Page 6 of 9

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 7:49 pm
by _Fence Sitter
Maksutov wrote:
It seems to me that the word "martyr" comes out when it's time to emotionally manipulate someone. I prefer the word "casualty" in this case or even "victim." Smith was not innocent, he had provoked people all over the region for years. Ultimately he was about as much of a martyr as David Koresh or Father Yod or Utah's own John Singer (remember him?).

.


I think "lynched" is the best way to describe what happened to Joseph Smith and his brother.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 9:17 pm
by _Maksutov
Fence Sitter wrote:
Maksutov wrote:
It seems to me that the word "martyr" comes out when it's time to emotionally manipulate someone. I prefer the word "casualty" in this case or even "victim." Smith was not innocent, he had provoked people all over the region for years. Ultimately he was about as much of a martyr as David Koresh or Father Yod or Utah's own John Singer (remember him?).

.


I think "lynched" is the best way to describe what happened to Joseph Smith and his brother.


Or assassinated. "American Crucifixion" seems a bit overblown. :wink:

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 9:33 pm
by _Always Changing
Nevo wrote:
sock puppet wrote:It seems like an odd way to deal with fears of the Nauvoo Legion coming down on them in Carthage. It seems that murdering the Mormon leader would be like stirring the hornets' nest.

I could be wrong, but I believe most of the the mob participants were from Warsaw.
I don't think we can say that. The militia list is heavy on Warsaw participants, but the mob that returned to the jail was not necessarily so. Some of the most radical of the anti-Mormons were from north of Nauvoo, the Pontoosuk area. I have gone through the list thoroughly and compared it with 1840 and 1850 censuses and other information bases.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 8:02 am
by _hagoth7
grindael wrote:Your source is notoriously biased to the point of disingenuousness.

And you're biased. And so am I. That doesn't necessarily mean what they, you, or I say is untrue.

You know they believe that Joseph didn't practice polygamy AT ALL?

Yes, I am well aware of what they believe. And I don't have a problem letting them believe what they wish. But having a bias doesn't mean what they said about Bennett isn't generally true. LDS, Strangite, and anti-Mormon histories typically also have some kind of bias. That doesn't necessarily discredit what they, you, or I infer about Bennett's character.

But it wasn't about slandering Bennett, (I agree that would be pretty much impossible)

At least we are in agreement there, if I understand your meaning correctly.

it was about slandering Nancy Rigdon. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Nancy Rigdon ever had any kind of dealings with Bennett as Markham claims.

So you're saying that the various reports from Ohio (first in 1840 from an unnamed source, second in 1841 from George Miller's investigation, and again in 1841 by Hyrum Smith and William Law's later investigation) about Bennett's background were all unsubstantiated slander that provide no clue into what may have happened between Bennett and Nancy? Does Bennett's 1840 patriarchal blessing, which cautioned him of weaknesses in his character, also have no basis? I don't know yet what to make of the competing claims about the Nancy Rigdon story, but there does seem to be a consistent thread for Bennett, as ambitious as he otherwise appeared to have been.

This whole tangent is getting far afield from our original discussion where you said Markham couldn't be trusted when he said Joseph Smith knew he was about to die shortly before Carthage Jail. Multiple sources reported around the same time that Joseph had said he was going to die. They corroborate what Markham said on that matter, even if you don't trust Markham (or Joseph) in other matters.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 8:39 am
by _hagoth7
Fence Sitter wrote:Well those at Carthage feared retaliation from Nauvoo so much that one day after the attack, Carthage was a ghost town.

Well, as I've suggested in a recent post, that is quite likely because word hadn't yet spread that the Nauvoo Legion had surrendered their state arms, as ordered by the Governor, and because they believed hook, line, and sinker in the earlier "sky-is-falling" reports from the local papers. So any rumor that played into those earlier reports was quickly believed.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 8:54 am
by _hagoth7
grindael wrote:Willard Richards wrote from the Jail, "The citizens here are afraid of the Mormons attacking them. I promise them no!" https://books.google.com/books?id=Mz3tp ... =PA553&lpg

Why would they be afraid if the Mormons were all unarmed and easy pickin's?

