Mountain Meadows Massacre

[why me]

 

MMM was awful. As was Haun's Mill. But I get it. These atrocities were at the hands of folks who were less able to consider the larger picture as we now are able to do. Not necessarily bad people but woefully ignorant folks making the best of what information they had. And I can appreciate that...

No different from today. We are still rather ignorant when one thinks about it. Atrocities are still committed and we don't seem to have much information these days either. Just look at the Iraq War in 2003. The larger picture seems never to be considered even these days.

 

MMM was about shell shock. A group of people who were fearful that what happened in the past would now happen where they were then. Quite understandable when one considers how events are related.

[Pahoran]

Carrying the analogy even further, say the mother had also taught her children not only to pray that God would avenge the family’s enemies, but that also they should work to bring to pass the things they pray for.

Either this is a conscious flaw in your, er, "analogy," or you are trying to assert that the Saints at the time were taught such.

So, which is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited October 25, 2014 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Because most wagon trains that passed through didn’t include people suspected of being complicit in the murder of the Prophets?

 

Let’s take a step back.  The Saints of Cedar City basically had two choices: either let the wagon train go in peace, or murder them all and steal their stuff.  The Saints didn’t know what “choose the right” meant in this particular situation.  They debated and debated about what was the right thing to do.  Ultimately, the Saints found the choice so morally ambiguous they requested advice from the Prophet of the Church.

 

Brigham Young replied that they should let the wagon train pass in peace.  Apologists try to use this as the final proof that he and the church bear absolutely no responsibility for what happened.  However, note that Brigham Young didn’t believe that the Saints in Cedar City subscribed to a set of basic moral principles that would make this choice easy for them; Brigham Young knew that his specific instructions of “let them go in peace” had to be sent with spare-no-horse-flesh urgency before it was too late.

 

So here’s the question that needs to be addressed: why was this decision so morally ambiguous to the Saints? The approach Johnston’s Army doesn’t explain it to me.  The Oath of Vengeance does.

This is, of course, the standard anti-Mormon spin; so naturally, it's the one that you adopt.

But there was no "oath of vengeance," with or without capitals. (I love the way you so cunningly put it in title case, implying that you are citing something official, but still giving yourself wiggle room to deny it if pressed.) There was a prayer for vengeance, the well-known corollary of which is that those who so pray are relinquishing any right or responsibility to pursue vengeance on their own.

I don't expect the facts to persuade you to resile from the use of this tactic; but I just want you to know that, whenever you use it, there is the risk that it will be exposed for what it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Below are three chilling words that corroborate my interpretation of their motives.  For those of you take issue with my perspective, in what way was it their duty to pull the trigger when John Higbee yelled:

 

“Do your duty!”

And that's your "corroboration," is it?

The "duty" in question was the "duty" to obey the orders of their military superiors.

If you disagree, then please tell us: in what way does your fanatical anti-Mormon spin make it a "duty" to kill anyone who was not involved in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum?

Such as the 70-odd women and children who were murdered?

What contrived and intentional misinterpretation of the "Oath of Vengeance" are you going to try to foist upon us to explain that?

ETA: if indeed the phrase "Do your duty" was spoken at the time, there is no overt (or even reasonably implied) religious dimension to it. Many non-Mormon Americans used the phrase, and they used it largely in the same context as the MMM, i.e. that of killing people. These included such desperate criminals as Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, Albert Sidney Johnston, Ulysses S. Grant, Henry W. Halleck, Winfield Scott and Robert E. Lee.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited October 25, 2014 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Do your duty signifies it wasn't something they really wanted to do but adhering to somebody or something higher, and IMO they were helping those immigrants atone for their own sins, which was taught to these men by their current prophet.

That notion would be rather hilariously funny.

If it weren't so sad.

You have egregiously misunderstood the so-called "blood atonement" teaching, which had to do with (1) those who'd made Temple covenants and (2) subsequently committed capital crimes (3) voluntarily surrendering themselves to receive capital punishment.

