Talk:Utah War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV issues with links

I really take issue with the uncommented inclusion of a Utah Lighthouse Ministries link here. At least a remark should be made about the source. --Slightlyslack 04:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the link is good and useful notwithstanding the source. Tom Haws 23:10, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre

B said: "mountain meadows victims are not casualties of the Utah War" Why do you say that?

• The Mormons were organized militarily
• The indians clearly believed they were assisting the Mormons to fight the "Americans (Mericats)"
• The Massacre is listed on this page in the war sequence

What evidence or sentiment could lead to a different POV? Tom (hawstom) 19:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

The tragedy was related to (incidental, tangential), but not part of the Utah War; it was not an attack on or by a military unit. —B|Talk 19:53, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you say the attack was not by a military unit? All (Well, not all. Much of) the language of the participants and commanders was in terms pointing to and leaning on their military organization.  ????? Tom (hawstom) 20:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

State the orders (verbal or written) for such and such military unit to do such and such. It doesn't exist. The participants were not acting in an official capacity as a military unit. —B|Talk 21:37, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is confirmed by American Massacre (a decidedly non-NPOV source, but whatever), FWIW. As much as Sally Denton tried, she could find no direct orders from Salt Lake (let alone from Brigham Young himself) to the militias at Parowan and Cedar City ordering the attack on the Fancher train. The letter from Young to Lee supposedly ordering the MMM turned out to be a Mark David Hoffman forgery.

Hey, B. I sure appreciate your helping me understand this event better. What an event to try to catalog! I think we should back up a step or two. Were the Fanchers and company casualties of the Utah War? Was Nick Berg a casualty of the Iraq War? Do we have to show paper orders to assign casualties? There was ecclesiastical pressure on the men who participated in MMM (including Lee), but there was about equal military pressure used. How is it possible to be respectful to the Fancher and company dead and not list their numbers as Utah War casualties? Would we deny Nick Berg the respect of being listed as an Iraq War casualty? Sorry for the shotgun of questions. You don't have to answer them point by point of course. I really want to understand what drives you to remove the Fancher Company from the count. I need to understand your point of view on this. Thanks. Tom (hawstom) 22:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

In reply to your questions above: 1)As implied by me earlier, the Fanchers are not casualties of the Utah war. 2) Nick Berg is not a casualty of the Iraq War. The Iraq War is over. It has been for some time now. What is going on in Iraq now is peace-keeping, not war. 3) For you to say, "Do we have to show paper orders to assign [war] casualties?" mischaracterizes my comments. I did not limit orders to "written", as you imply. I would think that good sense would lead someone to believe that generally a war casualty only occurs when one military unit engages another military unit. As I already stated above, MMM "was not an attack on or by a military unit". Even if it was fair to characterize the attackers as a military unit, it is still arguable that the Fanchers were not war casualties because an intentional attack on civilians is generally an illegitimate action for a military unit. As it stands, there were no verbal nor written orders authorizing a military unit to engage civilians. period. It's not like any of the Mormon attackers were sort of full-time regular soldiers. 4) The respect for the Fanchers is given by recognizing them as victims of MMM, not the Utah War. 5) Your comparison with Nick and MMM/Utah War is problematic, but anyway: Nick is not being disrespected by not being listed as an Iraq War casualty. He is a civilan victim of insurgent-rebel-terrorists, not military units. —B|Talk 15:06, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

The two are interconnected events, but not part of the same issue. The Utah War was very much a northern Utah "Mormons versus US Govt" deal. The Fancher party were not the government, they had nothing to do with the removal of Mormons from political office (one of the major issues of Mormon's fighting back). The MMM was a completely seperate, albeit, interconnected issue.

