Mountain Meadows Massacre

[tonie]

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

 

Scott, was following what he thought was Bob's lead. Bob has state he did not intend the Harney=Buchanan bears responsibility, the harney/buchanan connection is off the table.  Other than Harney, what has Scott offered to hold Buchanan responsible.

 

Also, could you explain why it is not cognative dissonance to hold Young blameless but Buchanan is not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, was following what he thought was Bob's lead. Bob has state he did not intend the Harney=Buchanan bears responsibility, the harney/buchanan connection is off the table.  Other than Harney, what has Scott offered to hold Buchanan responsible.

Bob may have disavowed what you construed his meaning to be, but thus far, he has not retracted this statement which I quoted from him:

 

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 Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Scott, was following what he thought was Bob's lead. Bob has state he did not intend the Harney=Buchanan bears responsibility, the harney/buchanan connection is off the table.  Other than Harney, what has Scott offered to hold Buchanan responsible.

 

Also, could you explain why it is not cognative dissonance to hold Young blameless but Buchanan is not. 

 

From what I know of Scott he is quite capable of reasoned thought on his own.

 

Because Buchanan saw fit initiate military action against the members of the Church.  Brigham and others were responding to that action.

 

Also, could you explain why it is not cognative dissonance to hold Young Buchanan blameless but Buchanan Young  is not?

[tonie]

Scott,  Bob disavowed exactly what his original intent could only reasonably be construed to have been.  He used Harney as a direct rebuttal to the claim that Buchanan bears zero responsiblity. 

 

Concerning, Harney, you have not provided shred of evidence that Haight, Lee, or the remainder of the MMM actors, expressed some fear or even acknowledge Harney. If Harney was such an contributing factor, as you have maintained, then surely you have evidence. Surely you have documented primary sources which reference Harney as a cause for heightened state.  

 

Will you provide the sources, which surely must exist, otherwise you repeated claims are baseless.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,  Bob disavowed exactly what his original intent could only reasonably be construed to have been.  He used Harney as a direct rebuttal to the claim that Buchanan bears zero responsiblity. 

 

Concerning, Harney, you have not provided shred of evidence that Haight, Lee, or the remainder of the MMM actors, expressed some fear or even acknowledge Harney. If Harney was such an contributing factor, as you have maintained, then surely you have evidence. Surely you have documented primary sources which reference Harney as a cause for heightened state.  

 

Will you provide the sources, which surely must exist, otherwise you repeated claims are baseless.  

I've given my reasoning. The government sends an armed invasionary force to Utah and puts it under the command of an officer with a reputation for carrying out a massacre of men, women and children. Then the government fails to give advance notification to Brigham Young or his people in Utah of the intent, purpose and instructions for this invasionary force. Taken together, these facts persuasively support the reasoning that intimidation was at the heart of Buchanan's action.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

By the time of the massacre, Harney was out of the picture.   So, no, it is doubtful that the perpetrators would have been fearful of him.

 

But, appointing him in the first place led to an intense round of communications between the Church's Washington lobbyists and the Buchanan administration, where the lobbyists were basically told to pound sand.  It was quite evident to the Church that an army was headed west to engage in armed conflict, and the Church further suspected that a massacre was a possibility.  This was the largest army the country had ever assembled after the Revolutionary War.

 

I have journals of members of the Johnston's officer staff, where they stated they were looking forward to wiping the Saints off the face of the earth.  

 

Even later, Major Carleton, after inspecting the Massacre site, sent a report to Congress recommending mass slaughter of all the Saints.  

 

Be that as it may, the massacre perps had their own independent responsibility and they bear 100% responsibility for what they did, and because there was no army in the vicinity of Mountain Meadows, they should have put up with the indignities of the Fancher trains (basically, grazing their cattle on husbanded community grounds which barely provided subsistence grazing for local herds) rather than engage in murder.

[tonie]

 

 

Because Buchanan saw fit initiate military action against the members of the Church.  Brigham and others were responding to that action.

 

Also, could you explain why it is not cognative dissonance to hold Young Buchanan blameless but Buchanan Young  is not?

 

"President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those  who ... opposed the Church. ... Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

 

"Defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, ... helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah. At the peak of this tension, in early September 1857, a branch of the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons), along with some Indians they recruited, laid siege to a wagon train of emigrants traveling from Arkansas to California."

 

Can you see how unfounded your claim is to hold Buchanan liable but not Young?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Be that as it may, the massacre perps had their own independent responsibility and they bear 100% responsibility for what they did, ...

Yes. And the Buchanan adminstration bears 100 percent responsiblity for its recklessness in sending the force in the first place.

[ERayR]

"President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those  who ... opposed the Church. ... Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

 

"Defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, ... helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah. At the peak of this tension, in early September 1857, a branch of the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons), along with some Indians they recruited, laid siege to a wagon train of emigrants traveling from Arkansas to California."

 

Can you see how unfounded your claim is to hold Buchanan liable but not Young?

 

Young sent a reply to the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons) telling them to let the wagon train pass.  Unfortunately it arrived a couple of days late.  To bad they didn't have cell phones.

[Pahoran]

Scott, was following what he thought was Bob's lead. Bob has state he did not intend the Harney=Buchanan bears responsibility, the harney/buchanan connection is off the table.  Other than Harney, what has Scott offered to hold Buchanan responsible.

 

Also, could you explain why it is not cognative dissonance to hold Young blameless but Buchanan is not. 

Tonie,

 

You clearly don't know what "cognitive dissonance" is.

 

You are merely using it as standard -- but meaningless -- anti-Mormon psychobabble.

 

Cognitive dissonance is simply what we feel when we experience two (or more) conflicting cognitions.  For example, if someone whose opinion I trusted had assured me that there was a poster called Tonie on MA&DB whose posts were always thoughtful and respectful, that information would cause me to form a certain cognition about that poster.  If I then came to this thread and read your posts, that would cause quite a different cognition.  The existence of those two incompatible cognitions is cognitive dissonance.

 

I would then resolve that dissonance in one of a number of ways, at which point cognitive dissonance would cease.

 

Buchanan ordered a large army to essentially invade a portion of his own country, without notifying the civilian authorities of the army's mission or intentions.  That was a blameworthy act.

Brigham took steps to defend his people against an invading force of unknown intentions.  That was not a blameworthy act.

 

There is no "cognitive dissonance" in view.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[tonie]

Young sent a reply to the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons) telling them to let the wagon train pass.  Unfortunately it arrived a couple of days late.  To bad they didn't have cell phones.

 

 You hold Buchanan responsible for responding to firery rhetoric of Young; but someone how, Young has ZERO liability in the matter.

 

Guess what, you do not have to doggedly deny Young is responsible and Buchanan isn't. You could, and should, take the reasonable route that you previous supported, funny how you have changed your stance is such a short time.

 

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.

 

You could foolishly move your goal post to include others beyond "an isolated group of angry, terrified men" who perpetrator the MMM, or you could quite reasonably stick with you original position that only the "isolated group of angry, terrified men" who perpetrated the MMM are implicated. 

 

If Buchanan is responsible so is Young. If Young is not responsible neither is Buchanan. Young can not be held spotless in light of the Church position that his rhetoric contributed to the tension; while at the same time blaming Buchanan. 

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[Bob Crockett]

"President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those  who ... opposed the Church. ... Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.

 

"Defiant sermons given by President Young and other Church leaders, ... helped create an environment of fear and suspicion in Utah. At the peak of this tension, in early September 1857, a branch of the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons), along with some Indians they recruited, laid siege to a wagon train of emigrants traveling from Arkansas to California."

 

Can you see how unfounded your claim is to hold Buchanan liable but not Young?

I don't hold Brigham Young blameless. But, somehow, preaching a sermon in the Bowery without urging any particular conduct is far different than sending a killer west with an Army to wage war with the Saints. What is the point of hauling cannon to the Salt Lake Valley?

Edited October 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Young sent a reply to the territorial militia in southern Utah (composed entirely of Mormons) telling them to let the wagon train pass.  Unfortunately it arrived a couple of days late.  To bad they didn't have cell phones.

Someone here, I think it was Bob, pointed out that when Brigham Young tried to release William H. Dame as stake president, the people refused to sustain that action. This indicates to me that President Young did not hold as much sway over the people in Cedar City as is supposed -- or that, after the massacre, they were inclined to circle the wagons, as it were, and refuse to cooperate in having the matter investigated or having the perpetrators suffer any consequences.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

I don't hold Brigham Young blameless. But, somehow, preaching a sermon in the Bowery without urging any particular conduct is far different than sending a killer west with an Army to wage war with the Saints.

 

Bob you really need to make your mind.

 

"By the time of the massacre, Harney was out of the picture.  So, no, it is doubtful that the perpetrators would have been fearful of him."

 

Harney was either an influence in the rising tension, and to claim this, it most surely would be documented among the journals Utah Saints or News Paper; and yourself, Scott, ErayE could show such from the historical record.

 

Or Harney was not an influence in the rising tension nor a consideration to the perpetrators of the MMM.

 

Which is it? And could you stick to one position or the other. And stop bringing it up it if was not a contributing factor to the perpetrators of MMM

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Bob you really need to make your mind.

 

"By the time of the massacre, Harney was out of the picture.  So, no, it is doubtful that the perpetrators would have been fearful of him."

 

Harney was either an influence in the rising tension, and to claim this, it most surely would be documented among the journals Utah Saints or News Paper; and yourself, Scott, ErayE could show such from the historical record.

 

Or Harney was not an influence in the rising tension nor a consideration to the perpetrators of the MMM.

 

Which is it? And could you stick to one position or the other. And stop bringing it up it if was not a contributing factor to the perpetrators of MMM

Bob's meaning is quite clear to me. Pity you can't grasp it.

[ERayR]

 

Guess what, you do not have to doggedly deny Young is responsible and Buchanan isn't. You could, and should, take the reasonable route that you previous supported, funny how you have changed your stance is such a short time.