That you've been deceived into thinking that it authorised anyone to commit murder is a testament to the effectiveness of anti-Mormon hate propaganda.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

William H. Dame was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

Isaac C. Haight was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of major, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

Tacenda,

Please ponder what you've quoted, above.

It contains important clues as to what really went on.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

William H. Dame was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

Isaac C. Haight was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of major, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

 

Dame was a stake president.  Brigham Young went to his stake to release him.  The stake refused to sustain the release.  In anger, Dame was left in as stake president another 10 years.   He and his wives never had children.  Dame was sitting in prison waiting trial when the US Justice Department released him on the day before his trial was to start.

 

It is true that Haight was never brought to justice.  There were indictments against him outstanding for the remainder of his life, but Congress refused to allocate funds to hire investigators.   The Church offered a Mormon territorial marshal to arrest Haight, but the Justice Department refused to permit Mormons to participate in the prosecution.  The U.S. Marshal reported to the Justice Department that Mormons were, in large, foreigners who spoke with accents and therefore couldn't be trusted.  The US Attorney argued for several years that Buchanan's amnesty covered Haight.   At the same time Haight was under indictment, he was on the federal payroll as a guide to the Powell expedition.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[omni]

One obvious difference is that in discussing the oppression of the Latter-day Saints, we are disposed to place -- and limit -- the blame where it belongs: on the perpetrators of the atrocities themselves and, to a lesser extent, the politicians whose policies and acts abetted them. Not so with critics of the Church. They spread the blame all the way up the line even though documentation exhonorates Brigham Young, and outwardly to the Church and its members, including those living today. Which group is the more vindictive?

Have you been reading this thread? We've had multiple posters make the incredible claim that Johnson's Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre. This would be akin to blaming JS for Hawns Mill, after all had he never started the Church...

[why me]

Have you been reading this thread? We've had multiple posters make the incredible claim that Johnson's Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre. This would be akin to blaming JS for Hawns Mill, after all had he never started the Church...

To some extent, they are to blame. After suffering years of persecution at the hands of mobs, they move to nauvoo only to have the prospect again of having their homes burned and people murdered. After going to nauvoo to start a new life, they suddenly discover their leaders are murdered by mobs while in jail. Threats against the mormons abound in newspapers from warsaw etc. Thus,the mormons are forced to move again...suffering losses along the way to a place where they thought they would be safe. Suddenly, the army gets involved with threats and there are threats of mormon extermination from california.

 

How do some shell shocked people react? Are they are a little crazy from the suffering in the past? From deaths in their families along the mormon trail etc? MMM could have been an unintended consequence of the threats and past sufferings experienced by shell shocked mormons. Of this is not an excuse but an explanation. 

Edited October 26, 2014 by why me

[omni]

To some extent, they are to blame. After suffering years of persecution at the hands of mobs, they move to nauvoo only to have the prospect again of having their homes burned and people murdered. After going to nauvoo to start a new life, they suddenly discover their leaders are murdered by mobs while in jail. Threats against the mormons abound in newspapers from warsaw etc. Thus,the mormons are forced to move again...suffering losses along the way to a place where they thought they would be safe. Suddenly, the army gets involved with threats and there are threats of mormon extermination from california.

 

How do some shell shocked people react? Are they are a little crazy from the suffering in the past? From deaths in their families along the mormon trail etc? MMM could have been an unintended consequence of the threats and past sufferings experienced by shell shocked mormons. Of this is not an excuse but an explanation.

I never said they shouldn't share any of the blame, but IMO it should be a very minor portion. Just as with the Hawns Mill Massacre, the vast majority of the blame lays with those who committed the act with lesser portions going towards BY and Johnson's Army.

[Nevo]

MMM could have been an unintended consequence of the threats and past sufferings experienced by shell shocked mormons. Of this is not an excuse but an explanation.

 

Here's another explanation:

 

Episodes of violence often begin when one people classify another as “the Other,” stripping them of humanity and mentally transforming them into enemies. Once the process of devaluing and demonizing occurs, stereotypes take over, rumors circulate, and pressure builds to conform to group action against the perceived threat. Those classified as the enemy are often seen as the transgressors, even as steps are being taken against them. When these tinderbox conditions exist, a single incident, small or ordinary in usual circumstances, may spark great violence that can end in atrocity.