First, because of the exaggerated, fear-mongering claims from several of the local papers that had been screaming the Mormons were violent boogeymen that must be feared and chased out. (Echoing much of what neighboring Governor Boggs had earlier asserted.)

On June 23rd, before the Legion was disarmed, Joseph heard word that mobs were going to attack Nauvoo if he didn't surrender himself. Why didn't Joseph just stay in Nauvoo and trust in the Legion to defend him and the city? It is, I believe, in part because he didn't want any of the Nauvoo Legion to die in his defense. As mentioned previously, Joseph had promised earlier that summer to lay down his life for the Legion.

Second, in answer to your question, although I haven't read any of the Illinois papers in several years, it is most likely that word of the Nauvoo Legion surrendering its state arms on June 24th or 25th had not yet been printed, distributed, and read in the surrounding counties as quickly as two days later, when Joseph and Hyrum were killed.

Together, that explains why some people were still be scared of the Mormons on June 27th. They simply believed what the news told them to believe.

(Yes, I know you believe the Nauvoo Legion was still heavily armed, even after surrendering their state arms. That may be so, but based on the citation you gave that showed, where they got their arms from the government back in 1843, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that they still had an imposing stash of weapons. Either way, the point is pretty much moot. The Legion showed no signs of aggression or vengeance.)

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 5:29 am
by _grindael
hagoth7 wrote:
grindael wrote:Your source is notoriously biased to the point of disingenuousness.

And you're biased. And so am I. That doesn't necessarily mean what they, you, or I say is untrue.

grindael wrote:No, I'm not biased. I don't need or want to be. I look at the evidence and it says what it says. But if you are... well, glad you admitted it. And yes, THEIR particular bias does mean exactly that. Why? Because their work shows that it does.


You know they believe that Joseph didn't practice polygamy AT ALL?

Yes, I am well aware of what they believe. And I don't have a problem letting them believe what they wish. But having a bias doesn't mean what they said about Bennett isn't generally true. LDS, Strangite, and anti-Mormon histories typically also have some kind of bias. That doesn't necessarily discredit what they, you, or I infer about Bennett's character.

grindael wrote:Why are you going on and on about Bennett? You're the one who brought him up. I didn't. I claimed that the affidavits that were gathered in 1842 have serious problems. (They do). In THIS THREAD, I claimed that Stephen Markham slandered Nancy Rigdon. You obviously didn't have a clue what I was talking about and brought up Bennett and it seems that you are still stuck in that loop. I don't care what they say about Bennett. I would never use them as a source about anything because they blatantly misconstrue the evidence and I can easily prove it. If you can do so with what I'm saying then go ahead, but I haven't seen that yet. This isn't about Bennett, it's about Stephen Markham and what he wrote about Nancy Rigdon. The OTHER affidavits mention Bennett and Sarah Pratt and others, but they have serious problems. I've documented them elsewhere.


But it wasn't about slandering Bennett, (I agree that would be pretty much impossible)

At least we are in agreement there, if I understand your meaning correctly.

grindael wrote:I don't see how you could not understand me. Bennett was a notorious liar. But he also told the truth. What needs to be done in his case is to independently verify where he was doing either one. The same is true about Markham, Backenstos, the Goddards and others who made those affidavits. I've done so extensively, in an Essay that will be published soon.


it was about slandering Nancy Rigdon. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Nancy Rigdon ever had any kind of dealings with Bennett as Markham claims.

So you're saying that the various reports from Ohio (first in 1840 from an unnamed source, second in 1841 from George Miller's investigation, and again in 1841 by Hyrum Smith and William Law's later investigation) about Bennett's background were all unsubstantiated slander that provide no clue into what may have happened between Bennett and Nancy? Does Bennett's 1840 patriarchal blessing, which cautioned him of weaknesses in his character, also have no basis? I don't know yet what to make of the competing claims about the Nancy Rigdon story, but there does seem to be a consistent thread for Bennett, as ambitious as he otherwise appeared to have been.

grindael wrote:Where are you getting this crap from? I said nothing of the kind. Let me say this again, I'M NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING ABOUT BENNETT, BUT NANCY RIGDON. STEPHEN MARKHAM WAS A LIAR, BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT NANCY RIGDON. Is that clear? Trying to make this about Bennett makes no sense, because in this case, it wasn't about Bennett. In other cases, it wasn't either, it was about Sarah Pratt.