 

 

 

Either I was responding to a specific statement (which is probable) or I didn't word my reply correctly (which is possible) or you are misconstruing what I wrote (which is highly likely).  My position on this can be found in a fairly recent former thread on this topic.  Before assessing my position I would suggest you look up the previous thread and read my posts.

[ERayR]

Someone here, I think it was Bob, pointed out that when Brigham Young tried to release William H. Dame as stake president, the people refused to sustain that action. This indicates to me that President Young did not hold as much sway over the people in Cedar City as is supposed -- or that, after the massacre, they were inclined to circle the wagons, as it were, and refuse to cooperate in having the matter investigated or having the perpetrators suffer any consequences.

 

Agreed. 

[Bob Crockett]

Bob you really need to make your mind.

 

"By the time of the massacre, Harney was out of the picture.  So, no, it is doubtful that the perpetrators would have been fearful of him."

 

Harney was either an influence in the rising tension, and to claim this, it most surely would be documented among the Utah Saint, and yourself, Scott, ErayE could show such from the historical record.

 

Or Harney was not an influence in the rising tension. 

 

Which is it? And could you stick to one position or the other. And stop bringing it up it if was not a contributing factor to the perpetrators of MMM

Once again, I must apologize. This time for not being able to make up my mind.

The appointment of Harney, I'd say, was one of the most significant factors behind the ultimate atrocity at Mountain Meadows. It, coupled with the Buchanan administration's refusal to treat with Church lobbyists, signaled an intention to massacre the Saints. The ultimate appointment of Sidney Johnston did not really allay those fears. It wasn't until Governor Cumming (traveling with the army) persuaded Johnston to delay entering the valley so that Cumming could broker a peace did hostilities cease, and then even so the Saints did not trust the entering army. By then the massacre at Mountain Meadows was over. Many in the army were profoundly distressed that they would not be able to engage in battle with the Saints.

One must keep further in mind that Buchanan believed that the Mormons were behind the massacre of the Gunnison survey party even though Indian agents blamed local Pauites. He cited this as his reason for the military adventure.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed. 

Which, by the way, argues against the notion that Brigham Young carried on a post-massacre cover-up.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Either I was responding to a specific statement (which is probable) or I didn't word my reply correctly (which is possible) or you are misconstruing what I wrote (which is highly likely).  My position on this can be found in a fairly recent former thread on this topic.  Before assessing my position I would suggest you look up the previous thread and read my posts.

 

Your position is Young is blameless, your position is Buchanan is not blameless.  The Church implicates the "firery rheotric" of Young as contributing factor to the rising tension. So why is that Church will implicate Young, but you can not?  You can not reasonably maintain Buchanan's liability while completely exonerating Young.

 

The reasonable approach is that neither Young or Buchanan bear responsibility, but this thread has turned into a wonderful display of flip-flopping.

Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie

[tonie]

Once again, I must apologize. This time for not being able to make up my mind.

The appointment of Harney, I'd say, was one of the most significant factors behind the ultimate atrocity at Mountain Meadows. It, coupled with the Buchanan administration's refusal to treat with Church lobbyists, signaled an intention to massacre the Saints. The ultimate appointment of Sidney Johnston did not really allay those fears. It wasn't until Governor Cumming (traveling with the army) persuaded Johnston to delay entering the valley so that Cumming could broker a peace did hostilities cease, and then even so the Saints did not trust the entering army. By then the massacre at Mountain Meadows was over. Many in the army were profoundly distressed that they would not be able to engage in battle with the Saints.

 

This is getting absurd, You are making a complete reversal.  Who put you up to such flip-flopping?

[Scott Lloyd]

This is getting absurd, You are making a complete reversal.  Who put you up to such flip-flopping?

What I see is Bob trying to be a peacemaker in placating you with apologies in response to your accusations, unfounded though they are.

[ERayR]

Your position is Young is blameless, your position is Buchanan is not blameless.  The Church implicates the "firery rheotric" of Young as contributing factor to the rising tension. So why is that Church will implicate Young, but you can not?  You can not reasonably maintain Buchanan liability while completely exonerating Young. 

 

I am not in a position to know why present Church leaders make the decisions they do.  If I had to hazard a guess I would say a little bit of political correctness is beginning to creep into some of their decisions but that is only a guess.

[Bob Crockett]

My position has remained fixed. You don't have to agree with it or even acknowledge it, and you are entitled to a collateral attack as you are. I guess that's customary around here.

Another helpful source which affixes some blame on the government is Bancroft's History of Utah, and which absolves Brigham Young. Further, according to my Justice Department correspondence which Bancroft, Bagley and Brooks lacked, the government just could not find any evidence against Brigham Young. It tried for 10 years after Lee's conviction to find it, although Young died in the mid 70s.

Thus, if federal marshals could not find the evidence, I just don't see it.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

This is getting absurd, You are making a complete reversal.  Who put you up to such flip-flopping?

 

I must confess it was me who jerked his leash up tight and brought him to heel.