However, they were part of the same retrenchment/reformation era. Both events likely contributed to the other's issues - in a similar way as the war in Afganistan and the War in Iraq are related (although that is a bad comparison), but totally seperate issues. -Visorstuff 00:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say then that the Utah War never really happened--only threatened? It seems to me that if there was a war at all, MMM was what you might call a war crime of it. Tom (hawstom) 02:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Utah "War" is a misnomer; it's more like the "Utah standoff". AFAIK, there were no casualties resulting from the few engagements between the Mormons and the US Army. War crime? That's getting too ananchronistic, don't you think? MMM is not a war crime. Lee was convicted in civilian court, not a courts-martial. —B|Talk 14:13, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

A civilian court. I was wondering about that myself. I have to say I have immersed myself deeply in MMM, and the only way I can make sense of it is in the context of the Mormons having written off the USA and having sworn vengeance for the wrongs of Missouri and Nauvoo and for the blood of the Prophet and Hyrum, which was of course the attitude that got them in trouble and brought on the "standoff" in the first place. Tom (hawstom) 21:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Suppose you had hired a bunch of mercenaries to help defend your family against my family. Suppose some innocents of my family happened along the path of your mercenaries and got trapped, and some of them killed. Suppose a small army from my family was on its way, and a huge army from my family was available should your family become a real problem.

Now suppose your mercents insisted they had claim on the goods of the party from my family, and suppose some of the party from my family were very poorly behaved and violent. Suppose shots were fired and in a heated week of desperation, your family decided the only way to save its skin was to annhilate the party from my family and keep the whole affair a secret, lest the story should get out to my family that your family was in open, bloody rebellion and I come annhilate your whole family.

I might say my poor family were victims of bloodthirsty fanatics, or I might say they were casualties of the conflict. Which would you prefer? Tom (hawstom) 21:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

B is right that "an intentional attack on civilians is generally an illegitimate action for a military unit." And that is part of what is so horrific about MMM. Here is a mainstream view that clearly sees MMM as a military action:

Juanita Brooks, a noted Utah historian, is famous for the integrity with which she insisted upon recounting the saga of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. <snip> Two books elevated Brooks to fame: The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950) and John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat (1961). The books demonstrated that Mormon militia, acting upon prior orders, assisted Indians in the treacherous massacre of California-bound emigrants in 1857 and that John D. Lee, tried and executed for the massacre, was unfairly singled out from a number of responsible officers. Characterized by impeccable research and deep compassion, these works showed that the massacre was a tragedy for the Mormons as well as for the emigrants who died at their hands. [1](emphasis added)

MMM was ordered by Colonel William H. Dame, directed by Lieutenant Colonel Isaac C. Haight, and executed by John D. Lee. Tom (hawstom) 20:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've added a section titled Consequences (which could be changed, if anyone has something better). Would a brief mention of the MMM be appropriate there rather than the one sentence recently added to the topic paragraph? Comment please. WBardwin 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion possibilities: "Response in Utah"

The article has some strong areas, but LDS/Utah perspective on these events are really only included in the timeline and in scattered bits and pieces. I would suggest a section on the Utah/LDS activities, including the activitie of the Nauvoo Legion, the global move to Provo and points south, the recall of European and American missionaries, the buildup of fear and tension, the MMM, and Kane's intervention to settle the matter. Comments and ideas?? WBardwin 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV & Cite templates

At this point, these generic templates are next to useless for an article this evolved. If someone contests specific statements or specific sources, use the appropriate tags in the actual article:

• {{fact}} produces [citation needed]
• {{who}} produces [attribution needed]
• {{vc}} produces [this source's reliability may need verification]
• {{POVassertion}} produces (Neutrality disputed — See talk page)
• {{POV-statement}} produces [neutrality disputed]

Sections which are totally unsourced can be pulled intact to the talk page to be discussed or re-added later. Drive-by editors slapping templates on articles is not conducive to actual progress or consensus. Rather than raging against the wiki, why not contribute to the article? - WeniWidiWiki 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I have read this article and remain unsure if any significant fighting took place in this conflict as this article is missing any real discussion of the events of the war. It gives background and describes the end of the war, but omits discussion of what happened during the war. TimVickers 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the introduction that clarifies that there were no military battles between the U.S. Army and the Mormon militia. Contrary to some claims, however, it was not a "bloodless war," because more than 100 civilians were massacred at Mountain Meadows. BRMo 23:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Amassed forces

