Massacre At Mountain Meadows Review

[_TAK]

Crockett:

But the other witness, Leavitt, wants to make sure he is vindicated. He is probably deeply troubled with what he did, and he wants any possible sign that Pres. Young supported his deed. (At that time, Young did not know of Leavitt's involvement, or so it would seem).

You are making an assumption that Leavitt is in need of vindication. In reading Turley and others I see this as men who were obedient to leaders and were following orders. I posted this on the first page of this thread to no response:


..go back and read pages 134 and 135. That is the genesis of the conflict. There was no mob. Just a couple of Cedar City leaders who initiated the action. The authors do a poor job explaining what Haight’s motive was other than a couple of incidences that occurred in the hour the emigrants were in Cedar City. That and reference to some rumors and he’s ready to kill a 120 men women and children? I don’t think so. When you consider Lee’s last confession that this action was initiated by Smith it then makes sense. Haight and Lee were following Smith’s instructions.

Brigham Young at the time of the massacre to Captain van Vliet:

"If the government dare to force the issue, I shall not hold the Indians by the wrist any longer. If the issue comes, you may tell the government to stop all emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it."

Clearly Brigham Young is at the very least trying to bluff Captain van Vliet. BY is losing his power and so he try’s to retain it by threatening the Government in several ways including cutting off the emigrants coming through Utah- something the US Government wants very badly. So it follows he sends Smith is sent to So. Utah to influence the Saints and Indians against the emigrants. Smith even returns with Indians to discuss strategies against Americans and we know how it turns out.

by the way, Brigham Young was the US Indian Superintendent he was responsible for the protection of emigrants. Even if he did not order this, the fact his willingness to allow Indians to murder and steal by his own inactions is reprehensible.

[_rcrocket]

Crockett:
You are making an assumption that Leavitt is in need of vindication. In reading Turley and others I see this as men who were obedient to leaders and were following orders. I posted this on the first page of this thread to no response:

He was clearly in need of vindication. Be careful not to be also critical of sources that favor your position. Leavitt's position was untenable -- a mass murderer who discovered that Brigham Young had ordered the protection of the train.

Clearly Brigham Young is at the very least trying to bluff Captain van Vliet. BY is losing his power and so he try’s to retain it by threatening the Government in several ways including cutting off the emigrants coming through Utah- something the US Government wants very badly. So it follows he sends Smith is sent to So. Utah to influence the Saints and Indians against the emigrants. Smith even returns with Indians to discuss strategies against Americans and we know how it turns out.

Brigham Young may or may not have been bluffing, but he was blustering and he came to conclusion that the defensive war was unwinnable. He does send Smith south because that is his responsibility. But there is no evidence other than Lee that he issued the orders of destruction. No Mormon, no Indian ever corroborated Lee. But, that is Bagley's only source.

by the way, Brigham Young was the US Indian Superintendent he was responsible for the protection of emigrants. Even if he did not order this, the fact his willingness to allow Indians to murder and steal by his own inactions is reprehensible.

He was not the superintendent. He was ex officio. He had been relieved of his duties. His friend Garland Hurt and his enemy Jacob Fornay had these duties. In any event, the Department of the Interior's representatives to the Indians had no responsibilities to protect emigrants. They, typically, had no staff and often no money. These representatives were not an arm of the police power of the government.

[_beastie]

Brigham Young didn't tell Haight to "not murder" the Fancher train. In answer to a direct question posed by Haight, Young told Haight through Haslam to not interfere with them.

The reason this wasn't out of place was that Young had issued orders to militia commanders to require authorization for trains to pass through Mormon-held lands, and he also declared martial law. (The exact date of the martial law declaration, whether it was before or after the massacre, is not certain. Bagley and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism say it was before; Turley et al. says after. I was the first one to note the probability that the August 15 declaration of martial law was never published.)

So, the reasoning goes this way. Had Haight sent a letter to Young asking for instructions and Young ignored him, Young would be looking pretty poorly. But simplest explanation, not a convoluted one, for Haslam's ride is that Young wanted to make sure the train would pass safely. We don't have Haight's letter. We don't know what it said. It could have caused Young heartburn; we know that Haslam was asked to rest for two hours before returning, and that Young interrupted his meeting with van Vliet to handle this matter.

So, if you want to accept Bagley's convoluted theses, have at it. His book states, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, that when Van Vliet visited with Young, it caused Young to change his mind about murdering the train, and thus the instructions to Haslam. However, Bagley carefully omits times and dates with his theory, and for good reason. Van Vliet's visit with Young occurred after Haslem left for southern Utah.



Bagley relies heavily upon the theory that Smith gave the orders for the destruction of the train. He depends upon Lee for this, who makes this claim. There is no other witness for this claim. None. But, Lee's account has a problem. He places Smith in southern Utah for this offense 10 days before the massacre or about September 1. However, two different journals put Smith in Salt Lake on Aug. 30 and Sept 1, and one week later he was preaching in the Bowery, and one week later he was directing operations at Fort Bridger.

You are picking at nits.

George A Smith was in the area shortly before the massacre, whether the date was exactly September 1 or not. The authors of Massacre state that “Smith may well have asked Lee if he thought the local people could stop a threatening company traveling up the canyon.”(page 72) Source: GA Smith, Sept 13, 1857, in “Remarks”. I would love to see what those “Remarks” actually included, but since the authors did not see fit to offer the exact citation, all we know is that he said something that verified having a conversation with Lee, and asking about the locals stopping a threatening company. Whether or not this conversation took place on Sept 1, it took place before Smith met the Fancher company on his return trip, and commented that some evil “some evil “would befall them before they got through.”

