Early Utah Pioneer and Church actions with Native Americans

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Things like that are a start.  The drying out of the lake is an environmental disaster and will potentially impact the health of anyone who breathes the arsenic heavy dust that is being uncovered.  Definitely no deserts blossoming as a rose going on here.

 

I'm straying from the OP.

Didn't know if you got the link for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_Fort_Utah

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

There was an actual order from BY. From the Jared Farmer book I referenced above.

 

Do you happen to own the book and if so any chance you could look up what his reference for the statement is?  I'm not doubting you, just really curious where his reference is from because I can't find one anywhere online that's not from him and now I'm curious.

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you happen to own the book and if so any chance you could look up what his reference for the statement is?  I'm not doubting you, just really curious where his reference is from because I can't find one anywhere online that's not from him and now I'm curious.

I found a book at https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=422592 titled "0pen Hand and Mailed Fist: Mormon-lndian Relations in Utah, 1847-52".  On pages 223-224 (pages 8-9 of the PDF), it talks about an order to "exterminate" the Timpanogas.  According to that book, General Wells issued a "Special Order No. 2" which can be found in the Utah State Archives.  This special order gave instructions to kill all hostile Indians.

Another book that talks about this special order can be found at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1936&context=byusq.  It is talked about on page 444 (or page 18 of the PDF).  It says it is "Special Order No. 1".

In both of the documents, it says that Brigham Young was initially against the idea.  He recommended the people in Utah county to instead be nice to the Native Americans and not harm them.  It wasn't until Isaac Higbee personally met with Brigham Young and his councilors that Brigham Young had the order written.  The order isn't a total extermination.  In fact, it is only against the "hostile" men and that women and children should not be harmed even if they are with the "hostile" men.  Also, before the order was written, Brigham Young consulted with Captain Howard Stansbury who was an officer in the army and had been surveying Utah.  He recommended that Brigham Young use harsher methods against the Timpanogas.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you happen to own the book and if so any chance you could look up what his reference for the statement is?  I'm not doubting you, just really curious where his reference is from because I can't find one anywhere online that's not from him and now I'm curious.

I've found what I think is the original order.  It is on Family Search: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-G5XQ-QZP?i=3&wc=MXM3-R2S%3A42651801&cc=1462415

If that link doesn't work, then you'll want to find the "Utah, Territorial Militia Records, 1849-1877" and view the "no 0005-0009, Jan 1850, Orders".  It is on pages 4-6.  There is a "Special Order no 1" to John Scott and a "Special Order no 2" to George D. Grant.  Both of the orders appear to be identical.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've found what I think is the original order.  It is on Family Search: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-G5XQ-QZP?i=3&wc=MXM3-R2S%3A42651801&cc=1462415

If that link doesn't work, then you'll want to find the "Utah, Territorial Militia Records, 1849-1877" and view the "no 0005-0009, Jan 1850, Orders".  It is on pages 4-6.  There is a "Special Order no 1" to John Scott and a "Special Order no 2" to George D. Grant.  Both of the orders appear to be identical.

Thanks!

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've found what I think is the original order.  It is on Family Search: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-G5XQ-QZP?i=3&wc=MXM3-R2S%3A42651801&cc=1462415

If that link doesn't work, then you'll want to find the "Utah, Territorial Militia Records, 1849-1877" and view the "no 0005-0009, Jan 1850, Orders".  It is on pages 4-6.  There is a "Special Order no 1" to John Scott and a "Special Order no 2" to George D. Grant.  Both of the orders appear to be identical.

Did Brigham Young sign either order?  I'm trying to figure out if he issued the orders or not.  I looked at this one and I don't see his name on it anywhere (but it's not the easiest document to read so I could have missed it).

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, webbles said:

In both of the documents, it says that Brigham Young was initially against the idea.  He recommended the people in Utah county to instead be nice to the Native Americans and not harm them.  It wasn't until Isaac Higbee personally met with Brigham Young and his councilors that Brigham Young had the order written.  The order isn't a total extermination.  In fact, it is only against the "hostile" men and that women and children should not be harmed even if they are with the "hostile" men.  Also, before the order was written, Brigham Young consulted with Captain Howard Stansbury who was an officer in the army and had been surveying Utah.  He recommended that Brigham Young use harsher methods against the Timpanogas.