When comparing forces in military conflicts, a headcount for combatant (or in this case potential combatants) is normally included. Recent edits added muster numbers for the Nauvoo Legion militia, but removed the number of US regulars that where marched to Utah. The numbers of US regulars is extremely important, not only in comparing force sizes, but it also gives a lead-in to indicate how this force was a very large portion of the antebellum standing army. The expenditures involved with moving so many solders for essentially no real benefit is one of the reasons this became know as Buchanan's Blunder in the popular press of the time (which is also not currently mentioned in the article). -- 159.182.1.4 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! In my recent edits, I added some info about militia troop movements and shuffled things about. Material you have specific concerns/issues about did remain in the article. They are found in:

• troop numbers of 2,500 (which I agree are very important) were moved to the topic sentence under Troop movements section.
• Consequences section defines Buchanan's Blunder and consequences are discussed there.

Let me know if you have any additional concerns, and please feel free to add or edit. WBardwin 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Secessionists as cause of War?

Shall we open up another can of worms! What do editors think of this angle [2] -- that Buchanan was advised by successionist sympathizers to send troops, with the intention to scatter US strength? Web quote below. WBardwin 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The sending of troops to Utah was part of a foul scheme to weaken the government in its impending struggle with the secessionists. The movement has been called not inaptly "Buchanan's blunder," but the best and wisest men may make blunders, and whatever may be said of President Buchanan's short-sightedness in taking this step, even his enemies do not question his integrity in the matter. He was unjustly charged with favoring secession; but the charge was soon disproved.

However, it was known that certain of his cabinet were in league with the seceding states; and prominent among them was John Floyd, secretary of war. The successful efforts of this officer to disarm the North, while accumulating the munitions of war in the South; to scatter the forces by locating them in widely separated and remote stations; and in other ways to dispose of the regular army in the manner best calculated to favor the anticipated rebellion, are matters of history. It is also told how, at the commencement of the rebellion, he allied himself with the confederate forces, accepting the rank of brigadier-general. It was through Floyd's advice that Buchanan ordered the military expedition to Utah, ostensibly to install certain federal officials and to repress an alleged infantile rebellion which in fact had never come into existence, but in reality to further the interests of the secessionists. When the history of that great struggle with its antecedent and its consequent circumstances is written with a pen that shall indite naught but truth, when prejudice and partisanship are lived down, it may appear that Jefferson Davis rather than James Buchanan was the prime cause of the great mistake.

Because this quote is from a set of lectures that were published as a pamphlet in 1910, I'd ask the following questions: Have any subsequent historians discussed this hypothesis, either to refute it or to agree with it? If not, does that have any relevance for the perceived reliability of the source? If historians have read his opinion and think it isn't important enough to refute, that might suggest that the source is questionable in terms of the standard for reliable sources. On the other hand, if they've discussed the hypothesis, even to refute it, then there may be a case to include both points of view under the WP:NPOV policy. BRMo 13:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits and upcoming changes

Hi D'lin! Thanks for your interest in the Utah War article. I "undid" your last edit (and some made from an anonymous IP#, if I'm not mistaken), not for any real concern about content but because this article is moving toward a significant revision. A group of dedicated editors have been wading through the difficulties of portraying the Mountain Meadow massacre as objectively and fairly as possible. This major rewrite is in a review and revision stage. Once that article is reviewed and a few more changes made, it will be submitted for a review to become a Wikipedia Featured Article (a big deal, here!). At that point, related articles can expect to receive lots of information editors have gathered and only used marginally in the MMM article. I expect a fair sized section to be added on MMM. During the last few days, I've been trying to beef up this article a little in preparation. I also (see the note above) am considering other avenues we might take. So, would you like to help the editors on this article come up with an appropriate outline? I would like to consider what is good about the present article, what is missing, and what sequence will be best. You might also review Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Religion articles, including LDS history, have editing and concensus difficulties because there are so many strong points of view out there. Ideas welcome. WBardwin 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Source needed

Material taken from D'lin's recent edits -

• Almost no Mormons volunteered to fight with the U.S. Army during the American Civil War. They wanted little to do with any federal government activities. Certainly it sounds right, as I personally know of no LDS settlers of the period who fought in the Civil War. But do you have a source for the information? Some of our readers would look for the statistics, like less than 2 percent or something.
• Investigations into the alleged Mormon rebellion and misgoverning proved them all basically groundless. Again, although there was animosity on both sides, this sounds right. At least from an LDS perspective. Source? What investigation(s) occurred?

