Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Pahoran]

Much to your dismay (very likely),

Your mind-reading is faulty. Sorry to disappoint, and all that.

 

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

Here is the entire paragraph from the Church History manual:

 

Brigham Young then mustered the territorial militia and ordered that no grain or other staple be sold to passing immigrants or speculators. He ordered the building of fortifications and also selected raiding parties to harass the army and supply trains. He also sent a group known as the White Mountain Expedition to find another suitable location for settlement, should the Saints have to abandon their homes. Missionaries and settlers in distant colonies were called home to aid the defense. Companies of immigrants on the plains were safely guided into the valley, and all emigration plans for the next season were cancelled.

That "then" refers to the last week of July, when Brigham first heard about the approach of the army. It wasn't aimed at the Fancher party, as your context-free snippet was clearly intended to imply.

The Ensign article is a rather good one.  Neither in its entirety, nor by your chosen snippet, does it support any argument you might suppose you've made.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

 

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.

By the way, this was included in the book that Walker co-wrote with Turley and Leonard. Since both were published in the same year, I'm guessing the publication of the article was concomitant with the publication of the book.

 

And I quite doubt that any of the three would rule out prior atrocities committed against the Mormon people as a contributing factor to the group-violence psychology that caused the people in Iron County to carry out the massacre.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

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".

Bob has published scholarly articles on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

 

I think his extensive research trumps your having spent part of a day reading entries on a website.

 

But the fact of Harney initially being the officer assigned to lead the "Utah Expedition" (or Utah War, as some of us call it), is well known. For example, there is this in a Wikipedia entry.

The troops were originally to be led by Gen. William S. Harney. However, affairs in "Bleeding Kansas" forced Harney to remain behind to deal with skirmishes between pro-slavery and free-soiler militants.

 

 

On the matter of Harney having led a bloody massacre of a Sioux village in Nebraska, there is this:

 

On this day in 1885, General William Harney and 700 soldiers take revenge for the Grattan Massacre with a brutal attack on a Sioux village in Nebraska that left 100 men, women, and children dead.

 

It took me very little time to find these sources with Google searches. And there were many other hits that my searches turned up.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Once General Harney was appointed, an intentional act by Pres. Buchanan to terrorize the Saints, the Saints were terrorized.   He had a brutal reputation and he was both lionized and condemned for months in New York papers. 

Edited October 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[tonie]

Once General Harney was appointed, an intentional act by Pres. Buchanan to terrorize the Saints, the Saints were terrorized.   He had a brutal reputation and he was both lionized and condemned for months in New York papers. 

 

So Harney had a reputation.

 

Your first comment about Harney was to rebut the assertion that Buchanan had zero responsibility for the MMM.

 

Please show that Haith, John D. Lee or the 50 to 60 others who participated in the murder of men, women and children,  acted out of some fear of Harney's reputation?

[why me]

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".

However it would fit a mindset: massacre or be masscred. Whatever happened, something turned these men into murderers. It just doesn't happen overnight. Something happened to their minds. At the end of the day, it is just one massacre among many that were commited by the army and non-mormon civilizians. That a small group of mormons would also commit such a crime should be of no surprise after researching what the mormons experienced before their removal to Utah and along the way to get there.

 

And all this doesn't change the fact that Johnson appointed harney to deal with the mormons. What was in the president's mind? And why send such a murdering general to the mormons? I believe that a certain of the lds population began to feel under seige again. No matter where they went, they received threats of extinction. What would this do to a fragile human mind?

Edited October 27, 2014 by why me

[tonie]

Bob has published scholarly articles on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

 

I think his extensive research trumps your having spent part of a day reading entries on a website.

 

 

And as you apparently missed the very important detail, the website is LDS.org, and the "enteries" are the Ensign and a Church History manual

 

But the fact of Harney initially being the officer assigned to lead the "Utah Expedition" (or Utah War, as some of us call it), is well known. For example, there is this in a Wikipedia entry.

 

On the matter of Harney having led a bloody massacre of a Sioux village in Nebraska, there is this:

 

It took me very little time to find these sources with Google searches. And there were many other hits that my searches turned up.