The literature suggests that other elements are often present when “good people” do terrible things. Usually there is an atmosphere of authority and obedience, which allows errant leaders to trump the moral instincts of their followers. Atrocities also occur when followers do not have clear messages about what is expected of them—when their culture or messages from headquarters leave local leaders wondering what they should do. Poverty increases the likelihood of problems by raising concerns about survival. These conditions for mass killing—demonizing, authority, obedience, peer pressure, ambiguity, fear, and deprivation—were all present in southern Utah in 1857.

 

— Ronald W. Walker, "Mormon Memories and the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows," BYU Studies 47, no. 3 (2008): 162–163.

[why me]

 

Here's another explanation:

 

The literature suggests that other elements are often present when “good people” do terrible things. Usually there is an atmosphere of authority and obedience, which allows errant leaders to trump the moral instincts of their followers. Atrocities also occur when followers do not have clear messages about what is expected of them—when their culture or messages from headquarters leave local leaders wondering what they should do. Poverty increases the likelihood of problems by raising concerns about survival. These conditions for mass killing—demonizing, authority, obedience, peer pressure, ambiguity, fear, and deprivation—were all present in southern Utah in 1857.

 

— Ronald W. Walker, "Mormon Memories and the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows," BYU Studies 47, no. 3 (2008): 162–163.

This is one explanation but we seem to give the people involved too much credit with this explanation. I think that we need to keep it simple. A group of men felt threatened by outsiders because of fear and uncertainity, mixed with pychological abuse stemming from the past. They acted irrationally and committed mass murder.

 

As with most historical events, we can have different interpretations about the reasons for the happenings. However, i do believe that if the mormons were just allowed to worship freely as they were not allowedto do, much injustice could have been avoided and we would have a much more fuller and humane lds history.

 

However, none of those things mentioned in your quotation would have existed if the saints were allowed to live in peace. Maybe the early saints experienced one too many sacrifices.

Edited October 26, 2014 by why me

[Pahoran]

Have you been reading this thread? We've had multiple posters make the incredible claim that Johnson's Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre.

Really? Who?

CFR, please.

This would be akin to blaming JS for Hawns Mill, after all had he never started the Church...

I'm sorry you find it "incredible" that those who set in motion a chain of events are ultimately responsible for the result.

Buchanan, for cynical, self-serving political reasons, chose to send a large army to invade Utah. Perhaps he hoped that the civilian population would be suitably cowed by the size of the force that they would simply lie down and let themselves be walked over; if so, that was a serious error in judgement. When a politician sends armed men to put down a "rebellion," if he is not completely incompetent, he expects casualties. If he has actual experience of actual combat -- and Buchanan had fought in the War of 1812 -- then he knows there is a risk of non-combatant casualties, or "collateral damage."

And knowing this, either through his own experience, or that of his advisers, Buchanan chose to send in the army.

He set in motion a chain of events. He can resonably be expected to have foreseen that innocent people would be killed.

It is actually due to Brigham Young's leadership that there weren't a lot more people killed.

Buchanan bears ultimate responsibility for the MMM. Not sole responsibility -- and certainly not more responsibility than those who did the deed -- but ultimate responsibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

This is one explanation but we seem to give the people involved too much credit with this explanation. I think that we need to keep it simple. A group of men felt threatened by outsiders because of fear and uncertainity, mixed with pychological abuse stemming from the past. They acted irrationally and committed mass murder.

 

As with most historical events, we can have different interpretations about the reasons for the happenings. However, i do believe that if the mormons were just allowed to worship freely as they were not allowedto do, much injustice could have been avoided and we would have a much more fuller and humane lds history.

 

However, none of those things mentioned in your quotation would have existed if the saints were allowed to live in peace. Maybe the early saints experienced one too many sacrifices.

I think both your and Nevo's explanations are correct and are certainly not mutually exclusive. That is, the atrocities that had been inflicted on the Mormons contributed to the development among the Cedar City settlers of this classic group violence psychology.