Many thanks. I'd be surprised if any of this information made it into the TikTok videos mentioned in the OP.

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did Brigham Young sign either order?  I'm trying to figure out if he issued the orders or not.  I looked at this one and I don't see his name on it anywhere (but it's not the easiest document to read so I could have missed it).

No, neither are signed by him.  I can't figure out who signed them but both of the books that I linked earlier say that they were issued by Daniel H. Wells.  They also say Brigham Young directed him to issue these orders.

[kimpearson]

Just my two cents but as I read all the narratives of these battles, those put forth by native Americans seem to paint the clearest picture that makes the most sense.  I don't think the pioneer or early church leaders were horrible people but I do think they were guilty of horrible acts that under the thinking of time seemed appropriate.  I just wish sometimes the Church would be clearer about the occurrence of these horrible acts, the incorrect thinking that lead to the acts and what we might learn today from those mistakes.  I know the new Church history books and Mountain Meadows massacre books could be said to be evidence of this but it seems like the Church only picked the horrible acts that are most easily explained away as mistakes of members and not Church leaders.  I have to ask how Brigham Young justified taking land away from somebody else.  The only answer I can come to is he thought God had given the saints the land much like ancient Israel.  That belief seems as problematic as blacks not getting the priesthood because of something they had done in the preexistence.

[webbles]

26 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Just my two cents but as I read all the narratives of these battles, those put forth by native Americans seem to paint the clearest picture that makes the most sense.  I don't think the pioneer or early church leaders were horrible people but I do think they were guilty of horrible acts that under the thinking of time seemed appropriate.  I just wish sometimes the Church would be clearer about the occurrence of these horrible acts, the incorrect thinking that lead to the acts and what we might learn today from those mistakes.  I know the new Church history books and Mountain Meadows massacre books could be said to be evidence of this but it seems like the Church only picked the horrible acts that are most easily explained away as mistakes of members and not Church leaders.  I have to ask how Brigham Young justified taking land away from somebody else.  The only answer I can come to is he thought God had given the saints the land much like ancient Israel.  That belief seems as problematic as blacks not getting the priesthood because of something they had done in the preexistence.

For the first bolded item, the church was a lot more decentralized back then compared to now.  Stake Presidents and Bishops had a lot of say in their sphere of influence.  Communication was a lot slower.  Take Mountain Meadow Massacre for instance.  The decision to have the massacre was a local decision but they sent a courier to Salt Lake City for guidance.  The massacre happened, though, before the guidance came back and it was to let the group go.

For the second bolded item, have you heard of the "Manifest Destiny"?  It was an extremely common belief that the land was theirs to be had.  It's probably one of the largest reason for the settlement of the west.

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

No, you're not going to convince me that my emotions come only from Hollywood, I've read Native American's stories of life after the white man ripped their lands and families from them. 

Read Louis L'Amour The Lonely Men.

It'll give you a different perspective. It's geographically correct historical novel.

[ksfisher]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Didn't know if you got the link for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_Fort_Utah

I did, thank you.

[Tacenda]

This one is a new one on me. 😓

https://www.utahpaiutes.org/news/the-circleville-massacre/

 

[kimpearson]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This one is a new one on me. 😓

https://www.utahpaiutes.org/news/the-circleville-massacre/

 

I will be honest.  I am beginning to doubt the narrative that early LDS settlers mostly treated the native Americans kindly.  The more I read it looks like those early settlers smiled and played nice as they knowingly took over land and drove the native Americans out of any area the settlers wanted.  I can find no evidence that any church leaders or members ever said the native Americans should be treated equally as human beings and land should be purchased only if offered for sale.  It appears native Americans were almost universally viewed by leaders and members as something less than the good civilized white folk.  I think the Church and its members are telling a very slanted story of how they treated native Americans.