 

Surely you could better and present something actually relevant to the question posed. Nothing you have posted above addresses in the slightest, whether Haight, Lee or the 50 to 60 other participants in MMM acted out of some kind of fear of Harney.

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Once General Harney was appointed, an intentional act by Pres. Buchanan to terrorize the Saints, the Saints were terrorized.   He had a brutal reputation and he was both lionized and condemned for months in New York papers. 

Of course, some will counter that Harney's orders were "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."

 

But Brigham Young and the Latter-day Saints in Utah had no way of knowing this, as the Buchanan Administration failed to inform them in advance that the army was coming, what its purpose was or of the directives that were given. Seems like a heavy-handed act of intimidation that had the effect of causing panic, leading indirectly to the massacre at Mountain Meadows.

[Scott Lloyd]

Surely you could better and present something actually relevant to the question posed. Nothing you have posted above addresses in the slightest, whether Haight, Lee or the 50 to 60 other participants in MMM acted out of some kind of fear of Harney.

See my follow-up post. The appointment of Harney, as Bob has reasoned, seems in line with a general strategy to intimidate the Mormons into submission, a strategy that, instead, had the effect of creating a state of war and, in instances such as Mountain Meadows, war-time hysteria.

[tonie]

See my follow-up post. The appointment of Harney, as Bob has reasoned, seems in line with a general strategy to intimidate the Mormons into submission, a strategy that, instead, had the effect of creating a state of war and, in instances such as Mountain Meadows, war-time hysteria.

 

You will need to better than amounts to nothing but presentism, by yourself and Bob. Surely such an important detail in leading to frenzied state of mind of the actors of MMM, would be mentioned by the Church or Turley. The articles on LDS.org did mention the firery rhetoric by Leaders of the Church that may have contributed to the mental state of the people at the time; why then, would an important detail (as you and Bob presently suggest) be left unmentioned? 

For the "Buchanan is ultimately responsible" because he first appointment of "General William Harney" to hold water, even the slightest; Bod or you need to show that Haight, John D. Lee or the 50 to 60 others involved in the murder of children, women and men, acted out of some fear of Harney.  Surely there are sources which quote Haight, Lee or the 50 to 60 others acted specifically out of fear of Harney.

[why me]

You will need to better than amounts to nothing but presentism, by yourself and Bob. Surely such an important detail in leading to frenzied state of mind of the actors of MMM, would be mentioned by the Church or Turley. The articles on LDS.org did mention the firery rhetoric by Leaders of the Church that may have contributed to the mental state of the people at the time; why then, would an important detail (as you and Bob presently suggest) be left unmentioned? 

 

Actually, it is not presentism at all. It is the use of the imagination by placing one in the past that one can reach a conclusion. Historians should do this all the time. History is about interpretation of facts certainly certain facts can be overlooked. Unfortunately. But now that this is known, it is good not to ask why it is not on a certain site, but rather ask: what to do with such information now?

 

You seem to have a lot of interest in believing what you wish to believe, so much so, that you will overlook evidence that you never knew before.

[Scott Lloyd]

You will need to better than amounts to nothing but presentism, by yourself and Bob. Surely such an important detail in leading to frenzied state of mind of the actors of MMM, would be mentioned by the Church or Turley. The articles on LDS.org did mention the firery rhetoric by Leaders of the Church that may have contributed to the mental state of the people at the time; why then, would an important detail (as you and Bob presently suggest) be left unmentioned? 

For the "Buchanan is ultimately responsible" because he first appointment of "General William Harney" to hold water, even the slightest; Bod or you need to show that Haight, John D. Lee or the 50 to 60 others involved in the murder of children, women and men, acted out of some fear of Harney.  Surely there are sources which quote Haight, Lee or the 50 to 60 others acted specifically out of fear of Harney.

I didn't say they "acted out of some fear of Harney." How could that be the case when Harney was replaced by Johnston very early on?

 

What I said was that the appointment of Harney in the first place was likely in line with the general intent of the Buchanan administration to intimidate the Mormons into submission. Otherwise, why would they fail to inform Brigham Young of their intentions in advance?

 

The fact that Harney couldn't fulfill the assignment and had to be replaced does not negate the overall intent.

