Huffing Post Article Re: Mountain Meadows

[smac97]

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-g-turner/mountain-meadows-massacre-revisisted_b_1962285.html

A few questions and observations:

1. The article states: "In one sermon, Young equated the U.S. Army with the vigilante killers of Joseph Smith and other Mormon martyrs. '[L]ift the sword and slay them,' Young encouraged the congregation." I am unfamiliar with this quote, and the article does not source it. Does anyone know where it comes from?

2. The article states: "In the meantime, Young's representatives traveled across the territory, urging local militias to drill and telling Latter-day Saints to horde their grain and not sell it to Gentiles (i.e., non-Mormons) passing through Utah. Young also asked native leaders to join him in a possible fight against the approaching American soldiers, and he sanctioned Indian raids against non-Mormon wagon trains." What evidence is there to substantiate the last phrase, "and he sanctioned Indian raids against non-Mormon wagon trains?"

3. The article states: "What does Mountain Meadows say about Mormonism, a religion more recently associated with such anodyne figures as the Osmonds and the Romneys? The massacre says much more about the mid-19th-century state of Mormon-Gentile relations (stained with considerable blood on both sides) than it does about Mormonism as a religion per se." I find the parenthetical comment rather risible.

4. The article states: "The massacre has long stained Brigham Young's reputation among non-Mormons in particular, as many outsiders (and a few insiders) pointed accusing fingers at him once the extent of the crime became known. Given Young's authoritarian leadership of his church, it seems incredible that local leaders would perpetrate such a crime without his explicit authorization. At the same time, given his political objective of keeping the army away from Mormon settlements, there was no good reason for Young to order a massacre with the potential to focus the full fury of the American government on Utah." That's about right.

5. The article states: "Unless someone unearths the September 1857 diary of John D. Lee (the only person convicted and executed for his role in the massacre), an element of mystery will probably always surround the chain of events that led to the mass murder. Still, the existing evidence suggests that Young did not order the crime. Had he done so, it is difficult to imagine that southern Utah leaders would have spent so much time deliberating what was to be done. Moreover, when Young responded to Haight's letter, he made it clear that Mormon settlers 'must not meddle with them [the emigrants].'" Again, that's about right.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[Saints Alive]

The Huffington post's journalism is good for little more than toilet paper. I don't put stock in anything they report.

[USU78]

Eddie Haskell also likes to claim that the Beaver started it.

[USU78]

BY did have a meeting with Ute leaders, did tell them that northern shipments of grain and other supplies were fair game. This is the famous incident that the boobirds like to use to justify claiming BY authorized MMM . . . because of the Paiutes' involvement, whatever that was.

But saying to Indian chiefs A, B and C that X is welcome is not quite the same as Indian chief D doing Y being okay. Let alone Lee's and others' acts down by Cedar City.

[David T]

The Huffington post's journalism is good for little more than toilet paper. I don't put stock in anything they report.

That article was by John Turner, writer of the seminal new Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet out from Oxford University Press. He knows what he's talking about.

There's currently an indepth roundtable series in process about this book at the wonderful Mormon History blog Juvenile Instructor.

Edited October 18, 2012 by David T

[Freedom]

I think the article is actually pretty accurate, although there no sources to support his quotes which, to my knowledge, do not exist. If Brigham did say these things, every anti site in existence would be quoting but the internet seems to be silent.

[Anijen]

BY did have a meeting with Ute leaders, did tell them that northern shipments of grain and other supplies were fair game. This is the famous incident that the boobirds like to use to justify claiming BY authorized MMM . . . because of the Paiutes' involvement, whatever that was.

But saying to Indian chiefs A, B and C that X is welcome is not quite the same as Indian chief D doing Y being okay. Let alone Lee's and others' acts down by Cedar City.

Emphasis mine. We should remember that John D. Lee was the Indian Agent for the US for that area and had much influence there. After reading three different authors on the MMM I have come to the conclusion that John D. Lee was the most significant instigator of the MMM and IMO probably deserved his fate.

[Damien the Leper]

Ugh...this again?!? I wrote an ENG102 paper about MMM and with all the hours of research I did that semester, I was unable to conclude that BY had any part in it. I didn't just use Juanita Brooks' book but historical archives from Utah, Yale and Library of Congress.

[smac97]

That article was by John Turner, writer of the seminal new Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet out from Oxford University Press. He knows what he's talking about.

There's currently an indepth roundtable series in process about this book at the wonderful Mormon History blog Juvenile Instructor.

The quote Mr. Turner attributes to Brigham Young, "lift the sword and slay them," appears on page 272 of his book. The source is apparently the diary of Elias Smith.

[Emerson]

Journalism sites like HuffPo generally don't provide references as part of their style guide. All quotes Turner gives are also found in his tremendous Brigham Young biography, which everyone should read. Perhaps one reason anti sites don't use these quotes is because Turner had greater access to Church records than many in the past, and he was diligent in uncovering sources heretofore overlooked.

