released as church historian, things took a turn for the worse when it came to church history. Leonard was a great church historian.

http://www.amazon.co...Y/dp/0252062361

I included the link to his book.

Edited September 17, 2012 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that when the manual was written they may have relied on Leonard Arrington. He was the church historian, I believe. His book that I listed is almost exactly as the manual with MMM. Of course, as more information is uncovered, there should be a rewrite. And Leonard was not known to whitewash lds history. There is no misrepresentation intended.

It's to be expected that in the examination of most any historic event, as time passes more information will be found and improved analysis will transpire. And we can nitpick all day about the accuracy of this or that tidbit in decades-old publications.

But Why Me's premise in the opening post (as I understand it) remains solid.

When the book by Turley, Walker and Leonard came out, some of the critics were, in effect, hailing it as the Mormons at last coming clean regarding Mountain Meadows. What this selection from the Church Educational System text and the much earlier treatment by B. H. Roberts in Comprehensive History of the Church -- remarkably candid in itself -- show is that good faith efforts by the Church to present the facts of the incident did not start with Turley, et. al.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I think that when the manual was written they may have relied on Leonard Arrington. He was the church historian until he was released, I believe. His book that I listed is almost exactly as the manual with MMM. Of course, as more information is uncovered, there should be a rewrite. And Leonard was not known to whitewash lds history. There is no misrepresentation intended. His book was published by Knopf. I think that when he was released as church historian, things took a turn for the worse when it came to church history. Leonard was a great church historian.

http://www.amazon.co...Y/dp/0252062361

I included the link to his book.

Have you read this book? Do you think there might be a bias here since he is LDS? Just as so many LDS take what critics say with a grain of salt.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is no misrepresentation intended. His book was published by Knopf. I think that when he was released as church historian, things took a turn for the worse when it came to church history. Leonard was a great church historian.

Leonard had his talents.

But I think your assertion does a disservice to the strides that have been made in the Church History Department since then, especially under the leadership of Elder Marlin K. Jensen as Church Historian/Recorder and with the development of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, etc.

The book that has been mentioned in this thread about Mountain Meadows is an example of the quality of output of the Church History Department today, as it was co-authored by the man who was the managing director of the department at the time and who today is the Assistant Church Historian/Recorder.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[emeliza]

Have you read this book? Do you think there might be a bias here since he is LDS? Just as so many LDS take what critics say with a grain of salt.

I think this is the best book out there with information so far (link below). It was also written by LDS members, but I don't believe it is all that bias. I thought it gave it like it was, just like Bushman did with Joseph Smith. I think one difference between Leonard Arrington and the new book linked below is that these three men took years to complie the information and they had and used full access to the church vault. I am not sure if Leonard Arrington had the time, energy or same resources.

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0195160347

Edited September 17, 2012 by emeliza

[Tacenda]

I think this is the best book out there with information so far (link below). It was also written by LDS members, but I don't believe it is all that bias. I thought it gave it like it was, just like Bushman did with Joseph Smith. I think one difference between Leonard Arrington and the new book linked below is that these three men took years to complie the information and they had and used full access to the church vault. I am not sure if Leonard Arrington had the time, energy or same resources.

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0195160347

Ok, thank you!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've read somewhere that some white men killed women and children also. I don't have the reference right now. But could probably find one.

Yes they did...it is a tradgey like few otthers.