 

And "why me" is right: "Presentism" has nothing to do with it. That's a weird argument.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Actually, it is not presentism at all. It is the use of the imagination by placing one in the past that one can reach a conclusion. Historians should do this all the time. History is about interpretation of facts certainly certain facts can be overlooked. Unfortunately. But now that this is known, it is good not to ask why it is not on a certain site, but rather ask: what to do with such information now?

 

You seem to have a lot of interest in believing what you wish to believe, so much so, that you will overlook evidence that you never knew before.

 

 

Harney is not mentioned in articles on LDS.org in connection with the MMM or the hype and frenzy leading up to the MMM.  Harney and "Hearney" are found in separate instances connected to lds.org, but these references are not in connection to MMM or the hype and frenzy leading up to the MMM.

 

Bob's assertion is that Buchanan bears responsibility for MMM because at one point in time Harney was in charge, Bob has not shown how any thought of Harney played into the hype and frenzy of Haight, Lee and the 50 to 60 perpetrators MMM.  If the thought of Harney was so significant, then surely there would be a reference in the Church publications regarding MMM.  Until, then, it is presentism and unsubstaniated and unfounded gross assumption on the part of Bob and Scott.

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Harney is not mentioned in articles on LDS.org in connection with the MMM or the hype and frenzy leading up to the MMM.  Harney and "Hearney" are found in separate instances connected to lds.org, but these references are not in connection to MMM or the hype and frenzy leading up to the MMM.

 

Bob's assertion is that Buchanan is bears responsibility because at one point in time Harney was in charge, Bob has not shown how any thought of Harney played into the hype and frenzy of Haight, Lee and the 50 to 60 perpetrators MMM.  If the thought of Harney was so significant, then surely there would be a reference in the Church publications regarding MMM.  Until, then, it is presentism and unsubstaniated assumption on the part of Bob and Scott.

Again, reading a few entries on lds.org does not make you an expert on the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the Utah War.

[tonie]

Again, reading a few entries on lds.org does not make you an expert on the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the Utah War.

 

Lds.org isn't just a website to you anymore, interesting. But a Chapter from a Church published Student Manual;  and an Church published article from a Church Historian - who does not pull punches when assessing contributing factors to MMM and does not mention Harney - are just "enteries".  The fact still remains, Buchanan does not bear any responsibility for MMM.

[ERayR]

 The fact still remains, Buchanan does not bear any responsibility for MMM.

 

Is Buchanan one of your relatives?

[tonie]

How is it that the murderous action of the adopted son of Brigham Young means the father was implicated? If you think that the adopted son's action on his own means the adopted father is guilty, then this guilty by association will probably mean Lehi was as bad as he two bad sons, or Adam & Eve are bad parents because they had Cain. You can also say the original apostles must be bad because Judas did what he did to the Savior, or that the Savior Himself was at fault because He couldn't influence Judas to do good. After all we are all free man with free agency. Given the persecution mentality of those involved in the crime, the action was inexcusable but explainable. Just a stupid mistake by a small group and the church has to suffer a tarnished reputation for their mistake.

 

 

I agree with what you are say but I would not minimize MMM as just a stupid mistake.

 

 

It is apparent to me that it is not at all certain your version of the events is at all accurate.  That said either way it doesn't change what an isolated group of angry, terrified men did, nor does it implicate anyone but themselves.

 

Curious, does your agreement that Young is not responsible and that only those who committed the act are implicated, not extend to Buchanan? If it does not could you explain why? And why it would not be cognative dissonance on your part to hold Young blameless but not Buchanan?

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[Bob Crockett]

Harney is not mentioned in articles on LDS.org in connection with the MMM or the hype and frenzy leading up to the MMM.  Harney and "Hearney" are found in separate instances connected to lds.org, but these references are not in connection to MMM or the hype and frenzy leading up to the MMM.

 

Bob's assertion is that Buchanan bears responsibility for MMM because at one point in time Harney was in charge, Bob has not shown how any thought of Harney played into the hype and frenzy of Haight, Lee and the 50 to 60 perpetrators MMM.  If the thought of Harney was so significant, then surely there would be a reference in the Church publications regarding MMM.  Until, then, it is presentism and unsubstaniated and unfounded gross assumption on the part of Bob and Scott.