I didn't find anything in the article that should raise an eyebrow; all clames and analysis was responsible and reasoned.

[Freedom]

Journalism sites like HuffPo generally don't provide references as part of their style guide. All quotes Turner gives are also found in his tremendous Brigham Young biography, which everyone should read. Perhaps one reason anti sites don't use these quotes is because Turner had greater access to Church records than many in the past, and he was diligent in uncovering sources heretofore overlooked.

I didn't find anything in the article that should raise an eyebrow; all clames and analysis was responsible and reasoned.

Thanks

[Scott Lloyd]

Journalism sites like HuffPo generally don't provide references as part of their style guide.

I don't know what the Huffington Post policy is, but it is a standard of professionalism in the industry to provide attribution for assertions, though it may not be in the form of scholarly footnotes.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

BY did have a meeting with Ute leaders, did tell them that northern shipments of grain and other supplies were fair game. This is the famous incident that the boobirds like to use to justify claiming BY authorized MMM . . . because of the Paiutes' involvement, whatever that was.

But saying to Indian chiefs A, B and C that X is welcome is not quite the same as Indian chief D doing Y being okay. Let alone Lee's and others' acts down by Cedar City.

As I understand the matter from having read Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Turley, Walker and Leonard, Brigham Young's policy during this impending invasion by the U.S. Army was a matter of ceasing to intervene in hostilities between emigrant trains and the Indians. In the past, some travelers had antagonized indigenous Indian tribes, and that made it tough for everybody who was going west. In effect, President Young was saying to government: "You're on your own now in protecting travelers from Indian hostilities." It was a formidable strategy, because it greatly increased the distance of overland travel to the West Coast, as travelers would now have to avoid Utah territory in hopes of safe passage.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Emerson]

As I understand the matter from having read Massacre at Mountain Meadow by Turley, Walker and Leonard, Brigham Young's policy during this impending invasion by the U.S. Army was a matter of ceasing to intervene in hostilities between emigrant trains and the Indians. In the past, some travelers had antagonized indigenous Indian tribes, and that made it tough for everybody who was going west. In effect, President Young was saying to government: "You're on your own now in protecting travelers from Indian hostilities." It was an effective strategy, because it greatly increased the distance of overland travel to the West Coast.

That was Young's rhetoric to the federal government, yes. But his rhetoric to certain indigenous tribes was basically, "have at it." Walker, Turley, and Leonard say that explicitly. In fact, little of what Turner says in this piece is much different from the bare facts presented in <i>Massacre at Mountain Meadows</i>. John had Rick Turley look over everything having to do with Mountain Meadows, and they became good friends.

[CA Steve]

As I understand the matter from having read Massacre at Mountain Meadow by Turley, Walker and Leonard, Brigham Young's policy during this impending invasion by the U.S. Army was a matter of ceasing to intervene in hostilities between emigrant trains and the Indians. In the past, some travelers had antagonized indigenous Indian tribes, and that made it tough for everybody who was going west. In effect, President Young was saying to government: "You're on your own now in protecting travelers from Indian hostilities." It was an effective strategy, because it greatly increased the distance of overland travel to the West Coast.

How would such a declaration have any other result than to cause the US Government to intervene more in the state of Utah? If Brigham Young was trying to keep the US army out of Utah, why would he make such a comment?

Edited October 18, 2012 by CA Steve

[Scott Lloyd]

How would such a declaration have any other result than to cause the US Government to intervene more in the state of Utah? If Brigham Young were trying to keep the US army out of Utah, why would he make such a comment?

From the perspective of the Latter-day Saints, the army was already on its way to Utah with ill intent. The train had already left the station, so to speak. In that climate, the urgency now was to resist the invasion and hinder the federal government from carrying out its nefarious objectives. Brigham Young's wartime policy was a way to induce the government to back off by making the feds suffer consequences for their aggression.

And in the final analysis, the government did back off long enough for a negotiated resolution to transpire.

P.S. You said "state of Utah". Utah at this early time (1857) was still a territory. It did not become a state until 1896.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That was Young's rhetoric to the federal government, yes. But his rhetoric to certain indigenous tribes was basically, "have at it."

It's a distinction without a difference. He was telling them he would no longer put up any hindrance to their hostilities against travelers.

Walker, Turley, and Leonard say that explicitly. In fact, little of what Turner says in this piece is much different from the bare facts presented in <i>Massacre at Mountain Meadows</i>. John had Rick Turley look over everything having to do with Mountain Meadows, and they became good friends.

Not saying you're wrong, but I'm personally acquainted with Turley and know him to be very congenial and to have friendships even with those with whom he sharply disagrees. I've even heard Will Bagley express friendship for Rick Turley.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Huffington post's journalism is good for little more than toilet paper. I don't put stock in anything they report.

Amen!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How would such a declaration have any other result than to cause the US Government to intervene more in the state of Utah? If Brigham Young was trying to keep the US army out of Utah, why would he make such a comment?

Anger at treatment or lack of protection of Mormons by anyone in Gov't at that time.