This whole tangent is getting far afield from our original discussion where you said Markham couldn't be trusted when he said Joseph Smith knew he was about to die shortly before Carthage Jail. Multiple sources reported around the same time that Joseph had said he was going to die. They corroborate what Markham said on that matter, even if you don't trust Markham (or Joseph) in other matters.


I doubt Markham's account because he was a liar. I don't doubt other accounts where Joseph said he feared for his life. I've made this clear above. It has only gone "far afield" because YOU took it there. You obviously didn't comprehend what I detailed above, or you wouldn't have made the comments about Bennett that you did. It is like Joseph's supposed "prophecy" of the Rocky Mountains in 1842. It was made up, but Joseph did want to move out west. Generalized statements verses a specific statement/"prophecy" made on a certain date. http://mormonitemusings.com/2012/02/11/playing-f-a-i-r/

ANYONE in Joseph's position should have feared for their life. That is obvious. So Smith making statements about it aren't any big deal. Did he specifically "prophecy" his death at the Carthage Jail? I don't think so, or he would not have written some of the things he did later.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 6:53 am
by _grindael
hagoth7 wrote:
grindael wrote:Willard Richards wrote from the Jail, "The citizens here are afraid of the Mormons attacking them. I promise them no!" https://books.google.com/books?id=Mz3tp ... =PA553&lpg

Why would they be afraid if the Mormons were all unarmed and easy pickin's?

First, because of the exaggerated, fear-mongering claims from several of the local papers that had been screaming the Mormons were violent boogeymen that must be feared and chased out. (Echoing much of what neighboring Governor Boggs had earlier asserted.)

On June 23rd, before the Legion was disarmed, Joseph heard word that mobs were going to attack Nauvoo if he didn't surrender himself. Why didn't Joseph just stay in Nauvoo and trust in the Legion to defend him and the city? It is, I believe, in part because he didn't want any of the Nauvoo Legion to die in his defense. As mentioned previously, Joseph had promised earlier that summer to lay down his life for the Legion.

grindael wrote:Joseph fled from the Missourians in 1842 and went into hiding for a while. He was not afraid of having the Legion defend him and some of them die if necessary. (Read the entries in the Book of the Law of the Lord from 1842). But then, he had the Gov. of Illinois support against the Missourians. In the second case (1844) it was different. Gov. Ford was not supporting him in the destruction of the Expositor and it was much more probable that the Mormons would lose any conflict with the State Militia. This was all bluster and bravado on Smith's part. See his comment to John Smith (10 days before he was murdered) quoted below that he would NEVER give up his arms except in death.) Funny how he changed his tune only a few days later.


Second, in answer to your question, although I haven't read any of the Illinois papers in several years, it is most likely that word of the Nauvoo Legion surrendering its state arms on June 24th or 25th had not yet been printed, distributed, and read in the surrounding counties as quickly as two days later, when Joseph and Hyrum were killed.

grindael wrote:This is not very convincing. There was word of mouth. They had people scouting Nauvoo and the surrounding areas. Joseph got reports daily from Nauvoo, and it is not a good argument to say that the same wasn't true about those in the surrounding areas that were fearful of the Mormons.


Together, that explains why some people were still be scared of the Mormons on June 27th. They simply believed what the news told them to believe.

grindael wrote:I don't think so. Here is the Warsaw Signal for June 24, 1844:


Warsaw Signal wrote:EXTRA

Half past 5 o'clock, P. M.
CARTHAGE, June 24, 1844.