It is beyond dispute that:

1. Brigham Young used the threat of Indian violence to pressure the feds.
2. Brigham Young, at the same time, was “giving” cattle on the routes to Indians.
3. Brigham Young knew that Indians would likely harm women and children (along with men, who apparently don’t matter).
4. Smith visited the region at the direction of Brigham Young.
5. Smith had a conversation with Lee in which he asked about the locals stopping “threatening” companies from passing.
6. Smith later met up with the Fancher party and predicted some evil would befall them. Smith made no effort to contact Lee and tell him to let the train pass.
7. Brigham Young’s letter sent via Haslam specifically stated to let the Indians do as they wanted. Brigham Young had already encouraged the Indians to attack trains by telling them to take all the cattle they wanted. Brigham Young knew this would result in harm and likely loss of life.

According to you, these facts do NOT add up to being able to accurately state that Brigham Young had to instruct loyal, faithful, obedient Mormons NOT to kill the emigrants.

Frankly, that sounds about as logical and believable as your insistence you won’t engage my points because you dislike my “turgid prose”.

[_rcrocket]

What do you think is the single best piece of evidence which supports the proposition that George A Smith communicated Young's orders of destruction to Lee or the militia leaders?

Your last post was great and not turgid.

Juanita Brooks had all this evidence and it did not lead her to the conclusion that Brigham Young had ordered the massacre. Bagley didn't have much more or different except for the Huntington diary.

[_beastie]

What do you think is the single best piece of evidence which supports the proposition that George A Smith communicated Young's orders of destruction to Lee or the militia leaders?

Your last post was great and not turgid.

Juanita Brooks had all this evidence and it did not lead her to the conclusion that Brigham Young had ordered the massacre. Bagley didn't have much more or different except for the Huntington diary.

All of the seven points I just listed. You cannot lift out one of the points and separate it from the others.

Perhaps Brooks had her own blind spot where Young was concerned. I've also seen some parsing over whether or not Young or Smith ordered the massacre of the specific Fancher train, or just a generic order. Morally, I don't think it matters.

[Maureen]

Juanita Brooks had all this evidence and it did not lead her to the conclusion that Brigham Young had ordered the massacre. Bagley didn't have much more or different except for the Huntington diary.

Too put it simply, I think Brooks showed great deference to LDS leaders in her publication. Something a non-LDS historian would not have done with the same information. That said, late in her life she may have had an evolved opinion on BY's role.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hey rcrocket:

In your opinion, is the Dudley Leavitt account accurate? Did Brigham Young order the cairn to be torn down, or didn't he?

If the latter, then what's your explanation for why the cairn no longer existed when subsequent travelers viewed the place?

[_TAK]

Crockett

He was clearly in need of vindication. Be careful not to be also critical of sources that favor your position. Leavitt's position was untenable -- a mass murderer who discovered that Brigham Young had ordered the protection of the train.

Nonsense. Leavitt did as he was ordered. And why again was it necessary to order the protection of the train?

Crockett

Brigham Young may or may not have been bluffing, but he was blustering and he came to conclusion that the defensive war was unwinnable. He does send Smith south because that is his responsibility. But there is no evidence other than Lee that he issued the orders of destruction. No Mormon, no Indian ever corroborated Lee.

You keep ignoring the point there was no mob.. no groundswell of saints wanting the Fancher Train attacked except a couple of Cedar City Leaders and you have no reason for them to want to attack the train unless its what was ordered by Smith/Young.

Crockett

He was not the superintendent. He was ex officio. He had been relieved of his duties. His friend Garland Hurt and his enemy Jacob Fornay had these duties. In any event, the Department of the Interior's representatives to the Indians had no responsibilities to protect emigrants. They, typically, had no staff and often no money. These representatives were not an arm of the police power of the government.

First of all, that’s not true. In his deposition, Brigham Young said regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre on July 30, 1875 to what offices he held:
“Answer -- I was Governor of the Territory, and ex-officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, during the year 1857.”
Beyond that it’s ridiculous to suggest he had no control over the Indians. BY told Captain van Vliet ” I shall not hold the Indians by the wrist any longer. If the issue comes, you may tell the government to stop all emigration across the continent, for the Indians will kill all who attempt it." That was on September 7, 1857. Young had already met with the Indians and the events were set in motion. By virtue of just those facts, Brigham Young has culpability.
by the way,.. I doubt Garland Hurt ever considered him self to be a friend of Brigham Young. The man had to escape Utah with the help of Indians

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm making an effort to secure something for the FARMS Review from a prominent non-LDS historian, regarding Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Here's the disappointing but significant response that I received this morning from UCLA's Daniel Howe, winner of a 2008 Pulitzer Prize:

Dear Professor Peterson,
I read the ms. of the Massacre book for OUP and provided them with a
laudatory blurb.
Since my opinion is already on record, and presumably on the dust jacket of
the book, I think I should decline your proposal.
Sorry,
Daniel Howe

I had not recalled anything from him being on the jacket cover, and will have to check. Clearly, though, Professor Howe liked the book.

[_beastie]

I had not recalled anything from him being on the jacket cover, and will have to check. Clearly, though, Professor Howe liked the book.

What is his background in terms of research into Mountain Meadows Massacre?