I don't assert that Buchanan "bears responsbility" for the MMM.  And I don't think much of limiting my understanding of what happened with the massacre by reading, or trusting, the LDS.org brief entries.  

 

A number of factors led to the massacre, including the criminality and venality of men put in charge of the Lord's church in Southern Utah and the inability of weak followers to say "no" when tricked into coming to the battle scene.  One cannot simply focus on one thing.   What caused the Holocaust during World War II?  The ordinary German people who did nothing to stop Hitler's rise?  The shooting of the Archduke in Serbia?  Who really knows?

 

It wasn't even Harney's appointment that triggered things.   As Will Bagley points out, the Indian massacre of the Gunnison expedition with a federal judge blaming the Mormons for it had something to do with the ultimate crime.  I'll bet lds.org doesn't mention that, either.  Why are you trusting that site to inform you about the massacre?  If you want to have an understanding of all the possible factors, I'd start with Will Bagley's book as deeply flawed, plagriaristic, and blinders-on-eyes drafting as it may include.   As much as I like Rick Turley's book, I'm bugged with how short it is.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[tonie]

I don't assert that Buchanan "bears responsbility" for the MMM. 

 

Come on Bob. You brought up Harney to rebut my statement that Buchanan bears zero responsibility.

 

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

 

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

 

Once General Harney was appointed, an intentional act by Pres. Buchanan to terrorize the Saints, the Saints were terrorized.   He had a brutal reputation and he was both lionized and condemned for months in New York papers.

 

If you are not asserting that Buchanan bears responsibility, then why did you bring up Harney as a rebuttal to Buchanan not bearing any responsibility. 

 

Your non-assertion has done well in leading Scott down the Harney=Buchanan responsibility for MMM rabbit hole.

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[KevinG]

Buchanan and Young may bear as much responsibility for the Mountain Meadows Massacre as the French and English did after WWI for the rise Nazi party.

[Scott Lloyd]

So apparently, according to toni, if a thing can't be read on lds.org, it isn't true or it never happened. 

 

Reminds me of the sola scriptura dogmatists.

[tonie]

So apparently, according to toni, if a thing can't be read on lds.org, it isn't true or it never happened. 

 

Reminds me of the sola scriptura dogmatists.

 

I see, that once again your only rebuttal is ridicule of me.

 

You might want to read Bob's - a scholar and expert on the MMM - last post, he did not assert Buchanan bears any responsibility. Before you go further down that trail, you better coordinate with Bob to determine his intent.

 

Interesting that you have not provided any evidence to support your dogged stance.

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[Bob Crockett]

Come on Bob. You brought up Harney to rebut my statement that Buchanan bears zero responsibility.

 

Did I?  Well, then, you have my apology for such a blunder.

 

Pres. Buchanan didn't need to bring the Saints into military conflict with the United States where innocent people could die.  

 

John D. Lee was, at his basic heart, a criminal and a miscreant.    Isaac Haight, William Dame, Elias Higbee, Dudley Leavitt and others should have been men rather than cowardly murderers.

 

Maybe had Jacob Hamblin not been out of town, Lee wouldn't have gained sway over the assembly.   Hamblin was more respected than Lee.  

 

I think that without one or the other of these fellows, the massacre probably wouldn't have happened.  Or maybe somebody else would have risen to take their places.  Who knows.  Looking back, what each did was a contributing factor, although John D. Lee's actions were the operative factor as well. 

[ERayR]

Curious, does your agreement that Young is not responsible and that only those who committed the act are implicated, not extend to Buchanan? If it does not could you explain why? And why it would not be cognative dissonance on your part to hold Young blameless but not Buchanan?

 

No.  Buchanan is implicated for the reasons Scott Lloyd and others have enumerated.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see, that once again your only rebuttal is ridicule of me.

 

You might want to read Bob's - a scholar and expert on the MMM - last post, he did not assert Buchanan bears any responsibility. Before you go further down that trail, you better coordinate with Bob to determine his intent.

 

I think he has made his intent clear:

 

Pres. Buchanan didn't need to bring the Saints into military conflict with the United States where innocent people could die.