Mountain Meadows Massacre

[stemelbow]

You keep parroting that line, ignoring the point I have repeatedly made that to "apologize" in this instance implies unjust placement of blame. That is no light thing, notwithstanding your dismissive attitude regarding it.

I'm not talking about MMM in this instance.

 

 

This is a non-sequitur.

 

Obviously, I mean the injustice of placing blame on those who don't deserve it.

Just pointing out that injustice is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Letting people believe you accept or place blame where you don't? How is that not patronizing?

Sheesh, if I didn't accept blame in some cases where I am not at fault we'd never move forward. Such is life. I tend to think most of us do it. Better to apologize and move on then to dig in your heels until the other side gives up on ya.

 

This is irrelevant to the matter of whether an apology implies personal acceptance of blame.

 

... Unless you mean to imply here that the Church as an institution does deserve blame for the massacre. In which case I would disagree with you in the strongest of terms.

I'm not concerned with whether the Church is to blame. But people will argue forever that even if BY did not order the massacre the atmosphere he and others created contributed to it.

I'm less concerned about who is right then I am about seeing walls caved in. Will an actual apology help in this case? I don't know. That's not my point at all. I'm merely suggesting its sad that we are so upset about who is right we fail to just let the walls come tumbling down by offering an apology, generally speaking, without regard to MMM. That's just my feeling on the matter on offering an apology.

Edited September 9, 2014 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not talking about MMM in this instance.

 

Not following you here.

 

Just pointing out that injustice is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I don't agree with this at all. If we ever lose sight of or become casual about what is just and right, I have grave fears of the consequences to ourselves and to others.

 

 

Sheesh, if I didn't accept blame in some cases where I am not at fault we'd never move forward. Such is life. I tend to think most of us do it. Better to apologize and move on then to dig in your heels until the other side gives up on ya.

 

 You can move on without accepting blame. That's not an essential component. And again, accepting the blame without meaning it is patronizing -- which is disrespectful. I don't know anyone who likes to be patronized.

 

I'm not concerned with whether the Church is to blame. But people will argue forever that even if BY did not order the massacre the atmosphere he and others created contributed to it.

 

 

Let them argue. It's certainly not the first time people will have been wrong about the Church of Jesus Christ; I'm more than confident it won't be the last.

 

Besides, contributing to it is certainly not the same thing as bearing the blame for it.

 

And there's the matter of whether the Church as an institution is at fault for what people in the past did.

 

I'm less concerned about who is right then I am about seeing walls caved in. Will an actual apology help in this case? I don't know. That's not my point at all. I'm merely suggesting its sad that we are so upset about who is right we fail to just let the walls come tumbling down by offering an apology, generally speaking, without regard to MMM. That's just my feeling on the matter on offering an apology.

 

I'm confused here about what you think it is we should apologize for in this instance if it's not MMM.

 

Unless by "apologize" you mean "express regret and sorrow," which is what I, ERay and others have been arguing for all along. And which has already taken place, more than once.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

I don't accept that at all. It was neither "foreseeable" nor "inevitable" that a detachment of the Nauvoo Legion would ambush and murder 120 civilians in cold blood as result of Buchanan's decision to appoint a new governor and send him to Utah with an armed escort. That's an absurd argument.

 

CFR that the Nauvoo Legion was involved.

 

In any case, he who causes war bears the highest moral burden for all that ensues, including atrocities committed by noncombatants against noncombatants.  Because it occurred in nearly every war prior to that time it was foreseeable that it would occur in this one.  Ain't that complicated:  if it's foreseeable, it's avoidable by not blundering into the Utah War.

 

CFR that the folks in Deseret were told that it was a decision merely to replace BY with an armed escort.

 

Do you know what the orders were for the grunt soldier on the ground from the commanders of the expeditionary force?  The Schrecklichkeit campaign was inconsistent with your blase description of Johnston's army's purpose.

[ERayR]

I'm less concerned about who is right then I am about seeing walls caved in. Will an actual apology help in this case? I don't know. That's not my point at all. I'm merely suggesting its sad that we are so upset about who is right we fail to just let the walls come tumbling down by offering an apology, generally speaking, without regard to MMM. That's just my feeling on the matter on offering an apology.