DEAR SIR: -- Some misunderstanding between the constable and the persons accused in Nauvoo, as to the time of departure, caused the constable to return yesterday without prisoners. In the evening four of the prisoners came in, and surrendered themselves. A request was made for another escort for Smith and the others accused, for to-morrow, which upon due deliberation was refused.

Early this morning, I despatched Capt. Dunn with his troop, to demand the artillery and public arms in Nauvoo. On the prairie, four miles on the way to Nauvoo, Capt. Dunn met Smith and the others, coming out to Carthage. The order for the arms was endorsed by Smith, who returned to Nauvoo to deliver the arms as requested. I am assured that the arms and artillery will be delivered, and then all persons required will return with Capt. Dunn to this place.
I am most respectfully, &c.
THOMAS FORD.


To the Editor of the Warsaw Signal.

N. B. A large portion of the Militia will be discharged this evening. I have the most satisfactory information that the Nauvoo legion has been discharged, and that the Mormons from the country, assembled under arms in the city, have returned to their homes.
THOMAS FORD.


grindael wrote:The Newspapers were reporting that the Legion had been disbanded. But that didn't account for the CITIZENS and THEIR ARMS. Here is the Signal from the 27th,


Warsaw Signal wrote:EXTRA

Joe and Hiram Smith are dead -- shot this afternoon. An attack from the Mormons is expected every hour. Will not the surrounding counties rush instantly to our rescue?

Warsaw, June 27, 1844.

It seems that the circumstances attending the killing of the Mormon Prophet and his brother Hiram are as follows: On yesterday, Gov. Ford left Carthage with about one hundred and twenty soldiers, for the purpose of taking possession of the "Nauvoo Legion," and their arms. They arrived at Nauvoo about noon, and called for the assembling of the Legion and their arms. -- They arrived at Nauvoo about noon and called for the assembling of the Legion. About 2000 men with arms immediately responded to the call. These troops were put under command of Col. Singleton of the Brown county, who accompanied Gov. Ford to Nauvoo.

The Governor finding all quiet left Nauvoo about 5 o'clock P. M., with a company of 60 men for the purpose of encamping about seven miles from the city.

At about the same time that Gov. Ford left Nauvoo, the Prophet and his brother were killed at Carthage, under the following circumstances, as near as we can ascertain them: --

Joe and Hiram are both confined in the debtors room of the Carthage jail, awaiting their trial on a charge of treason. The jail was strongly guarded by soldiers and anti-Mormons who had been placed there by the Governor.

A Mormon attempted to rush by the guards for the purpose of forcing his way in the jail. He was opposed by the guard, and fired a pistol at one of the guards, giving him a slight wound.

A general confusion ensued in the crowd around the jail. Joe and his fellow Mormon prisoners, it seems, had provided themselves with pistols, and commenced firing upon the guards within. He then attempted to escape by the window, when a hundred balls entered his body, and he fell lifeless corpse.

His brother Hiram shared the same fate. Richards, a leading Mormon, was badly wounded. There our intelligence ends -- what took place after this, God only knows. Mormons immediately left for Nauvoo, to carry news of the death of the Prophet. It is feared that the Mormons at Nauvoo will be so exasperated as to exterminate the Governor and his small force.

The Boreas brought down most of the women and children from Warsaw. It is feared their town is in ashes before this.

Our citizens were aroused this morning by the ringing of bells and a call to arms. Our three independent companies are already in marching order. Maj. Flood has ordered out the militia of the regiment, and the steamer Boreas is waiting to convey them to the scene of action.

There is no knowing where this dreadful affair will end. Many have expressed fears that our city is in danger, because most of the Warsaw families have taken refuge here -- but we believe there is no danger, we are too far from the scene of action.

Messengers have just left for Hannibal and the towns below for the purpose of arousing the Missourians. The excitement in our city is intense and the anxiety to hear the fate of Gov. Ford and his men are very great.


(Yes, I know you believe the Nauvoo Legion was still heavily armed, even after surrendering their state arms. That may be so, but based on the citation you gave that showed, where they got their arms from the government back in 1843, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that they still had an imposing stash of weapons. Either way, the point is pretty much moot. The Legion showed no signs of aggression or vengeance.)