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I will be honest.  I am beginning to doubt the narrative that early LDS settlers mostly treated the native Americans kindly.  The more I read it looks like those early settlers smiled and played nice as they knowingly took over land and drove the native Americans out of any area the settlers wanted.  I can find no evidence that any church leaders or members ever said the native Americans should be treated equally as human beings and land should be purchased only if offered for sale.  It appears native Americans were almost universally viewed by leaders and members as something less than the good civilized white folk.  I think the Church and its members are telling a very slanted story of how they treated native Americans.

From the very article that Tacenda linked to:

Quote

LDS Church Apostle Erastus Snow received word about the forceful imprisonment of the Paiute Village in the unused cellar in Circleville, Utah. Trying to intervene, he sent word that the Paiutes should be treated kindly and let go unless hostile.

That's an apostle who said they should be treated kindly.

Maybe it is because you are looking for evidence that the settlers treated Native Americans "equally as human beings" and that "land should be purchased only if offered for sale".  I never expected anything of that since almost all European/American interaction with Native Americans don't act that way.  I don't see the stores that the church or members tell that say that either.  They do say that many of them treated them kindly, but I don't know of any that say they treated them equally and I'm not sure why you would expect that.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This one is a new one on me. 😓

https://www.utahpaiutes.org/news/the-circleville-massacre/

 

this is extremely sad.  

[CA Steve]

On 11/29/2021 at 6:35 PM, bluebell said:

Do you happen to own the book and if so any chance you could look up what his reference for the statement is?  I'm not doubting you, just really curious where his reference is from because I can't find one anywhere online that's not from him and now I'm curious.

 

Sorry for the late response. I am dealing with some very serious health issues that my wife has and I am her caretaker.

 

I do own the book and here is the reference.

Quote

Daniel H. Wells, Special Orders, 31 January 1850, doc. 6, box 1, folder 2 (reel 4), Territorial Militia Records, Series 2210, UHRC. (Utah Historical Records Center)

 

As to your question about why I thought we treated the Great Basin natives worse than we were treated in Nauvoo or Missouri, it is my opinion is we were driven out of Missouri and Nauvoo because we were a threat to the established residents, it was a conflict between existing residents and the new guys on the block. Our numbers and abilities to act in a unified fashion threatened those that were already living there and eventually they were unwilling to accept the  threat we posed so they unified and drove us out. For the most part we survived as a people and a religion (though with extreme hardship) and eventually 50% or so of us ended in Utah where we did the very same thing to the current residents but worse. In the case of the native residents of the Great Basin we were trying to destroy everything about them. We took their land, destroyed their fishing resources, and told them their religion and culture was inferior. Any of them that disagreed were labeled as "hostile".

I grew up with the narrative that the Great Basin was unoccupied desert that we changed to a thriving city where the desert bloomed. Never did I hear a mention of an existing native population. We were settlers who moved into unoccupied land no one else claimed and created a refuge for Mormons. The reality is that there was lots of water there and and an existing thriving native population. We were not settlers and pioneers so much as an invading population. We came in and took over the land where the natives hunted and destroyed the fishing sites that they depended on for food and then labeled those who protested as "hostile". Those we did not kill were driven out or starved to death. 

A couple of interesting comments from that time are of worth noting here. Both are from Farmer's book. The first is from an outsider John Gunnison who wrote in regards to the lakeside (Utah lake) violence of 1850:

Quote

It is a curious matter of reflection, that those whose mission it is to convert these aborigines by the sword of the spirit, should thus be obliged to destroy them--but the stoutly affirm that these people will yet, under their instruction, fulfil the prophecy that "a nation shall be born in a day"; and when they have completed the destined time, will listed to the truth and become " a fair and delightsome people".

 

A hundred year later in our Lamanite adoption programs we were still trying to turn native Americans into Mormons as well as "white and delightsome". A program that epitomized the centuries long drive by white Christians to take away the culture and religion of native Americans. 

And then there is this story about one of the last Ute elder leaders named Sowiette who at the treaty of Spanish Fork, a treaty which meant he would never return to his hunting and fishing grounds, mad a joke about his name, a name that originally meant "One-Who-Picks-Fish" .