 

Just to see if it helps lets define the terms;

 

Expression of sorrow - Express regret that someone was wronged or hurt.

 

Expression of regret - synonymous with expression of sorrow 

 

Apology -  Expression of sorrow or regret and admission of fault or guilt.

[stemelbow]

Not following you here.

 

I don't agree with this at all.

 

 

 You can move on without accepting blame. That's not an essential component. And again, accepting the blame without meaning it is patronizing -- which is disrespectful. I don't know anyone who likes to be patronized.

 

 

Let them argue. It's certainly not the first time people will have been wrong about the Church of Jesus Christ; I'm more than confident it won't be the last.

 

Besides, contributing to it is certainly not the same thing as bearing the blame for it.

 

And there's the matter of whether the Church as an institution is at fault for what people in the past did.

 

I'm confused here about what you think it is we should apologize for in this instance if it's not MMM.

 

Unless by "apologize" you mean "express regret and sorrow," which is what I, ERay and others have been arguing for all along. And which has already taken place, more than once.

I chimed in here a few pages back expressing dismay that it's a shame that expressing apologies has been drawn down to such an exact science. I say in real life we all apologize for things that we aren't at fault for. Is that a problem? maybe in some cases. But its much nicer, in my experience, to simply apologize and move on rather than quibble about whether I'm to blame or not. Does this apology view of mine apply to MMM? I don't know. It might. There may be people out there who will soften up, if you will, by hearing an apology. There may be those out there that will be way upset that the Church would claim that the hostile atmosphere was contributed to by church leaders or something. But all of those ramifications don't matter if in the end we all are a little closer and full of love for each other.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

CFR that the Nauvoo Legion was involved.

 

The Nauvoo Legion was the name applied to the territorial militia in Utah at the time. It reflected the legacy that the Latter-day Saints bore from their experience in Nauvoo.

 

It's confusing to use that name in a discussion on this topic, I grant.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

I chimed in here a few pages back expressing dismay that it's a shame that expressing apologies has been drawn down to such an exact science. I say in real life we all apologize for things that we aren't at fault for. Is that a problem? maybe in some cases. But its much nicer, in my experience, to simply apologize and move on rather than quibble about whether I'm to blame or not. Does this apology view of mine apply to MMM? I don't know. It might. There may be people out there who will soften up, if you will, by hearing an apology. There may be those out there that will be way upset that the Church would claim that the hostile atmosphere was contributed to by church leaders or something. But all of those ramifications don't matter if in the end we all are a little closer and full of love for each other.

 

Try sitting at a crosswalk waiting for a pedestrian to cross and somebody rear ends you and you run into and injure the pedestrian.  When this gets to the court room it is going to make a huge difference if you jumped out and say "I apologize for running over you" or say I"I am sorry you are hurt"

[Scott Lloyd]

I chimed in here a few pages back expressing dismay that it's a shame that expressing apologies has been drawn down to such an exact science. I say in real life we all apologize for things that we aren't at fault for. Is that a problem? maybe in some cases. But its much nicer, in my experience, to simply apologize and move on rather than quibble about whether I'm to blame or not. Does this apology view of mine apply to MMM? I don't know. It might. There may be people out there who will soften up, if you will, by hearing an apology. There may be those out there that will be way upset that the Church would claim that the hostile atmosphere was contributed to by church leaders or something. But all of those ramifications don't matter if in the end we all are a little closer and full of love for each other.

I think it's reasonable for people to want to be dealt with in an honest and forthright manner; I don't see that offering an insincere apology serves that end, though a sincere expression of regret might. Moreover, there are long-term consequences when people think they have received an apology and find out later the apology was not sincere.

 

And what about coming generations? Is an apology by the Church, insincere though it might be, going to leave the false impression to future students of history that the Church institutionally assumed blame for the massacre when, in reality, the Church at large was not at fault? Again I believe the Illinois State Assembly was very prudent in not framing their expression of regret for past wrongs in the state as an apology to the Church. We would do well to follow that example.

 

Furthermore, it's my observation that some of those who are not content with an expression of regret and are demanding assumption of fault and blame by the Church don't have love and reconciliation as their motive.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

The Nauvoo Legion was the name applied to the territorial militia in Utah at the time. It reflected the legacy that the Latter-day Saints bore from their experience in Nauvoo.

It's confusing to use that name in a discussion on this topic, I grant.

 

My argument was a legal one. If the Legion, a semi-official body at the time, was the primary actor, then its actions would have been covered by the general pardon.

 

And JDL skates under the amnesty.

Edited September 9, 2014 by USU78

[Scott Lloyd]

My . Was a legal one. If the Legion, a semi official body at the time, was the primary actor, then its actions would have been covered by thegeneral pardon.

Got it.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[USU78]

Brigham Young had a pretty good idea of what was going on. He knew by June 1857 that Buchanan was planning to appoint a new governor and that federal troops might be sent. Historian Matthew Grow notes that Thomas L. Kane's letter to Brigham Young, dated 21 May 1857, "warned Young of the impending crisis", "warn[ed] of possible federal action" and provided "a sense of Buchanan's direction."

 

When "confirmation of the president's decision arrived in Utah in dramatic (perhaps staged) fashion," Grow writes, "Mormon leaders struck a defiant stance, spurred by a belief that Buchanan's actions would catalyze the destructive events immediately preceding Christ's Second Coming. . . . Since Buchanan had not officially notified Young of his replacement, Young seized on the legal technicality to declare the federal troops to be illegitimate, order the Saints to take defensive actions, and proclaim martial law" (Matthew J. Grow, "Liberty to the Downtrodden": Thomas L. Kane, Romantic Reformer [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 158-159; emphasis added).

 

Brigham Young, as much as James Buchanan, was responsible for "send[ing] the people into a panic." He could have had a calming, restraining influence on the Saints, but instead, through his words and actions, he helped create the conditions that made possible one of the worst atrocities in American history.

 

The butchers of Chapultepec were the commanders of the expeditionary force.

 

Kane, ever a friend, warned of the direst intentions in its dispatchment:  BY's natural and reasonable response to Kane's harbinging was "If/when they come, it'll be awful."  The Schrecklichkeit campaign confirmed those fears.

 

And you blame BY and the Saints for making a lark-ish outing by Cumming and a few hundred of his chums into an invading force?  I am astonished.

 

The Saints had nowhere to run:  turned down by Texas, abandoned by Mexico, honest in their tacit agreement with the Feds to keep the wagon trains running and outfit/supply them, they were betrayed by those same Feds.

 

That there were not more casualties during that very real war is a testimony to the honesty and restraint of BY and the Saints. The only thing of consequence that occurred was against explicit orders and in the middle of BFE on the old 91 Freeway.

 

Only the most determined of antiMormons would exonerate Buchanan and Johnston and Floyd and lay all blame on the true and intended victims of Buchanan's Blunder.

[Scott Lloyd]

Brigham Young had a pretty good idea of what was going on. He knew by June 1857 that Buchanan was planning to appoint a new governor and that federal troops might be sent. Historian Matthew Grow notes that Thomas L. Kane's letter to Brigham Young, dated 21 May 1857, "warned Young of the impending crisis", "warn[ed] of possible federal action" and provided "a sense of Buchanan's direction."

 

When "confirmation of the president's decision arrived in Utah in dramatic (perhaps staged) fashion," Grow writes, "Mormon leaders struck a defiant stance, spurred by a belief that Buchanan's actions would catalyze the destructive events immediately preceding Christ's Second Coming. . . . Since Buchanan had not officially notified Young of his replacement, Young seized on the legal technicality to declare the federal troops to be illegitimate, order the Saints to take defensive actions, and proclaim martial law" (Matthew J. Grow, "Liberty to the Downtrodden": Thomas L. Kane, Romantic Reformer [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 158-159; emphasis added).

 

Brigham Young, as much as James Buchanan, was responsible for "send[ing] the people into a panic." He could have had a calming, restraining influence on the Saints, but instead, through his words and actions, he helped create the conditions that made possible one of the worst atrocities in American history.

June of 1859 is not a lot of advance notice, given the fact that confirmation came during the July 24 Pioneer Day celebration up Big Cottonwood Canyon -- not from any official source but from Church members traveling west who saw the army en route.

 

And if Church leaders believed this event was going to usher in the apocalyptic events prior to the Christ's second coming, they must have sincerely believe that the government and its invasionary army were up to no good -- especially given the advance rumors of intended atrocities to which USU78 has alluded. Add to this the fact that mail service had been cut off from the territory -- a customary tactic of an invading force -- and it is hardly surprising that the approach of the army would be viewed with trepidation and foreboding.

 

I can't see that Brigham Young could reasonably be expected to impose a "restraining influence" under such conditions -- although, once a government official did arrive, he was treated with civility, even cordiality, and once Thomas L.. Kane got there to effect peace talks, President Young did in fact behave with restraint and welcomed his replacement with dignity and respect -- showing that if Buchanan had acted responsibly in the first place, the hostilities could have been avoided.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

 

By all means provide your sources for what the soldiers' orders were. The official orders from Winfield Scott to Harney were as follows:

"If the governor of the Territory, finding the ordinary course of judicial proceedings of the power vested in the United States' marshals and other proper officers inadequate for the preservation of the public peace and the due execution of the laws, should make requisition upon you for a military force to aid him as a posse comitatus in the performance of that official duty, you are hereby directed to employ for that purpose the whole or such part of your command as may be required; or should the governor, the judges, or marshals of the Territory find it necessary to directly summon a part of your troops, to aid in either the performance of his duties, you will take care that the summons be properly obeyed. And in no case will you, your officers or men, attack any body of citizens whatever, except on such requisition or summons, or in sheer self-defense."

The Mormons, having dealt with Thomas Ford, governor of Illinois, had little to give them confidence in the effectiveness of the  orders from a chief executive in controlling a hateful and hostile force of armed men bent on doing them harm.

 

Besides, were Brigham Young and the Church leaders made privy to the official orders -- or, in fact, any formal advance word about the intent of the government and the army?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR that the US Army was "a hateful and hostile force . . . bent on doing [Mormons] harm." What books are you and USU78 reading? I'm honestly interested in understanding where you're getting this stuff from.

Re-read my post.

 

I was talking about the militias in Illinois that took part in the murder of Joseph and Hyrum and that Thomas Ford was unable to control. I was making the point that the Mormons had good reason from past experience not to trust government officials or their ability to control armed bodies under their command.

 

Army soldiers en route to Utah had been heard to boast of atrocities they would commit when they arrived. I recall reading of that in Comprehensive History of the Church by B. H. Roberts, but I lack the time to look it up right now.

 

Did you intend to disregard the question in my post, then?

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

I chimed in here a few pages back expressing dismay that it's a shame that expressing apologies has been drawn down to such an exact science. I say in real life we all apologize for things that we aren't at fault for. Is that a problem? maybe in some cases. But its much nicer, in my experience, to simply apologize and move on rather than quibble about whether I'm to blame or not. Does this apology view of mine apply to MMM? I don't know. It might. There may be people out there who will soften up, if you will, by hearing an apology. There may be those out there that will be way upset that the Church would claim that the hostile atmosphere was contributed to by church leaders or something. But all of those ramifications don't matter if in the end we all are a little closer and full of love for each other.

The shame is that individuals can not or will not accept the position of the Church. A representative from the Church labeled a statement from the Church as an apology. People are relying on their own wisdom to diminish the intent of the statement from the Church. This to me is the shame, that we are unwilling to accept what comes from the Church as it was stated to be intended.

Edited September 10, 2014 by tonie

[why me]

 

Brigham Young, as much as James Buchanan, was responsible for "send[ing] the people into a panic." He could have had a calming, restraining influence on the Saints, but instead, through his words and actions, he helped create the conditions that made possible one of the worst atrocities in American history.

And yet, giving the past history of the saints in Ohio, Missouri and Nauvoo, did not BY have a duty to get the saints prepared for the possibilities that they will be experiencing more of the same in Utah? What is the responsibility of a leader?

 

By the way, this was not one of the worst atrocities committed in american history. The destruction of the indian tribes and the confiscation of their land was an atrocity. Also, the atrocities committed by the british against the colonialists were far worse. Lets not overdo it and underrate what has happened in US history. And need I mention the dropping of agent orange on North Vietnam?

[why me]

CFR that the US Army was "a hateful and hostile force . . . bent on doing [Mormons] harm." What books are you and USU78 reading? I'm honestly interested in understanding where you're getting this stuff from.