To his uncle John Smith at Ramus he wrote ten days before his death:

Joseph Smith wrote:"I write these few lines to inform you that we feel determined in this place not to be dismayed if hell boils over all at once. We feel to hope for the best, and determined to prepare for the worst, and we want this to be your motto in common with us; We will never ground our arms until we give them up by death." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.xli)


If this isn't aggression, I don't know what is. Smith's rhetoric didn't help. I showed proof that they had an imposing stash of weapons. They BOUGHT weapons. Here is the quote (Again),

History of the Church wrote:Monday, June 12, 1843.—At the office morning and afternoon, and approved of the resolutions of a court martial of the Nauvoo Legion, passed June 10, 1843, to the effect That an arsenal be built in the city of Nauvoo, to be located in any part of the city where the lieutenant and major generals may direct, who are also authorized to make or cause to be made, a draft of the same, and also to purchase any piece of land for the aforesaid purposes which they may deem proper.

That Colonel Jonathan Dunham be and is hereby appointed agent for the Legion to superintend the business of the building of the aforesaid arsenal, [this means these arms were not given to them by the State] and that he be allowed one dollar and forty-cents per day for his services while employed in that business, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated; that he be armorer of said arsenal, when completed; and that he be allowed such remuneration for said services as may be hereafter fixed by law; also that he be required to give bonds to the amount of five thousand dollars, [This would buy far more than a building] with approved securities, before entering upon the duties of said office. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.430)


This is NOT about the State Issued Arms. Here is something interesting that might show why Smith was so concerned about building a private arsenal of weapons (and acquiring as much as he could from the State),

Anthony A. Hutchinson wrote:On 2 April 1843, while giving some private items of instruction to close followers at Benjamin F. Johnson's home in Ramus, Illinois, the Prophet recounted a dream he had had on the evening of 9 March 1843, in which an old man, fleeing from mobs, begged Smith for assistance from the Nauvoo Legion, received a somewhat guarded reply from Smith, and added, running from Smith's sight, that he himself could place any desired number of men at arms at Smith's disposal should the latter decide that his case was just. The interpretation of the dream, given by Orson Pratt apparently with Smith's endorsement, followed: the government of the United States which had turned a deaf ear to the Saints' pleas for protection, attacked by Great Britain, would beg for Smith's aid in securing the Western territories by means of the Legion. After Pratt's interpretation, Smith stated the following

I prophesy, in the Name of the Lord God that the commencement of bloodshed as preparatory to the coming of the son of man. [sic] will commence in South Carolina, -(it probably may come through the slave trade.)- this the voice declared to me. [sic] while I was praying earnestly on the subject 25 December 1832.

Of interest here is the fact that the original 1832 text has undergone some serious reinterpretation: it is now linked with the hopes of Smith to use the Legion in aid of the U.S.A., and the cause of the wars has been changed from the 1832 Nullification crisis to perhaps the slave question. In 1851, seven years after Smith's death and a year after the compromise of 1850 had brought the slave/free question to the front pages of American newspapers, the reinterpreted but textually intact 1832 revelation was first published, by Franklin Richards in Liverpool in the Millennial Star, and in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price. It received great play just before and during the Civil War, which in fact began with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor on 2 April 1861. But even granting the remarkable insight (or coincidence) that war would begin in South Carolina, the suite of events predicted in the revelation just did not occur. Although the South made overtures to Great Britain, the English never did enter directly into the war, all the nations of the earth were not dragged into an American domestic conflict, and, of course, Jesus did not return again in glory at the end of this unfulfilled string of events. But the fact that the revelation when carelessly read seemed to predict at least the Civil War insured that it would not be shelved again (after all, there we had South Carolina firing the first shot, war between North and South, slaves rising against masters - perhaps - and, after the war, the great Indian wars on the Western frontier). It was included in the Utah canon of the 1876 Doctrine and Covenants, as was an edited version of its 1843 reinterpretation, now found as D&C 130:12-13 (note- the story of the U.S.A. begging help from the Nauvoo Legion against British invaders was shelved!). Although dire predictions were given from the Tabernacle pulpit during the Civil War predicting the overthrow of the American government and citing the 1832 revelation (see Journal of Discourses 9:55, 142-43; 10: 13, 15; 12:344), none survived in the LDS tradition after Appomattox as anything other than mere relics. (Anthony A. Hutchinson, Prophetic Foreknowledge: Hope And Fulfillment In An Inspired Community, Sunstone 11:4/17 (Jul 87).