Best......WBardwin 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Short Creek Raid?

Why are we directing to Short Creek Raid? Well seperated by time from this event, and topically is much closer to plural marriage and Mormon fundamentalist groups than with the underlying cause of this war. Is it just that it has polygamy as a topic? I would remove it. WBardwin 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar events, though separated by time and involving different groups. Government sends in force to quell "insurrection"/conspiracy; one of main bases for suspicion is the practice of plural marriage. In retrospect many historians see the event as a mistake by the government and part of what led to the downfall of an executive branch politician. There are many parallels. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Consequences section

The 'Consequences' section contains the following paragraph:

Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1858 and every significant bill they passed fell before the votes of southern Democrat Senators or a Presidential veto. The Federal Government remained stalemated and little could be done. By 1860 sectional strife split the Democratic Party into northern and southern wings indirectly leading to the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860. The resolution of the slavery question led to the ugly result of the American Civil War, the Utah "War" had accomplished little or nothing.

I'm not sure I understand how any of this is a consequence of the Utah War, or even related to it. I especially don't understand the last sentence; what was the Utah War supposed to accomplish that would have prevented the Civil War? Does the Utah War have any relationship to the Civil War whatsoever other than being in close in time and being the result of fears of disloyalty? --HarryHenryGebel 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read this article, very interesting bit of American history I had never heard about. My only critics so far is about some detail regarding the way it is written: I don't think that an encyclopedic article should judge events, saying that an event "fortunately" happened or that another event is "ugly". Of course most of us don't like war, sufferings, conflict... but descriptive history, which is the approach supposed to be found in encyclopedic articles, is about describing what happened, not judging whether some event was fortunate or not, happy or not. An encyclopedia is about giving information, not commenting it (unless you are presenting a theory which is ment as an interpretation for said information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.192.140 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

HarryHenryGebel, for the conceptual link between slavery and polygamy see the "twin relics" statement; this was an actual plank in the Republican Party's platform for the 1856 election (I've reworded this in the article using text from the polygamy article, and it now includes a link to a source for the quote). Even though Buchanan won the 1856 election, it was with a slim margin, and the only reason that Buchanan was even nominated for the Democratic ticket over the incumbent President was because of the uproar over the Kansas-Nebraska Act spreading slavery in the territories above the Missouri Compromise Line. This, combined with the added pressures of Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott Decision (handed down only two days after Buchanan took office on March 4), saddled Buchanan with the need to look like he was doing something.

With his preparations already starting within the first few weeks of his presidency, Buchanan took up the anti-polygamy/anti-Mormon plank of the Republican Party's platform (without actually claiming to do so), in the guise of putting down a conveniently fabricated rebellion in Utah. It was easier to march a fourth of the US standing army of the time to the Utah territory, in what could be best described in modern terms as a Wag the Dog style distraction (with the Mormons casted as the conveniently demonized enemy), than it was to do anything with the slavery issues (it wasn't just one issue - there was a Gordian Knot of interlocking problems). This military (in)action completely backfired on Buchanan (he lost the next election), polygamy was still practiced in Utah, and man power was wasted at a great distance from where the federal government's real enemies lay in the Slave Power states. The effects of Buchanan's Blunder were felt throughout the national stage, and it appears that the sentences you questioned above are an attempt to describe that, though I'm sure that the wording could be improved.