[Scott Lloyd]

Have you been reading this thread? We've had multiple posters make the incredible claim that Johnson's Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre. This would be akin to blaming JS for Hawns Mill, after all had he never started the Church...

Your response to my post is misapplied. When I said we limit the placement of blame I was referring to Hawn's Mill and other atrocities against the Latter-day Saints. You transferred my remark to Mountain Meadows. I wasn't talking about <our> placing blame for that, but the critics' placing blame.

You did not make an earnest effort to understand my post before replying to it, or if you did, you deliberately misconstrued it. I will be charitable and assume it was a matter of misunderstanding, not deliberate distortion.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Posted in error. H

Edited October 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

I'm sorry you find it "incredible" that those who set in motion a chain of events are ultimately responsible for the result.

Buchanan, for cynical, self-serving political reasons, chose to send a large army to invade Utah. Perhaps he hoped that the civilian population would be suitably cowed by the size of the force that they would simply lie down and let themselves be walked over; if so, that was a serious error in judgement. When a politician sends armed men to put down a "rebellion," if he is not completely incompetent, he expects casualties. If he has actual experience of actual combat -- and Buchanan had fought in the War of 1812 -- then he knows there is a risk of non-combatant casualties, or "collateral damage."

And knowing this, either through his own experience, or that of his advisers, Buchanan chose to send in the army.

He set in motion a chain of events. He can resonably be expected to have foreseen that innocent people would be killed.

It is actually due to Brigham Young's leadership that there weren't a lot more people killed.

Buchanan bears ultimate responsibility for the MMM. Not sole responsibility -- and certainly not more responsibility than those who did the deed -- but ultimate responsibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

 

Buchanan bears ZERO responsibility for the action of the LDS individuals.  Anyone who shows up under a FALSE BANNER of non-aggression, whose false pretense is solely calculated for murder, is a coward. It is interesting that depths you and others will go to blame shift regarding this incident.

 

Nothing, from 1847 - 1857 that occurred in the Utah Terrritory or in Washington, even approached justification for the murder of peoples who had already peacefully traveled through Salt Lake and very likely many other LDS settlements.  The murder of the Prophet some 13 years prior also does not provide any degree of justification, neither did idle words delivered after being treated in a unChristian manner.

 

"Cedar City was the last place on the route to California for grinding grain and buying supplies, ... the miller charged a whole cow—an exorbitant price—to grind a few dozen bushels of grain. Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith."

 

And

 

"Brigham Young then ... ordered that no grain or other staple be sold to passing immigrants or speculators."

Edited October 26, 2014 by tonie

[ERayR]

 

Here's another explanation:

 

Episodes of violence often begin when one people classify another as “the Other,” stripping them of humanity and mentally transforming them into enemies. Once the process of devaluing and demonizing occurs, stereotypes take over, rumors circulate, and pressure builds to conform to group action against the perceived threat. Those classified as the enemy are often seen as the transgressors, even as steps are being taken against them. When these tinderbox conditions exist, a single incident, small or ordinary in usual circumstances, may spark great violence that can end in atrocity.

The literature suggests that other elements are often present when “good people” do terrible things. Usually there is an atmosphere of authority and obedience, which allows errant leaders to trump the moral instincts of their followers. Atrocities also occur when followers do not have clear messages about what is expected of them—when their culture or messages from headquarters leave local leaders wondering what they should do. Poverty increases the likelihood of problems by raising concerns about survival. These conditions for mass killing—demonizing, authority, obedience, peer pressure, ambiguity, fear, and deprivation—were all present in southern Utah in 1857.

 

— Ronald W. Walker, "Mormon Memories and the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows," BYU Studies 47, no. 3 (2008): 162–163.

 

violent persecution has a tendency for the persecuted to be wary and afraid of the "others".

[ERayR]

Buchanan bears ZERO responsibility for the action of the LDS individuals.  Anyone who shows up under a FALSE BANNER of non-aggression, whose false pretense is solely calculated for murder, is a coward. It is interesting that depths you and others will go to blame shift regarding this incident.

