Alter Idem wrote:I'd say Lee continued to be loyal to absolve himself of his crime. As long as he could maintain that he had followed priesthood leaders and that he was acting to protect the saints, and that his actions were right, he could rationalize what he'd done. He could sleep at night.
If he turned on them, he would be forced to face the fact that he was guilty of murder--something he never allowed himself to do in this life, as far as we can tell.
Since you guys believe Young ordered the attack, you won't agree, but I believe Brigham Young grew to blame and resent Lee and the others for what they had done, acting in such a reckless and wicked manner. I think he protected Lee and the others for years because it was in the best interests of the chruch, but then, as the troubles mounted, I think he decided it was time to cut Lee loose. I wish he'd "wiped him off his shoe" when he first learned the true extent of Lee's and the others guilt...
While I disagree with some of your take on BY, I think your analysis of Lee has merit. I don't think that was the only reason for his loyalty, but I do think that some explanation is in order about his inability to cop to killing anyone. Most of his description of the massacre (from his "confessions") can be backed up by the statements of other participants or survivors and some details have even been vindicated by forensics. Pretty much the only part that can't is his description of his own actions. But this is a man who had a hard time admitting he was wrong and he was following the orders of ecclesiastical and "military" superiors, afterall, whether you factor in BY or not. He did talk about the culpabilty of others, just not BY. I think he sincerely thought he was protecting BY and the church as symbolized by BY right up until the second trial.