As an aside: after the Civil War there were some discussions that John B. Floyd among others had tried to use the Utah War to pre-position significant forces out in the middle of nowhere so that they would be more difficult to use in the upcoming war over slavery, which many on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line at that time were already thinking was enviable. Theories for how this aided the South included that it might have been meant to assist in balancing the slave states' deficits in both manpower and resources. Others though it was merely done to drain the treasury, reducing the financial strength of the federal government to oppose the South, and thereby buy the South more time to prepare. Unfortunately most of that material remains untouched by modern publications, so it would be Original Research to add it to this article, but the older sources exist. -- 159.182.1.4 02:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Some early 20th century historians saw, in the Utah War, evidence of a conspiracy by Southern government officials and military officers. By encouraging the removal of a segment of the army from the eastern US territory, a large part of the nation's existing defense force would be out of the action should southern states choose to succeed. The idea was supported by the fact that several people involved in Washington decision making about the war and the Utah federal territorial government were from Southern states and later returned to their home states and allied with the Confederacy. Although the idea was popular, and widely taught, for several decades, most modern scholars discount the theory. However the idea is received, decisions relating to the Utah War, as with most political decisions of the time, have at least a tenuous connection with the Civil War. WBardwin 05:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Amassed forces & Casualties

I have edited the article header panel to show the number of US Army Forces as 2,500 as per p.140 of

THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT 1818-1865

by Mary C. Gillett

CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON D.C., 1987

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/civil/gillett2/amedd_1818-1865_chpt7.htm

Using the same source (p.142) I have edited US Army casualties to 38.

"In the period from 1857 to 1859, only 4 men died from wounds and injuries in the Utah and Wyoming territories, but 34 died of disease..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.74.65 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Introduction

It is incorrect to say that the Utah War was about each side seeking "control over the government of the territory, with the national government ultimately victorious."

Buchanan's fears that Utah was in rebellion were false. Though there was much friction with individual federal officials who showed antipathy toward the church, Mormons considered themselves US citizens and supported the constitution. The national government's authority over the government was not disputed by the Mormons until they were on the point of being invaded. It should be pointed noted that Brigham Young was twice appointed governor by the national government in 1850 and 1854.

Buchanan's hopes that replacing Young and sending troops would put an end to the troubles between the Mormons, local non-Mormons and Federal officials were not realised. He expected the Mormons to welcome liberation: "many eastern leaders, including the president and his cabinet, were laboring under the false impression that the Mormons would welcome the soldiers as saviors to redeem them from a living hell. According to such thinking, polygamy had cracked the unity of the Mormon people and, as one editor suggested, "will cause a stampede among the women and be a blow to the Mormon church and crush it to atoms." Secretary of State Lewis Cass instructed the new governor to offer federal protection to all Utahns who wished it. Washington apparently believed that a large portion of the population would wish nothing more than to escape from the cruelties of Mormondom." http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/EstZion/zionch14.htm#chapter14

In fact, the Mormons remained loyal and united and continued to elect and support their religious leaders to political office in the Territory government. Their opponents and the federal government, judiciary and military forces in the territory were not so united and continued to be frustrated in their attempts to bring the Mormons to heel. As an example Governor Cumming was reduced to calling upon the Nauvoo Legion 1n 1859 to prevent the Army being used to falsely arrest Young on charges of forgery. http://books.google.com/books?id=DtP0XFmghSYC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=%22brigham+young%22+pardon+(condition%7Cconditional)&source=web&ots=hI-4Too1F7&sig=wPJNQooMNZAhQtg1dLgBNFAxe58#PPA311,M1

Cumming was quoted as saying to Young: "I can do nothing here without your influence."

For the Mormons, the war was not about control of government but about survival:

"In May or June, 1857, the United States mails for Utah were stopped by the Government, and all communication by mail was cut off, an army of the United States was en route for Utah, with the ostensible design of destroying the Latter-day Saints, according to the reports that reached us from the East". - Brigham Young http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/brondel/archive/young.htm

"We are invaded by a hostile force who are evidently assailing us to accomplish our overthrow and destruction.… Our opponents have availed themselves of prejudice existing against us because of our religious faith, to send out a formidable host to accomplish our destruction. We have had no privilege, no opportunity of defending ourselves from the false, foul, and unjust aspersions against us before the nation. The Government has not condescended to cause an investigating committee or other person to be sent to inquire into and ascertain the truth, as is customary in such cases..."