 

Nothing, from 1847 - 1857 that occurred in the Utah Terrritory or in Washington, even approached justification for the murder of peoples who had already peacefully traveled through Salt Lake and very likely many other LDS settlements.  The murder of the Prophet some 13 years prior also does not provide any degree of justification, neither did idle words delivered after being treated in a unChristian manner.

 

"Cedar City was the last place on the route to California for grinding grain and buying supplies, ... the miller charged a whole cow—an exorbitant price—to grind a few dozen bushels of grain. Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith."

 

And

 

"Brigham Young then ... ordered that no grain or other staple be sold to passing immigrants or speculators."

 

Wow!  I don't know what else to say to such hostility and monochrome thinking.

[omni]

Really? Who?

CFR, please.

 

 

To the extent that it is ever safe to say anything about "what if" something was different in the past, it is pretty safe to say that the MMM would not, could not have happened without Johnston's Army.

 

No Buchanan's Blunder, no Utah War.

 

No Utah War, no warning orders, evacuation plans, "scorched earth" strategy, or any of the other factors that provoked the Fanchers and got the Cedar City people in a state of panic.

 

None of those things, and the Baker-Fancher party becomes just another of the dozens (if not hundreds) of emigrant parties between 1847 and the opening of the railroad that found the Utah crossing to be the safest leg of the trip to California.

 

The MMM was a unique event that happened in a unique time; and what made 1857 different from 1856 and 1858 was, more than any other single factor, the approach of Albert Sidney Johnston's army.

 

Regards,

Pahoran---------> I believe this is you

 

 

I'm sorry you find it "incredible" that those who set in motion a chain of events are ultimately responsible for the result.

Buchanan, for cynical, self-serving political reasons, chose to send a large army to invade Utah. Perhaps he hoped that the civilian population would be suitably cowed by the size of the force that they would simply lie down and let themselves be walked over; if so, that was a serious error in judgement. When a politician sends armed men to put down a "rebellion," if he is not completely incompetent, he expects casualties. If he has actual experience of actual combat -- and Buchanan had fought in the War of 1812 -- then he knows there is a risk of non-combatant casualties, or "collateral damage."

And knowing this, either through his own experience, or that of his advisers, Buchanan chose to send in the army.

He set in motion a chain of events. He can resonably be expected to have foreseen that innocent people would be killed.

It is actually due to Brigham Young's leadership that there weren't a lot more people killed.

Buchanan bears ultimate responsibility for the MMM. Not sole responsibility -- and certainly not more responsibility than those who did the deed -- but ultimate responsibility.

 

Had Buchanan forced the Francher Party to disguise themselves as US Army soldiers hell-bent on war with the Saints in Southern Utah you might have a point.  However, since the Francher party was composed of unarmed (ultimately) and peaceful emmigrant families having nothing to do with Johnson's Army, your argument doesn't hold water.  Buchanan bears little if any responsibility in the massacre.  

[Bob Crockett]

Buchanan bears ZERO responsibility for the action of the LDS individuals.  A

The first general whom Buchanan appointed to head the army west was General William Harney, nicknamed "Squaw Killer Harney," who one year previously had let a massacre of a Sioux Village in Nebraska.

[Pahoran]

Buchanan bears ZERO responsibility for the action of the LDS individuals.

Good thing nobody tried to claim otherwise, then.

Anyone who shows up under a FALSE BANNER of non-aggression, whose false pretense is solely calculated for murder, is a coward. It is interesting that depths you and others will go to blame shift regarding this incident.

The first post I saw of yours was protesting about the tone others employ.

You should look to your own tone, Tonie.

When you accuse me of trying to "shift blame" then you have either failed entirely to understand what I have said -- which seems strange, because I wrote it in plain English -- or you are engaged in mendacious misrepresentation.

Why don't you tell me which you are doing?

 

Nothing, from 1847 - 1857 that occurred in the Utah Terrritory or in Washington, even approached justification for the murder of peoples who had already peacefully traveled through Salt Lake and very likely many other LDS settlements.

Since I haven't claimed anything about "justification," you are clearly beating up a straw man.