Quote

By the 1860s, however, Mormon settlers had driven the Fish Eaters {the indigenous natives] from the most productive and reliable fishing sites. Sowiette remembered how things used to be. Over his long life. he had regularly visited the valley of Utah Lake. Now, as he prepared to leave the place for the very last time, He-Who-Picks-Fish told George Washington Bean that his name meant :Nearly Starver." No catching the pun, the Mormon interpreter reported the all-too-accurate falsehood to the government clerk, who inscribed it on the treaty paper. Nearly blind, Sowiette bent over to place an "X" by the name, making it official.

 

 

[Danzo]

I have a really hard time with people today putting people in the past on trial.  When we study history, we should be trying to understand people in the past, not judge them.  There were good people in the past and bad people in the past from all cultures.  Most people who are native Americans really don't want to go back and live the way their ancestors lived, and most european people would not want to live like their ancestors.  Times were hard back then and people made hard choices and lived differently.  I don't think any of us, no matter who are ancestors are can really say they would have done differently than their ancestors did, had they lived back then.  We don't live in the same era.

Sometimes we try and imagine an idealized version of history where there were clear heroes and clear victims, good guys and bad guys. The members of the church were mostly new converts who were new to the gospel and still learning.  There was nothing inherently noble about the native American cultures.  The native Americans were not what we would call progressive.  Abuse was common as well as slavery and infanticide. Many native cultures practiced human sacrifice. Slavery was practiced among the Europeans as well.  The Europeans could be brutal and efficient in their brutality. 

Instead of comparing the treatment of native Americans to some idealized standard that even today we can't meet, it is better to try and understand why the various peoples behaved as they did.   

 

[Danzo]

On 11/28/2021 at 7:26 PM, kimpearson said:

My question for discussion is how did I miss learning the details of these incidents until age 60.  Was this information available and taught to many of you years ago?  Or is this an instance of history that many wish was forgotten so it isn't talked about in Church culture?  Or have you found information that shows the stories are greatly exaggerated?  Please share your thoughts and information sources. 

 

How much did you look in to the history of native/European relationships in Utah before you were 60? You probably didn't care much about the subject. Once you cared, you found new information and your understanding was enhanced.  This is normal, it doesn't mean anyone was actively trying to hide anything from you.

Why would you learning a new thing automatically assume that someone was hiding the information from you.  Most people I know don't go blaming their church or school every time they learn something new. Why should you?

The reason you didn't learn much about Native/European relations in church is the church doesn't really have trained historians teaching Sunday school classes. Most likely you didn't learn about many other topics in history, science and mathematics in church.  It doesn't mean the church hid them from you.

The other day I learned about the free city of Danzig that was created at the end of WW1 and how it contributed to WW2.  I didn't go and blame my school for not teaching it to me. I  learned a new thing that changed my understanding of what I already new. 

 

[webbles]

17 hours ago, webbles said:

Maybe it is because you are looking for evidence that the settlers treated Native Americans "equally as human beings" and that "land should be purchased only if offered for sale".  I never expected anything of that since almost all European/American interaction with Native Americans don't act that way.  I don't see the stores that the church or members tell that say that either.  They do say that many of them treated them kindly, but I don't know of any that say they treated them equally and I'm not sure why you would expect that.

As an example of how non members treated the Native Americans, I'll point you to the Bear River Massacre.  It happened in 1863, three years before the Circleville Massacre.  The US Military, led by Colonel Connor (who wasn't LDS and actually had a bad relationship with the LDS), attacked the Shoshone and killed about 250 people.  Even though it was in the middle of the winter (temperature is reported to be -20 F, cold enough to freeze whiskey), they also destroyed many of the lodges and a lot of the stored wheat.  They left a little bit of food for the surviving women and children.

The reason behind the Bear River Massacre is just as weak as the reason behind the Circleville Massacre.  I would argue that it is even less since the Circleville Massacre occurred during an active "war" (Black Hawk War).