As Ronald W. Walker wrote,

Ronald W. Walker wrote:Nevertheless, the Nauvoo Legion's curious blend of religion, patriotism, and military display was poorly conceived to allay the confusion surrounding the new faith. No more reassuring was the Legion's manpower, numbering more than a quarter of the entire United States Army in 1845. Excessive and seemingly threatening, it made Smith appear to be a Mohammed bent on a religious crusade. The result was predictable. As in Missouri, Mormon force summoned counterforce. Smith was assassinated, and mobs again sought to expel the Saints from their homes. (Ronald W. Walker, Sheaves Bucklers And The State, Sunstone, July, 1982).


The Legion had over FIVE THOUSAND MEN. What did they receive from the State? History of the Church tells us:

History of the Church wrote:"The arms referred to consisted of three cannon, six-pounders, and a few score of muskets, swords, and pistols, which were furnished by the United States to Illinois, for the supply of her militia for common defense, of which the Nauvoo Legion had received but a small portion of that to which it was entitled." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.201, January 8, 1843). NOTE: A "score" is only 20, so a "few score" would be under 100.


In 1844 this is what was returned: "They [the arms] consisted of three pieces of cannon and two hundred and fifty stand of arms". (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith p. 619)

A "Stand" of Arms is "a complete set for one soldier, as a musket, bayonet, cartridge box and belt; frequently, the musket and bayonet alone."

So they only returned about 250 rifles. There were 5000 men in the Legion and far more citizens that were armed than that. It is ridiculous to say that the Mormons would be any kind of threat with only 250 rifles and three canons. The surrounding citizens knew for years, that the Mormons were well armed. Ford was in a dilemma. But it was the Old Citizens that wanted the Mormons out, and forced a Civil War in 1845:

Keith Huntress wrote:How far, then, can Governor Ford be held responsible for the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith?

Ford arrived at Carthage on the morning of June 21. He discovered that Hancock County was already at the point of civil war, with approximately 1,700 men of the combined militia threatening to attack Nauvoo, which was defended by the Nauvoo Legion, 2,000 strong. His first act was to place the men of the militia under their regular officers and to get pledges of support from those officers. He then demanded the surrender of the Smiths for their part in the Expositor affair, which was the immediate cause of the threatened struggle. He then asked for and received the state arms from the Nauvoo Legion. After the Smiths were committed to jail, Ford met with the officers of the militia to consult on the next steps to be taken. He disbanded the militia, rode to Nauvoo with a small party, and pleaded with the Mormons to keep the peace. Then he was faced with the fact of the murders.

It seems obvious that Ford's primary concern was not to save the Smiths but to avoid civil war. He felt that he had to push for the surrender of the Smiths partly because of the legal requirement, but also because their immunity from punishment after the Expositor affair made furious the old settlers of Hancock County. He first put the militia under their regular officers in an attempt to enforce discipline, and then, finding the officers as bad as the men, discharged almost the whole militia, feeling that they would be less dangerous as individuals and that many would return to their homes. He took the state arms from the Nauvoo Legion in order to relieve the fears of the old settlers, and then discovered that those fears were mainly pretended and that the old settlers themselves were the real danger. Ford felt a responsibility for the Smiths--he had guaranteed their safety--but when he had to choose between leaving the Smiths and making another effort for peace he chose to meet what he thought was his first responsibility.

No one can tell what might have happened, but there seems every reason to believe that if Ford had stayed in Springfield and the Smiths had remained at Nauvoo, civil war would have occurred; that if Ford had arranged for the Smiths to escape to Nauvoo, civil war would have occurred; that if Ford had taken the Smiths with him to Nauvoo, civil war would have occurred. He did none of these things, and civil war occurred. The old settlers of Hancock County did not want peace and would not have peace. Hay reports of the Warsaw militia on the last grim march to Carthage, "These trudged . . . towards the town where the cause of all the trouble and confusion of the last few years awaited them.... The farther they walked the more the idea impressed itself upon them that now was the time to finish the matter totally. The avowed design of the leaders communicated itself magnetically to the men, until the whole company became fused into one mass of bloodthirsty energy."

Those writers who have called Ford weak, and who have pointed out, quite correctly, that he changed his mind during those last days of Carthage, have never suggested just what Ford should have done to save the Smiths and prevent the war. The governor tried almost everything in his endeavor to keep the peace; it was not his fault that nothing worked.

The mob wanted Joseph Smith dead and the Mormons out of Illinois. Even after the Smiths were killed and the Mormons leaderless, civil war broke out the next year and the Mormons were finally expelled. The lesson that Thomas Ford learned is given in his History:

In framing our governments, it seemed to be the great object of our ancestors to secure the public liberty by depriving government of power. Attacks upon liberty were not anticipated from any considerable portion of the people themselves. It was not expected that one portion of the people would attempt to play the tyrant over another. And if such a thing had been thought of, the only mode of putting it down was to call out the militia, who are, nine times out of ten, partisans on one side or the other in the contest. The militia may be relied upon to do battle in a popular service, but if mobs are raised to drive out horse thieves, to put down claimjumpers, to destroy an abolition press, or to expel an odious sect, the militia cannot be brought to act against them efficiently. The people cannot be used to put down the people.

Ford failed to save the lives of the Smiths, and he failed to prevent civil war. It is doubtful whether anyone, given that time, that place, those people, could have succeeded. (Governor Thomas Ford and the Murderers of Joseph Smith, Keith Huntress, Dialogue, Vol.4, No.2, Spring, 1969, p.51-52).


There were many that did not want a war with the Mormons, and were very frightened that the Mormons would take up against the surrounding countryside. They were certainly able to. It is a credit to them that they did not. Sharp was egging them on with the Signal, and wanted the Smith's dead. The original point you made was that

Three days before Joseph's death, he ordered Jonathan Dunham, head of the Nauvoo legion to have the Legion surrender their firearms to the Governor, as ordered earlier by the Governor. (See http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/M ... cue_Joseph ) How could a disarmed Legion subsequently come and rescue him? And why would he order them to disarm if he was actually hoping for them to rescue him?


I was not "mistaken". The Legion was far from disarmed. He only ordered them to return STATE ARMS which was next to nothing compared with the size of the Legion. They had their own arsenal. I'm not mistaken, you are. This is not about what eventually transpired, but that the Mormons were a credible threat and had the arms to carry out a rescue of Smith and could have been a danger to the surrounding citizens of Hancock County. All is true.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Fri May 22, 2015 7:03 am
by _grindael
hagoth7 wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote:Well those at Carthage feared retaliation from Nauvoo so much that one day after the attack, Carthage was a ghost town.

Well, as I've suggested in a recent post, that is quite likely because word hadn't yet spread that the Nauvoo Legion had surrendered their state arms, as ordered by the Governor, and because they believed hook, line, and sinker in the earlier "sky-is-falling" reports from the local papers. So any rumor that played into those earlier reports was quickly believed.


I've showed that on the 24th, Sharp printed an Extra which informed the Citizens of Carthage that the Mormons had given back their State Arms, so your premise ISN'T the likely one, Hagoth.

Re: Willard Richards account of Carthage Jail

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 am
by _hagoth7
grindael wrote:I was not "mistaken". The Legion was far from disarmed. He only ordered them to return STATE ARMS which was next to nothing compared with the size of the Legion. They had their own arsenal. I'm not mistaken, you are.

Grindael, based on what you've provided above, I concede your point that the Legion likely had a considerable number of arms left.