The murder of the Prophet some 13 years prior also does not provide any degree of justification, neither did idle words delivered after being treated in a unChristian manner.

Since I haven't claimed anything about "justification," you are clearly beating up a straw man.

"Cedar City was the last place on the route to California for grinding grain and buying supplies, ... the miller charged a whole cow—an exorbitant price—to grind a few dozen bushels of grain. Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith."

 

And

 

"Brigham Young then ... ordered that no grain or other staple be sold to passing immigrants or speculators."

Sources, please?

(It was clever to embed a URL as if that referenced the alleged quotes you've provided, but it doesn't.)

I for one would like to see what that little ellipsis is hiding.

Because Brigham's order was that they could sell flour but not grain to the immigrants; IOW, food for the people, not for the animals.

This was, given the then-present emergency -- the one for which you adamantly insist Buchanan bears no responsibility, despite the fact that he was the one who ordered the army into Utah -- an entirely humane policy, which took into account the needs of the Mormon settlers, as well as those of the immigrants.

Regards,

Pahoran

[tonie]

The first general whom Buchanan appointed to head the army west was General William Harney, nicknamed "Squaw Killer Harney," who one year previously had let a massacre of a Sioux Village in Nebraska.

 

And you surely are going to demonstrate that Haight, Lee, and the 50 to 60 others, expressed some fear that Harney was going to show up? Do you have statements - preferrably primary sources - which indicate that fear was mounting because of the belief "squaw killer harney" was going to show.  When I googled "General William Harney" "mountain meadows massacre" there was only 1 result, which was too a disertation

 

Interestingly, having spent much of the day reading on LDS.org about MMM, Harney is not mentioned in the articles about MMM, nor is "squaw killer".

[Pahoran]

Have you been reading this thread? We've had multiple posters make the incredible claim that Johnson's[sic] Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre. This would be akin to blaming JS for Hawns Mill, after all had he never started the Church...

To which I responded:

Really? Who?

CFR, please.

To which you pretended to respond by quoting two posts of mine, both of which were made subsequent to yours, and neither one of which claimed "that Johnson's[sic] Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre."

Since you have failed to support your original assertion, I'm afraid it stands refuted.

There have been no posters who made "the incredible claim that Johnson's[sic] Army/politicians deserve more blame than the individuals who actually committed the horrific massacre."

Not even one.

You made it up.

Had Buchanan forced the Francher Party to disguise themselves as US Army soldiers hell-bent on war with the Saints in Southern Utah you might have a point. However, since the Francher party was composed of unarmed (ultimately) and peaceful emmigrant families having nothing to do with Johnson's Army, your argument doesn't hold water. Buchanan bears little if any responsibility in the massacre.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Such as it is.

But I made an argument. You responded with a mere assertion.

And my argument remains unaddressed.

Buchanan knew, or ought to have known, that invasions are risky, and innocent people can find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and people die that way.

That was a consequence he can reasonably be expected to have foreseen.

And I stand my my statement, which you highlighted: Johnston's (note the spelling) Army was the one factor that made 1857 different from 1856 and 1858.

So remind us please, Omni: in what year did the MMM take place?

Or are you going to say it was merely a coincidence?

Regards,

Pahoran

[tonie]

Sources, please?

(It was clever to embed a URL as if that referenced the alleged quotes you've provided, but it doesn't.)

I for one would like to see what that little ellipsis is hiding.

Because Brigham's order was that they could sell flour but not grain to the immigrants; IOW, food for the people, not for the animals.

This was, given the then-present emergency -- the one for which you adamantly insist Buchanan bears no responsibility, despite the fact that he was the one who ordered the army into Utah -- an entirely humane policy, which took into account the needs of the Mormon settlers, as well as those of the immigrants.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Much to your dismay (very likely), each quote was taken from LDS.org.   I did not embed a link for Joseph Smith to mormon.org; somehow that just occured, I am sure someone with indepth computer training could explain why it appeared  - it was not intentional on my part.

 

Sources:

Church History In The Fulness of Times Student Manual

Ensign September 2007

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie