Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 10

message: :(So, if who planned the feignt protection/covert attack is not all that disputed, let's ditch the article's remaining passive voice. E/g ::[...T]hings got completely out of hand. Orders and counterorders were misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise."citationThe rider [...] did not arrive in time to prevent the attack and moreover, after the massacre had started Mormon leaders resolved to exterminate any adult witnesses.
:(--should be reworked to state the who/what/where/how of this ad hoc assemblage of this mob or brigade of diputed legitimacy from out of existing components of local militia. --Justmeherenow 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brooks claims the local militia commanded by Isaac Haight (Lt. Col. and Pres. of the Stake at Zion) and Colonel William Dame (Parowan) were the officials in charge of the Iron Military District in the area. Chapter 5 (specifically pp.53-54) in her book deals with the various affidavits surrounding the communications between the two at the time of the attack. --Robbie Giles 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brooks (p. 13) refers to an act passed by the Utah Territorial Legislature to reorganize the militia in the territory. I will try to get a copy to see if it references Nauvoo specifically. If it does not, I will change the Info box to say Militia of the Iron Military District. --Robbie Giles 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 1. I do not think it was Nauvoo Legion

message: and should be removed.
::I removed that. Might be true in here :) but in the real world? Do sources claim this? If so, provide them, thanks --Tom 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it might be true, but generally modifiers like that are unverified opinions and getting rid of them helps reduce the opportunity for people to claim a pov bias. I tried to find all such modifiers that look like potential lightening rods. Thanks for the tiny edit. I think the whole list can be taken teensy bit at a time. --Blue Tie 13:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
''B/T:'' 3. ''*DONE*''I think the word "highly" as a modifier for controversial is original research


message: seems to be odd and out of place. I notice that no one else is described by their ancestry in the article, so it seems pointless.
::This is likely an artifact of an old, wholly unsupportable tale that the Fancher party was made up of Europeanized Cherokees (mind, many European-Americans have a bit of Cherokee ancestry, the tribe integrated more or less fully and successfully into mainstream American life throughout the 18th and 19th centuries). I think it's helpful to leave it in, if nothing more than as an "innoculation" against some lazy credulous editor happening to read the Cherokee tale and throwing it in without verification. Moreover, if someone has read a similar account and comes to WP looking for confirmation, the term "European" would at least give a glaring hint that someone has dealt with this before. Gwen Gale 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if someone thinks that they might be part Cherokee, then it could be argued that the current edit is original research.  I think the whole racial identification of these people is irrelevant, reads poorly and should be deleted. This isn't even something that is useful to the article if it were well cited -- and it is not. --Blue Tie 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it adds context to the article and is helpful (for what my input is worth). Gwen Gale 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what context is added.  If it adds context, perhaps we should also mention the ancestry of everyone else described in the article so that the same context is added there.  In addition, perhaps a  tag should go on the idea that they were of European extraction because that is not established by a verifiable citation.  Then, of course, people would be encouraged to add all kinds of information about their racial makeup from "validated" sources.  In the end, we might have a long list of ancestries that describe this group.  Or, more easily, we could just do without the gilding of a lily! --Blue Tie 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
''B/T:'' 4. ''*DONE*''The "European Ancestry" description


message: :Both Carleton and Denton have speculated that the wealth and snobbery of the trains was a factor in the decision to attack. Not saying I agree with that, but I think the prosperity ok. --Unsigned
 