The Mormons' war aim was achieved. The national government's was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.74.65 (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Army reinforcements

it would be good to make it clear that only a portion of the army's reinforcements ever actually came to Utah, and indeed, most never arrived at Camp Scott before they were diverted to other assignments.Panbobor (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stewart Van Vliet

"When United States President James Buchanan decided to send a military expedition to crush the so-called Mormon Rebellion, Van Vliet fitted out the expedition. After the expedition was underway, Van Vliet was ordered to proceed to Salt Lake City and communicate directly with Brigham Young. When reports circulated that the Mormons planned on murdering Van Vliet, he left his escort outside Salt Lake and proceeded alone where he was courteously received. The Utah War ended several months later without much bloodshed". http://db3-sql.staff.library.utah.edu/lucene/Manuscripts/null/Accn0679.xml/complete Should not this fellow receive a mention in the article? It seems that he delivered the first notification to BY that he had been replaced (around Sept 8,1857).http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/centennial_celebration/072395.html 75.167.186.10 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

--Material above comes from his obituary and I know of no other source. If the information is to be included, I would think we would need a date of his arrival in Salt Lake. "...several months later" is our only clue. I'll look in some L. Arrington material that I have. Anyone else? 65.54.154.46 (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked in the "Story of the Latter-day Saints" Allen/Leonard. They say he arrived on September 7th, some 40 days after the Saints had been warned by Mormon mail carriers. I'll try and place something in the article. Thanks for the heads up. WBardwin (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Van Vliet certainly deserves mention. He had been a friend to the Saints in Iowa, and was the first official messenger from the United States to the Mormons. Brigham Young specifically took him aside and told him of their preperations to either fight the army or burn the territory to the ground and listed their grievances. Van Vliet promised to stop the Utah Expedition on his own authority and gave word to Col. Alexander of the fortifications in Echo Canyon. Failing to stop the Expedition, he continued on to Washington, D.C. where he became an important advocate for the Latter-day Saint and ending the Utah War. Wilford Woodruff records that Young told Van Vliet

"If we can keep the peace for this winter I do think there will be something turn up that may save the shedding of blood."

Mormon Resistance: A Documentary Account of the Utah Expedition, 1857-1858, 47.

Panbobor (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't these historians keep their stories straight? "The Department of the Army dispatched Captain Stewart Van Vliet, an assistant quartermaster, to Utah to contact Governor Young, and inform him of the expedition's mission: to escort the new appointees, to act as a posse comitatus and to establish at least two and perhaps three new U.S. Army camps in Utah. Van Vliet reached Great Salt Lake City September 8 and sought out Young. In the maelstrom Buchanan had made a critical slip; he had failed to notify Brigham Young officially that he had been superceded. Young--who had once declared: "We have got a territorial government, and I am and will be the governor, and no power can hinder it until the Lord Almighty says, 'Brigham, you need not be governor any longer,' and then I am willing to yield to another"--made the most of Buchanan's blunder. He chose to regard the troops as a mob and on September 15, 1857, declared martial law in the territory. His now famous proclamation began: "Citizens of Utah. We are invaded by a hostile force."" http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/centennial_celebration/072395.html75.167.186.10 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"I do not think it is the intention of the government to arrest you," said Van Vliet, "but to install a new govenor of the territory". "History of Utah" H.H. Bancroft. Volume XXVL. p. 607.http://books.google.com/books?id=f20G8sJ91Q4C&pg=PA607&lpg=PA607&dq=%22van+vliet%22+utah&source=web&ots=qVPPYO2IcV&sig=uEW1vOF7gkUvFFGDnKR8RSm_n_U#PPA607,M175.167.186.10 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) 75.167.168.209 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to change the statements about Van Vliet which say he was sent to describe to Young the intentions of the army to act as a posse comitatus, etc. His instructions in fact said nothing of the kind, but merely stated that his purpose was to make "the necessary arrangements and purchases for providing the troops of the army of Utah with sufficient forage, fuel, &c., at their arrival at or near that place," and to inform Brigham Young of that object. He was also to deliver Harney's letter to Brigham Young, gather information for the approaching army, and "obtain a suitable location for the troops in the vacinity of Salt Lake City." Instructions to Captain Van Vliet, Mormon Resistance: A Documentary Account of the Utah Expedition, 1857-1858, 37.24.125.36.105 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Harold Schindler was a respected historian. http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/halschindler.html 75.167.168.209 (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Mr. Schindler is a respected historian. I merely put forward that Van Vliet's official instructions from the army were to get supplies for the army once it arrived in Utah, find a place for it to encamp, and to deliver General Harney's letter. Certainly Van Vliet revealed to Young all of the information that he had about the intentions of the army, but this was not at the request of the United States government. Harney's letter was the official communication, and it contained no mention of a posse comitatus or a new governor. Now, Brigham Young certainly had most of this information anyway. But, it is important for understanding the information blackout from the government, and how this continued to worry the Mormons. Not to be rude, but in a choice between Mr. Schindler and an original source, I'd go with the original source.Panbobor (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want this to become a classic wikipedia fight where you erase my additions to the article and then I erase yours. If it would be helpful, I will reprint the entire letter of instruction from the army to Van Vliet in this section. It says nothing about informing Young about the posse comitatus, despite Mr. Schindler's assertion that this was his mission. If you can present another source, I would be pleased to consider it. Or, is there a compromise we can come to in the wording?Panbobor (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Apocalypse

Ladies and Gentelmen, why do we have a problem with admitting that Brigham Young believed that the Utah War may have turned into an apocalyptic battle that would usher in the Second Coming? I think the evidence is quite clear that he believed and hoped that he could keep the US Army out of Utah Territory without bloodshed. But that was only one possible future that he foresaw. At least early in the conflict, Young cast the conflict in apocalyptic terms and prepared for a war of massive proportions in which he hoped to draw in the Native Americans. Of course, by March 1858, he had instead opted for the "Sevestapol Policy" rather than an open conflict. But this does not change the fact that Young was making speeches about slaughtering the US Army in the might of the Lord. I suppose that could be chalked up to rhetoric to fire up the Saints. But I think that the hallmark of Young was that he was genuinely open to God's will. He thought if the Saints had enough faith, God would turn the Army away without any fighting. But he also felt that God might desire the Saints to punish the United States. Or, God might require the Saints to burn down Utah and start somewhere else yet again. All of these thoughts are present in his public addresses and journals of the likes of Wilford Woodruff. What's wrong with a sentence or two explaining this?Panbobor (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

While you might make a strong case for the statement, and it may be a valid opinion, I'm afraid Wikipedia policy requires a quoted statement by the person (in this case, Brigham Young) or an evaluation from a published source by a historian or analyst. See Wikipedia:No original research. The policy, summarized, says: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. This analysis or synthesis of published material is probably what you did in the paper referred to in our earlier correspondence. Although I'm willing to stretch Wiki policy (and have on occasion), stating the Young had an apocalyptic belief about the potential military conflict is more that a little like reading his mind. However, if you add two or three quotes from his public speeches, which were quite militant, I think that might get the idea across just as well. Best..........WBardwin (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question:

Since this information appears to have been written by Mormons, can you tell me how to Mormons view the History Channel documentary on the Moutain Meadows Massacre and the film "September Dawn"? PM4.153.255.58 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peace Commision

May be of interest to editors. "Mormon Resistance" By Le Roy Reuben Hafen , Ann Woodbury Hafen pages 348-355 http://books.google.com/books?id=eG_JXq3PGJgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mormon+resistance&ei=IDyyR_euEobUtgP8le3KDQ&sig=Tnaw8mGdHLwniJWf5MTnQFf75T4#PPA348,M1Kitsap (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bet the Commissioner's report is deleted faster than it was entered in this article75.167.168.209 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Kitsap (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kitsap -- so are you claiming this "snide" anon prediction? . If so, you don't believe in assuming "good faith". That concerns me. WBardwin (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely seperated the topics 'Question' & 'Peace Commision'. See history.Kitsap (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fort Limhi

