The Earliest Written Account of the Mountain Meadows Massac

[_Madison54]

Orson Whitney (and others) stated that the Indians distinguished between "the Mormon settlers and the other white people....one class they called 'Mericats' - Americans - and the other class they called Mormons". They called all non-Mormons "Mericats" or "Americans"....not just the U.S. Army. So Arapene could have very likely been referring to a non-Mormon emigrant train.

-- no -- the contemporary pieces indicate that "Mericats" meant the Army or the US Government itself, directing the Army. See
http://www.deism.com/mormontodeism.htm (search "Mericats").

From http://www.deism.com/mormontodeism.htm:

"The term “Mericats” is a derogatory term that Brigham Young used to describe the leaders of Americas government, and any outsiders who supported the United States of America."

So...even using your own source, it doesn't state that Mericats meant the Army (that word is not even mentioned).

From The Story of the Latter-day Saints (James B.Allen and Glen M. Leonard):
"Mormonees and the Mericats, designations used by local tribes to distinguish Mormon settlers from non-Mormon Americans."

There are dozens of other sources stating that the term Mericats was used to designate all non-Mormon Americans. Indians usually referred to those in the Army as "Mericat soldiers".

You say this distinction is not a central element to your post, but you use it to change the meaning of the Huntington diary entry and also to take a jab at Will Bagley.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Bob, aren't you the guy who says there's no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately?

[_Equality]

-- no -- the contemporary pieces indicate that "Mericats" meant the Army or the US Government itself, directing the Army. See
http://www.deism.com/mormontodeism.htm (search "Mericats").

From http://www.deism.com/mormontodeism.htm:

"The term “Mericats” is a derogatory term that Brigham Young used to describe the leaders of Americas government, and any outsiders who supported the United States of America."

So...even using your own source, it doesn't state that Mericats meant the Army (that word is not even mentioned).

From The Story of the Latter-day Saints (James B.Allen and Glen M. Leonard):
"Mormonees and the Mericats, designations used by local tribes to distinguish Mormon settlers from non-Mormon Americans."
There are dozens of other sources stating that the term Mericats was used to designate all non-Mormon Americans. Indians usually referred to those in the Army as "Mericat soldiers".

You say this distinction is not a central element to your post, but you use it to change the meaning of the Huntington diary entry and also to take a jab at Will Bagley.

So Yahoo Bot lied about something? And did it in a "clipboard voice" even going so far as to give us all a link to the "authority" for his lie? And expected everyone to just accept his word for it? Who does he think he is, Mitt Romney? Color me astonished.

[_America Jane]

Rest assured My Friends, Angels Above You are Silent Notes Taking.

The Earth Bound Ones always struggle to Fly on Currents of Lies.

And I take Special Interest in Those Who Lie about My Own Tragedy.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Keep in mind that the point of my post is that Huntington, using Arapeen's voice, drew a distinction between the Americans and the emigrant company. The word "Mericats" is not used in Huntington's journal. The Indians seemed to lump the Army and U.S. Indian agents and officers in one lump, emigrant non-Mormons in another, and Mormons in a third. So, the blog entry in the OP got Huntington's quote wrong.

My observation about "Mericats" was one simply based upon being a long-time student of Brigham Young-era material. The term, at least in my opinion, relates to the American government or the Army, usually. There may be references to Mericats being ordinary U.S. citizens, but it is an Indian term for an armed person who kills Indians. I imagine it is a matter of opinion, but certainly not one central to my point.

Bob, aren't you the guy who says there's no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately?

I'm surprised you would ask that question as you have quoted me saying that in your signature line, and for that I certainly thank you. I have been making that very point for years on this board. Indeed, when the D&C tells the Church Historian's office what to do, it says it is to keep and maintain a faithful history, and in one place the purpose is to serve as a witness against its persecutors. Nowhere does the D&C tell the Church to hire people to write histories about the Church. It makes its archives available for such activities, but not to write, as Leonard Arrington describes in his biography. Arrington talks about trying to break out of that mindset with publications the department would undertake, but I think that led to his removal. When I've worked with the archives department, I can see for myself that they are archivists and not researchers or writers.

But your comment really has nothing to do with Dimick Huntington's journal, although of course the Church maintained it and makes it available for writers and researchers.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I'm surprised you would ask that question as you have quoted me saying that in your signature line...

And I'm surprised that you're surprised. Surprising, isn't it?

...it (the D&C) says it is to keep and maintain a faithful history...

But not an accurate history, because that would be antithetical to a faithful history.

But your comment really has nothing to do with Dimick Huntington's journal...

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the role of a faithful Church historian.