::(Does cultural pride blind some contemporary LDS to how reasonable it would have been for wartime exigencies to create in the trio of Haight, Higbee & Lee's some feeling of entitlement to the Baker-Fancher party's plentiful stock and provisions in supplementation of the meagerness of their own? I/e why not come down one side of the fence and consider the three brigands rather than straddle between that and--what? their conscientiously being agents of Brigham?)
::From alvyray.com: 
DOCUMENTATION GATHERED BY EARL L. SMITH: 
Affidavit of John S. Baker, Dec. 27, 1912, relative to the Mountain Meadows Massacre: 
In the matter of the claim of the Survivors of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, at the Mountain Meadows Utah Territory in September, 1857, Seventeen in number, and their heirs, against the United States Government.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF CARROLL
I, John S. Baker, first being duly sworn upon my oath state that my name is John S. Baker and I am eighty-one years of age (81) and reside near Berryville, Carroll County, Arkansas, and have resided here 76 years, never away except for a few months, when about the 10th of May, 1857, my wife two children and I joined other emigrants of ten men, some had families, of Barry County, Missouri to make the trip across the plains to California. We had about 165 head of cattle, and about 5 head of horses and mules, 40 head of cattle, were work oxen, making 20 yoke of oxen. I had 3 yoke of oxen and one wagon, - my own property.
Our train was in command of Sam Smith of Barry County, Mo. We started out on the same route that the Train from Carroll County, Arkansas were on, commanded by Captain Alexander Fancher and Jack Baker, who were killed at the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, together with the 120 men, women and children with them massacred.
We desired very much to overtake the Train from Arkansas, and used all speed and effort, in our power, to do so. We were about 100 miles behind the Arkansas Train of Emigrants when we arrived at Fort Riley, Kansas.
We pressed on, on the same trail and route of the Arkansas Train, and the Shian (sic) Indians attacked us on the North Fork of the Kansas River in Colorado, and killed four of our men, wounded one woman and one man, and took all our property, everything we had on earth, except the clothes we had on our persons.
Thirteen of us, including women and children, made our escape, and came back to Fort Riley, Kansas; then and there, we heard through a Government Dispatcher or Agent of the said Arkansas Train of Emigrants being all massacred and killed at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by Mormons and Indians. I do not know the exact day or month that the Massacre occurred, can’t remember, -but I know it was in the year 1857, and before or soon after the Indians attacked us, that I first heard of the Massacre.
We returned to our homes in Carroll County, Arkansas the last of September, 1857, to the best of my recollection.
The Arkansas Emigrant Train had about 900 head of cattle, a large number of horses and mules, wagons, carriages, and buggies and was estimated and said to be the best equipped and fixed the wealthiest train of emigrants that had ever crossed the plains prior to that time.
After the massacre, I saw seventy or eighty head of good cattle, mostly cows at Ogden, four miles from Ft. Riley, Kansas; they were loose cattle, - the people said that these cattle had returned there from the Arkansas Emigrants’ herd or drove of cattle. Major Thomas, Commander of the U.S. soldiers at Ft. Riley at that time, took possession and charge of said cattle and had them valued and turned into the Government herd of cattle.
I made application and claim for my cattle and property that said Indians took from me at said place in the year 1857, against the U.S. Government in the year 1900, and was allowed the sum $400.00m and was paid that amount by an agent of the U.S. Government in the year 1900.
I knew some of the emigrants in the Arkansas Train who were massacred at Mountain Meadows, Utah in the year of 1857 by reputation before they left Arkansas in spring of said year, to-wit: Capt. Alexander Fancher, Jack Baker, Laffoon, and some of the Dunlaps. Some of them were known to be wealthy men then for this country, when they sold their farms and lands and left for California in the Spring of the year, 1857.
I am not related by blood or marriage to any of the said Emigrants nor to any of the Seventeen Survivors of said Massacre and I have (no) interest in said claim.
(His mark)
(Signed) John S. (X) Baker
Attest: J.P. Fancher
J.O. Molloy
Sworn and subscribed to before me this the 27 day of December, 1912
Geo. M. Baines, Notary Public,
Carroll County, Arkansas
My Commission expires Feb’y 3, 1914 --Justmeherenow 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B.T.:'' 5. I question the "prosperity" of the migrants.

message: :(From the http://alvyray.com/Family/Stories/MountainMeadowsMassacre.htm alvyray.com website]): 
:Lorena Shell Eaker, The Shoe Cobbler's Kin: Genealogy of the Peter (Ecker) Eaker, Sr. Family, Volume 2, 1985, SCK Publications, PO Box 2125, Church Hill, TN 37642, p 849: "John Sherman Baker was a farmer & left his farm only twice after his marriage. The first time in 1857 was to try to make it to the gold fields of California.... I have listened to my own grandmother & some of her relatives discuss and retell the stories handed down through the family by her father (my gr-grandfather) John Sherman Baker of the tragedy that befell them and how they missed by a day or so being massacred.... The story similar to my grandmothers, was told by Sallie Baker Mitchell, a relative to our Bakers (and one of the seventeen children that lived through the tragedy) in an article in 'The American Weekly' August 1940, the only remaining survivor at that time … When William Wilkerson Baker returned from their investigative trip of the gold fields in 1856, the stories told inspired some relatives and friends and other families in the area to pack up, form a wagontrain to California...[account of the Sutter's Mill discovery of gold in CA]/ The John Sherman Baker family worked through the winter of 1856 and early Spring of 1857 getting his wagon, oxen team, and family prepared for the trip." --Justmeherenow 16:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 6. Can we be more certain that the lure of gold did motivate the young men?

message: It should be "threatened", I think.
:Agree 71.9.106.65 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change is complete on this prior to today. I'm not digging through the edits to find out when.  --Robbie Giles 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
''B/T:'' 7.*DONE* The hostilities between Utah and the Federal government are described as ''potential''


message: either, as I am sure that in some way or another this was a factor (and many contemporary documents recite the same thing though from different perspectives).
:But is there some proof in the form of Indian agent reports, etc. Paiute legends are actually as credible as Mormon legends. Without documentation, either is conjecture. Carleton (1859) reports Hamblin himself, their agent, informed me that to his certain knowledge in 1855 there were but three guns in the whole tribe. (Pah-Ute reference in previous sentence) p.12 Without written reports of Indian troubles (and the Mormons were excellent record keepers and letter writers) this is not fact, just conjecture. I will continue looking for refs to reports of Indian unrest in the area. --Robbie Giles 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 10. In addition, the relatively recent and uneasy peace between the Mormons and the Indians should not be completely ignored

message: and synthesis. It should be removed.
:The order by Brigham Young was issued on or about August 5, 1857. If the date of the massacre is indeed September 11, the statement is possibly correct. Do we know the date the train was in SLC? Brooks used Journal History of the Church a source which referenced trains in SLC from 7/25 to 8/5/1857 which could have been the train. Has anyone else seen a specific date? It is unclear from the [Thurston deposition exactly when she spoke with her father, but it was sometime between 8/3 and 8/10/1857. --Robbie Giles 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 11. The statement "However, the train's leadership likely were not aware of Young's martial law order" is original research

message: Changed to actual date. --Robbie Giles 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
''B/T:'' 13.*DONE* "Only days before", should be specified as a date.


message: Yes I know Bagley suggests it, but he does not present any actual evidence that this was a factor, from what I can recall. I do not think any of the participants either at the time or later, mentions this as an issue.  It deserves greater review.
:Brooks (p.36-37) says it was known in the southern part of Utah prior to arrival of the Fancher-Baker train. It is the last item she mentions prior to her Chapter 3 summation: So the wind grew into a whirlwind. Exaggeration, misrepresentation, ungrounded fears, unreasoning hate, desire for revenge, yes, even the lust for the property of the emigrants, all combined to give justification which, once the crime was done, looked inadequate and flimsy indeed." (Yep one sentence!) --Robbie Giles 02:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 17. The impact of Pratt's death might be a speculation.

message: (It was almost certainly not related to bands of immigrants -- Young had made similar pronouncements and these were all with regard to the Army).
 (Crockett seems to admit that Young may indeed have encouraged the Native tribes to raid of the stock of all emigrants traveling ahead of the US troops): Brigham Young, if it was truly he who spoke,10 did not refer to a specific emigrant train. Instead, on that day and on many others, as I will demonstrate, he asked Indian tribal leaders to help scatter the cattle of the army and of all emigrants on the trail in front of the army in order to completely close the trail. As historian Norman Furniss observed fifty years ago, "early in the war at least, the Church's leaders had a deliberate policy of seeking military assistance from the Indians."11 When Brigham Young told the Indian tribes he wanted assistance in fighting the Americans, he meant only the army.12 
:: * 10. Most historians will probably believe that "B" refers to Brigham Young. I have my doubts, but it probably makes little difference to the analysis. Wilford Woodruff verifies that a meeting occurred that day with Brigham Young, so the "B" may be "Brigham." However, nowhere else in the diary is Brigham referred to as "B" (but usually as "Brigham") and, indeed, "B" appears as someone else earlier in the diary—possibly Ben Simonds, who has been alternatively described as a Delaware Indian, a half-breed, or a white Indian trader. Huntington, diary, 1. The diary is reproduced at www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com; search "Dimick"; select depoJournals/Dimick/Dimick.2.htm (accessed 14 January 2004). 
:: * 11. Furniss, Mormon Conflict, 163. 
:: * 12. John D. Lee purportedly recounts a conversation he translated for George A. Smith to the Indians, although Lee is not a good source for translated dialogue; one should doubt Lee's ability to complete the translation: "The General told me to tell the Indians that the Mormons were their friends, and that the Americans were their enemies, and the enemies of the Mormons, too; that he wanted the Indians to remain the fast friends of the Mormons, for the Mormons were all friends to the Indians; that the Americans had a large army just east of the mountains, and intended to come over the mountains into Utah and kill all of the Mormons and Indians in Utah Territory." William W. Bishop, ed., Mormonism Unveiled: or the Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee (St. Louis: Bryan, Brand, 1877; reprint, Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, n.d.), 223. Although I have doubts about this encounter, it shows that Mormon leaders, when they referred to the Americans, referred to the advancing armies and not emigrants. --Justmeherenow 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 18. The meeting with the Indians on Sept 1 should be couched in terms of the US Army military action and in the context of prior Mormon wars.

message: "On Friday, September 11 two Mormon militiamen approached the Baker-Fancher party wagons with a white flag and were soon followed by Indian agent and militia officer John D. Lee" does not support the statement.
:Both Gibbs (p. 32) and Brooks (p.51) show the two men who went under a flag of truce were John D. Lee and William Bateman. I cited these sources and edited the text to match. --Robbie Giles 02:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 23. The footnote for this important statement

message: and scrubbed.  That one particularly unscholarly and utterly biased reference (Gibbs) provides an account that was contradicted by all others, including the eyewitness account, and including his own original source that he is supposedly summarizing, should be given far more consideration and editorial review.  (Said another way, Gibbs demonstrably lied and all of his statements should be considered false unless otherwise corroborated).
: Actually, Gibbs wrote an earlier book Lights and shadows of Mormonism in 1909. I believe it is the basis for the 1910 book. In it, Gibbs states that Lee cut the throat of one girl and the Indian chief from Cedar cut the throat of the other. He is using the statement of Albert Hamblin. He says that Lee denied it in his confession, but Nephi Johnson testified at trial to the same story. No rape is mentioned. His mention of it in the second book is attributed to an interview after the first book was published but before the second. It was based on rumors alleged to have circulated at the time of the incident.
:If you read the books, Gibbs states his bias up front. He also states his source as information from the trials. It differs little from other accounts. His big advantage is that he knew many of the participants as a young man, including Brigham Young. True, he was excommunicated but he does not indict the Mormon people for the massacre. Rather he blames a system of unquestioning loyalty and the religious fervor of the time which escalated, culminating in the massacre. He actually gives a very good background of the times surrounding the massacre and the subsequent coverup.
:I have a problem in characterizing a writer as a liar. It may be fair to say they have bias, used inadequate or questionable sources, or faulty reasoning in making their thesis. Those are all areas that can be "attacked." Simply because someone is an excommunicated Mormon does not make them a liar. Personally, I find some of Brooks' continued references to Mormon tradition as thinly veiled rumor and folklore. Remember the emigrants were not around to tell their side of the story, and no one believed the Paiutes when they later denied it. Only Mormon records about the actual event remain for the most part. However, just because she is a staunch Mormon, it does not follow that her scholarship is poor. For the time she wrote, she made excellent use of archival records. So let's use the sources, evaluate them, and compare and contrast them; but leave the value judgments about the author's in the trash. --Robbie Giles 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 25. The account of the Dunlap girls should be carefully reviewed

message: should also be mentioned.
:According to "A Trial Lawyer Reviews Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets" by Robert D. Crockett (Maxwell Institute, 2003. Pp. 199–254),Buchanan issued an amnesty for all crimes of the Mormons related to the claimed acts of sedition and treason. Governor Alfred Cumming announced a broad interpretation of that amnesty to the Saints on 14 June 1858.49 Certainly, by the date of the amnesty, federal officials believed that Mormons had directed the massacre, and they believed that John D. Lee was one of the leaders.50 One might reasonably conclude that the amnesty was intended to cover the massacre participants.
:Some in the federal government and the press believed that Buchanan intended to pardon the massacre perpetrators. Indian superintendent Jacob Forney was so upset with U.S. District Court Judge John Cradlebaugh's massacre investigation that he cursed Cradlebaugh's name, citing the amnesty as the basis for his objections, or so we are told from a source hostile to Forney.51 Non-Mormon U.S. District Attorney Alexander Wilson and non-Mormon U.S. District Court Judge Charles C. Sinclair disagreed over the application of the amnesty, with Wilson refusing to present to the jury bills of indictment.52 Harper's Weekly noted the conflict over the amnesty in the prosecution of the massacre.53 The New York Post opined that the amnesty excused the massacre crimes because it was an aspect of the Utah war intended to come within the amnesty's scope.54 It is no wonder that prosecution was uncertain.
::* 49. James Buchanan, "A Proclamation," 6 April 1858, 35th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Exec. Doc. 1, serial 974, pp. 69–72, "offering to the inhabitants of Utah, who shall submit to the laws, a free pardon for the seditions and treasons heretofore by them committed." This is not exactly an amnesty for all crimes relating to the invasion. Governor Cumming expanded upon this to include "all criminal offenses associated with or growing out of the overt acts of sedition and treason are merged in them." Otis G. Hammond, The Utah Expedition: 1857–1858: Letters of Capt. Jesse A. Gove, 10th Inf., U.S.A., of Concord, N.H., to Mrs. Gove, and Special Correspondence of the New York Herald (Concord, N.H.: New Hampshire Historical Society, 1928), 356-57. 
::* 50. Hurt to Forney, serial 956, p. 203. 
::* 51. Forney told others that Mormons "were all included in the President's proclamation and pardon, and would not be tried or punished for any offense whatever committed prior to the issuing of the pardon; that Judge Cradlebaugh was not a fit man for office," apparently accompanying his comments about the judge with "unmeasured terms, no language being too low or filthy." James Lynch, affidavit before D. R. Eckles [Chief Justice of Utah Supreme Court], 27 July 1859, 36th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 42, serial 1033, p. 84. 
::* 52. Stenhouse, Rocky Mountain Saints, 402–3. 
::* 53. "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," Harper's Weekly: Journal of Civilization, 14 August 1875, 661–66 at 666. 
::* 54. New York Post, cited in Beadle, Western Wilds, 514. Beadle was a journalist for the Union Vedette and the Salt Lake Daily Tribune, as well as a lawyer and a judicial clerk. Beadle's best-known work was Brigham's Destroying Angel: Being the Life, Confession, and Startling Disclosures of the Notorious Bill Hickman, the Danite Chief of Utah: Written by Himself, with Explanatory Notes by J. H. Beadle (Salt Lake City: Shepard Book, 1904). --Justmeherenow 14:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 29. In the aftermath, the decision of the new Governor to give general clemency

message: and needs to be removed.  Also the word "severely" associated with "criticized".
:Scathing as an adjective is no longer in the article.
:I removed severely and edited the sentence to make it clear the criticism was included in the official report. --Robbie Giles 00:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
''B/T:'' 30.*DONE* The word "scathing" for Carlton's report is original research


message: It needs checked.  As I recall, it was not the Mormons who got the payment but the families who later took the children in -- they filed for redress on behalf of the children (as memory serves.  I could be wrong, but this rings a bell with me.
:See Brooks p.78-79. In 1943 Brooks requested records from the General Accounting Office regarding payments made to Jacob Hamblin. The answer she received in September 1944 showed Hamblin was paid for care and supervision of the children. I can give specific excerpts if needed. --Robbie Giles 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 31. Carlton's account of the Mormons receiving payment might be in error

message: to this one and might be appropriately invoked (Young did not give out the whole truth when reporting and tried to avoid retribution to the Indians who killed the troop.  Apparently compromise coupled with either forgiveness or looking the other ways was his style in such situations.)
: Alliance with Snake Indians Sought--Dimick Huntington again.
"A report also reached the Indian farm on Spanish Fork, about the 
15th of September, that the Snake Indians, under a chief named Little Soldier, had attacked an emigrant, named Squires, from Missouri, who was camped near Ogden, and driven off all his cattle, (over four hundred,) together with all the mules and horses belonging to him. But the Utahs made no hesitation in asserting that the Mormons took the stock themselves, and that they had learned all about it from some Gosh-Utes who live in Rush valley. 
In confirmation of the truth of this report of the Utahs, I learned a few days ago from Ben Simon, a Delaware Indian, who lives with the 
Snakes in Weaber valley, that sometime in the early part of September, Dirnie B.. Huntington, (interpreter for Brigham Young.) and Bishop West, of Ogden, came to the Snake village, and told the Indians that Brigham wanted them to run off the emigrants' cattle, and if they would do so they might have them as their own. Simon says the Snake chiefs consulted him about the propriety of undertaking the theft, and he advised them to have nothing to do with the cattle, which course they concluded to adopt, hut Huntington and West insisted on their taking the stock ; whereupon the chiefs told them that they did not want it, and if the Mormons wanted it let them go and get it them selves, and so the interview ended. Simon thinks that if any of the Indians had anything to do with it they were hired by the Mormons, and says that he knows that the Mormons got the stock." (Message of the President. December 4, 1859. Hurt to Forney)(Also see Bagley p.113)Tinosa 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might not apply directly to the Old Spanish Trail but here's some background applying to the Oregon Trail from the Oregon Historical Society:Contrary to cinematic depictions of Indian-white relations along the Oregon Trail, sustained attacks by Indians on emigrant wagon trains were rare. Although conflict did occur, historian John Unruh notes that “thievery and not murderous attack constituted the major threat posed by Indians.” In fact, mutual aid between Indians and overlanders was much more common than violent hostility. . However, as the number of emigrants crossing the Oregon Trail increased over the course of the 1850s, Indian-white relations deteriorated. Uhruh estimates that just over 360 emigrants were killed by Indians from 1840 to 1860, most of them during the 1850s. In comparison, he estimates that more than 425 Indians were killed by emigrants during the same period. The great majority of these violent conflicts occurred west of the Rockies, which was by far the most dangerous portion of the overland journey. . The first major massacre of emigrants by Indians occurred along the Snake River in 1854 ... --Justmeherenow 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: MacKinnon (p61-62) writes:Several weeks later—elsewhere in Utah—there occurred other,
smaller-scale executions of unarmed civilian prisoners by Nauvoo Legion
officers, as with the October murder of ammunition trader Richard E.
Yates in northeastern Utah and the assassination of five members of the
Aiken party near Nephi in November. I have concluded that the October
lynching at Smith’s Fork of Private George W. Clark, a Utah Expedition
deserter, might well have been the act of non-Mormon mountaineers
rather than an atrocity57 committed by federal or militia troops operating
in the area.Nor was the Utah Expedition blameless with respect to bloodshed.
David L. Bigler’s research into the likelihood of indirect army complicity
in the February 25, 1858, lethal raid on the Mormon mission at Fort
Limhi, Oregon Territory, and my own discovery of Albert Sidney
Johnston’s spring 1858 decision to use Washakie’s Shoshone warriors to
operate and defend the Green River ferries raise serious questions of federal
behavior as well as intent. The Fort Limhi massacre alone—executed
by more than 200 Bannocks and northern Shoshones and possibly instigated
by civilian agents of the army—resulted in the deaths of two Mormon
farmer-missionaries and the wounding of five others plus an
unknown number of Native American casualties.
The precise roles that Brigham Young and James Buchanan
(through Johnston) played in this Utah War bloodshed is now under active
debate; although it strikes me that, as commanders in chief of their respective
armed forces, by nineteenth- as well as twenty-first-century standards,
both leaders should surely be viewed as accountable. When ailing,
militarily inexperienced James Buchanan and Brigham Young faced their
first major military crisis during the spring of 1857, their response was to
place large numbers of armed men in motion with powerful motivation but ambiguous, murky, and sometimes conflicting instructions. And so
the atrocities came. --Justmeherenow 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 33. Interestingly, the Gunnison Massacre and especially Brigham Young's reactions and reports to it are like mirror episodes

message: detailing the various contributions or perspectives of each writer.  Biases of writers should be noted and appropriate criticisms of their works summarized.  I think this section is appropriate because the story has elements of mystery and each of these works seeks to explain the mystery. The research into the "mystery" is part of the story.
:David Keller recently blogged: commented ):(...B)etween 1950 and 2000...nearly every person put in contact with her work went along with Juanita Brooks's conclusions which were:
# The perpetration of the Massacre was brought about by local Mormon leaders and not Native Americans.
# Brigham Young was consulted too late to prevent the Massacre and it happened against his wishes.
# Complex influences combined to push the Mormon leaders over the brink: a persecution complex, war hysteria over the approaching US army, harsh Mormon rhetoric to retributionally punish sin, Mormon ethic to unquestionably follow leaders, millennial expectations, us-versus-them alienation, frontier violence, mob/vigilante dynamics, desires to ally with Natives, desires to steal property in anticipation of scarcity, and so forth.
# After the massacre the local Mormon leaders attempted to cover-up their crime from US authorities.
# John D. Lee, the site leader, was made into a scapegoat, while most participants went unpunished.
# Brigham Young knew about the Massacre shortly after it happened and obstructed justice from taking its course.
:...Bagley's position rejects #2 above, insisting Brigham Young was in on causing the attack. He simplifies #3 so that only unique Mormon influences are to blame. In this view, Mormons were inherently violent and fanatically followed leaders and other sociological explanations can be ruled out. With this I think he would accept 1 and 4-6, but of course would want to state those ideas in his own words. There is also many things about the MMM to discuss that don't fit well into my parsing above. (Like whether the Mormon church should apologize, how much of the historical archives be accessible, how much interaction should the LDS church have with historians that bear bad news, how much the incident reflects on LDS truth claims, etc) 
:The new, informed, relatively more favorable Mormon position will differ from Brooks's as well. It accepts and reinforces points 1-5, but will provide evidence that #6 is wrong. Point 5 will be reinforced with new analysis of Haight's involvement.... --Justmeherenow 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Midwest Book Review says about Mountain Meadows Witness: The Life and Times of Bishop Philip Klingensmith by Anna Jean Backus: Jacob Hamblin's presence at the massacre (a matter of historical debate) is now supported with new information.Anybody know what it is? --Justmeherenow 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''B/T:'' 34. Key sources, Brooks, Bagley, Shirts, should be given a section

message: Of course, given that we're back to revert warring, I've requested it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not technically an anonymous user. It's someone who failed to log in, obviously in error. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know? Gwen Gale 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)The anon likely reverted to the version by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey because that's who it is . I agree with Hipocrite that it's likely just an error of not logging in. - auburnpilot talk 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because any removal of materials or citations which are verified and which compromises the integrity and accuracy of the encyclopedia is vandalism, particularly in an article that seeks to place blame for the murders of 140 people on another group without evidence. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I should say I think you're rather mistaken about what is happening here. I can only humbly suggest that you review WP:Vandalism to get started. Thank you for your reply. Gwen Gale 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not mistaken.  Please do not vandalize those citation again, I will only replace them into the article in order to represent all viewpoints and credible evidence.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No good faith edit is vandalism. Gwen is not acting in bad faith. Neither are you. If you treat your opposition as evil, you will never be able to compromise with them. Please attempt to act civily and keep your assumptions about the bad faith of others (Gwen as a vandal, myself as a troll) on the inside. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  And your removal of talk page comments and "bait and switch" with page protection, along with the threats posted on Duk's talk page are about as uncivil as it gets.  I am here to edit, not get into conflicts with trolls and folks trying to WP:OWN an article to rewrite history for the church.  Give the paiutes their space in the article.  I dont have any interest in editing it beyond adding their views, which keep getting removed (because is makes the church look bad). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove any citations. The material I rm'd from the lead was quite uncited. See the diff Gwen Gale 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: I added the infobox for civilian attack to the top of the article with the map from just below included. If the group feels this is not appropriate, just revert to my previous edit and the image will be restored to the original location.
As a visual learner (with a very short attention span) I find infoboxes are a crisp start to an article. But hey! I've been wrong before.  
None of my previous edits have changed any text, other than typos and wikilinks; just some tidying up. --Robbie Giles 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox addition

message: My understanding is that semi-protection is used for articles that are subject to extensive vandalism or disruption by anons.  I've been watching this article for more than a year, and it has never had a serious problem with vandalism.  The article was protected because of edit warring, mostly between registered users.  Now that full protection has been lifted, I don't see any reason to retain semi-protection. BRMo 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the protection. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article semi-protected?