What we know about how the US army dealt with the American Indian may cast some light about the US army being a hostile and hateful force. I see no reason to believe that the treatment of the saints would not have been the same. The army follows orders. 

Edited September 10, 2014 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not talking about MMM in this instance.

 

 

Just pointing out that injustice is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Sheesh, if I didn't accept blame in some cases where I am not at fault we'd never move forward. Such is life. I tend to think most of us do it. Better to apologize and move on then to dig in your heels until the other side gives up on ya.

 

I'm not concerned with whether the Church is to blame. But people will argue forever that even if BY did not order the massacre the atmosphere he and others created contributed to it.

I'm less concerned about who is right then I am about seeing walls caved in. Will an actual apology help in this case? I don't know. That's not my point at all. I'm merely suggesting its sad that we are so upset about who is right we fail to just let the walls come tumbling down by offering an apology, generally speaking, without regard to MMM. That's just my feeling on the matter on offering an apology.

 

Sure. In the limited example of a disagreement with your spouse. It nearly always better to apologize first, then work out the problem on a more neutral footing. OTOH Mass murder really isn't something that can be talked out.

[Jeanne]

BY sent a postrider with instructions to leave 'em alone.

 

There was your prophetic voice of discernment.

 

It was ignored.

 

Its followup, in response to a request for clarification, came too late.

 

Fact is . . . nobody needed anything clarified.  BY says, "Leave 'em alone," that should have been the end of it.

I didn't know this so I thank you and others here for clarifying some things. 

[Bob Crockett]

 

CFR that the Nauvoo Legion was involved.

 

In any case, he who causes war bears the highest moral burden for all that ensues, including atrocities committed by noncombatants against noncombatants.  Because it occurred in nearly every war prior to that time it was foreseeable that it would occur in this one.  Ain't that complicated:  if it's foreseeable, it's avoidable by not blundering into the Utah War.

 

CFR that the folks in Deseret were told that it was a decision merely to replace BY with an armed escort.

 

Do you know what the orders were for the grunt soldier on the ground from the commanders of the expeditionary force?  The Schrecklichkeit campaign was inconsistent with your blase description of Johnston's army's purpose.

William Dame and Isaac Haight had the authority to call out the Nauvoo Legion, being its commanders, and did so.  Of course, it was kind of like calling out the volunteer fire department.  Untrained farmers.  Sources:  Orson F. Whitney, HIstory of the State of Utah; William Bancroft, HIstory of Utah and many more sources.

 

CFR that the folks in Deseret were told that it was a decision merely to replace BY with an armed escort.

 

There were conflicting justifications for Buchanan's Army, but that was one of the justifications provided to Congress.  And Brigham Young's lobbyists and newspapers reported this back.  Sources -- Harper's Weekly, among others, read in the Valley.

 

Do you know what the orders were for the grunt soldier on the ground from the commanders of the expeditionary force?  The Schrecklichkeit campaign was inconsistent with your blase description of Johnston's army's purpose.

 

A good source to answer that question is the Utah War Journal of Albert Tracy.  The orders were basically understood to put down the rebellion and install the new governor.  The new governor travelled with the army, but he became disturbed over the pending conflict and at one time rode ahead to try and avert the conflict.   Based upon Brigham Young's sermons and some of his sources, it seems that Brigham Young believed there was a good probability that the same fate awaited him as befell Joseph Smith, when Governor Ford betrayed his agreement with Joseph Smith and withdrew state troops in favor of the Carthage Greys.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

Try sitting at a crosswalk waiting for a pedestrian to cross and somebody rear ends you and you run into and injure the pedestrian.  When this gets to the court room it is going to make a huge difference if you jumped out and say "I apologize for running over you" or say I"I am sorry you are hurt"

That's why I said it's a sad day.

[stemelbow]

The shame is that individuals can not or will not accept the position of the Church. A representative from the Church labeled a statement from the Church as an apology. People are relying on their own wisdom to diminish the intent of the statement from the Church. This to me is the shame, that we are unwilling to accept what comes from the Church as it was stated to be intended.

Makes sense. But if the Church offered an apology it was disingenuous and patronizing, as I've been told. So no one wins here.