[CA Steve]

If our standard is that we were no better or worse than anyone else, that is quite the damning claim.

"Hey look! Everyone else is doing it and besides they are a reprehensible people who deserve to be exterminated."

 

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

If our standard is that we were no better or worse than anyone else, that is quite the damning claim.

"Hey look! Everyone else is doing it and besides they are a reprehensible people who deserve to be exterminated."

 

I think the standard is that the LDS settlers were better than anyone else.  They didn't treat the Native Americans as equals but they did treat them better than most other settlers.

[bluebell]

On 11/28/2021 at 8:26 PM, kimpearson said:

My question for discussion is how did I miss learning the details of these incidents until age 60.  Was this information available and taught to many of you years ago?  Or is this an instance of history that many wish was forgotten so it isn't talked about in Church culture?  Or have you found information that shows the stories are greatly exaggerated?  Please share your thoughts and information sources. 

 

https://www.blackhawkproductions.com/fortutah.htm

I can't speak for this specific issue, but for historical narratives in general, a lot of it is just simply gaining access to new sources that provide new information. 

As time goes by, people find old journals, old letters, old government documents.  What doesn't get tossed out by relatives cleaning someone's attic, usually ends up in other people's attics, to be tossed out in 30 years when that person passes on, by the next people cleaning.  Very few of these finds ever make it somewhere where they are archived into useable information, and fewer into collections that are searchable.  

But, as technology improves, finding new stuff on searchable archives a lot of people can access sometimes become easier.  The internet has been a gift on that front.  

We will never know what really happened in the past.  The past is gone and there is no way to get a completely accurate understanding of it.  We can hope to find sources that can teach us a little bit about what happened from a specific perspective (or, best case scenario, from many different perspectives) from people who were there to experience the time or event, but those sources will always be biased and incomplete and thus can never provide all the information necessary to actually "know" what happened when.  Sometimes, we have one source that says something, and then a new source is discovered the changes the previous narrative.  The new narrative is probably closer to 'the truth' than the old one, but we can't forget that it too is just a narrative and not what actually happened.

All history is someone's interpretation.  It's never empirical.  Interpretations change, so so does the history that is taught from those interpretations.

[kimpearson]

8 hours ago, Danzo said:

I have a really hard time with people today putting people in the past on trial.  When we study history, we should be trying to understand people in the past, not judge them.  There were good people in the past and bad people in the past from all cultures.  Most people who are native Americans really don't want to go back and live the way their ancestors lived, and most european people would not want to live like their ancestors.  Times were hard back then and people made hard choices and lived differently.  I don't think any of us, no matter who are ancestors are can really say they would have done differently than their ancestors did, had they lived back then.  We don't live in the same era.

Sometimes we try and imagine an idealized version of history where there were clear heroes and clear victims, good guys and bad guys. The members of the church were mostly new converts who were new to the gospel and still learning.  There was nothing inherently noble about the native American cultures.  The native Americans were not what we would call progressive.  Abuse was common as well as slavery and infanticide. Many native cultures practiced human sacrifice. Slavery was practiced among the Europeans as well.  The Europeans could be brutal and efficient in their brutality. 

Instead of comparing the treatment of native Americans to some idealized standard that even today we can't meet, it is better to try and understand why the various peoples behaved as they did.   

 

I would challenge your comment on most native Americans not wanting to go back and live the way their ancestors live.  Most native Americans I know and have met do want to go back to a life patterned on their ancestors lives.  My second question is why is everyone so intent on excusing early LDS pioneers?  As I said before, they weren't terrible people but their treatment of native Americans was terrible.  Why would you not want to accept that?  Why try so hard to say someone committing a sin wasn't committing a sin?  The LDS pioneer treatment of native American's was a sin and they will have to repent of it in order to gain salvation just like any of us will have to repent of the sins we commit.  We work to hard in this Church to treat our pioneers like pure, wonderful people when the reality is that in many respects they committed the same sins as everyone else.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

.  Most native Americans I know and have met do want to go back to a life patterned on their ancestors lives. 

With a life expectancy of 35 years?