Hate to say it, but Fort Limhi was in Oregon Territory, not Washington Territory. The settlement existed from 1855-1858, a year before Oregon was made into a state.Panbobor (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fillmore's appointment of Young

A recent edit stated as fact that Millard Fillmore was not aware of Brigham Young's "characteristics", implying that had Fillmore been, he would not have made the appointment. This appears to be the opinion of the source cited (author William Alexander Linn). According to the cited source, the author is drawing his own conclusion. That's fine and the author of that work is entitled to a point of view. However, this idea cannot be stated as a fact here if we are to maintain a neutral point of view. It could definitely be included as an opinion of one historian, however I experimented with that and the statement just seems out of place. Feel free to add it that way; however I don't think it belongs as a simple statement of fact. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate information

I removed this quote, weaving a few minor details from it into the narrative, as it is mostly duplicated in the other material. It could, if necessary, be restored. WBardwin (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Utah War had its formal beginning on July 18, 1857, when the Tenth Infantry marched out of Ft. Leavenworth. Six days later, while the Saints were celebrating the tenth anniversary of their arrival in the Valley, A. O. Smoot, O. P. Rockwell, Judson Stoddard, and Elias Smith rode in and confirmed what had been anticipated for several weeks, that the army was on its way to Utah. On August 5, 1857, Brigham Young issued his first proclamation declaring martial law and forbidding any US troops to enter the territory. This broadside, however, was given little, if any, circulation. Why this was so, and why a second proclamation was issued six weeks later, one can only speculate at this point. It would appear that during most of August the Mormon leaders had not precisely focused on a strategy for dealing with the approaching army; and after the first proclamation was struck off, they likely had second thoughts about a direct confrontation with the federal government. On August 29, Brigham Young instructed Daniel H. Wells to draft a second proclamation of martial law; but by this time news of the impending visit of Captain Stewart Van Vliet, an assistant quartermaster in the army, must have reached the Mormon leaders, prompting them to hold up any formal declarations until after his visit. Under any circumstances, Van Vliet arrived in Great Salt Lake City on September 8. Six days later he left the city to return to the army, having convinced Brigham Young that the Army intended to enter the territory, and convinced himself that the Mormons would resist any such attempt. The following day, September 15, 1857, Brigham Young reissued his proclamation of martial law. This proclamation is identical to the first, except for a rewritten sentence near the end and the change of the date."

Material is concise & complete. Not available elsewhere in the article.Tinosa (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article. All major points are in there -the date of army's departure, the announcement to the LDS faithful at conference, the first and second announcement of martial law, Van Vliet's mission, etc. The following may be unique: It would appear that during most of August the Mormon leaders had not precisely focused on a strategy for dealing with the approaching army; and after the first proclamation was struck off, they likely had second thoughts about a direct confrontation with the federal government but is obviously speculation. Anyone else think that this is important enough to include? WBardwin (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the larger paragraph is duplicative. However, the unique aspects that you mention, while speculative, I think are helpful for explanatory purposes. If there is another source which provides alternative explanation for the two documents, that should be listed as well.Panbobor (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph/quote on the web site is listed as being: Excerpted and edited from Peter Crawley and Chad J. Flake, A Mormon Fifty: an exhibition in the Harold B. Lee Library in conjunction with the annual conference of the Mormon History Association. (Provo, Utah, Friends of the Brigham Young University Library, 1984). Item 50, p. [36]. So, would it satisfy objections if we were to say? - LDS historians Crawley and Flake believe that: ...during most of August the Mormon leaders had not precisely focused on a strategy for dealing with the approaching army; and after the first proclamation was struck off, they likely had second thoughts about a direct confrontation with the federal government. WBardwin (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Cummings party

I found an internet source, based on letters from Elizabeth Cummings [3], that states that Cummings stayed behind in Kansas until receiving his formal orders from the Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, on September 4th. The party, including Cumming's wife Elizabeth, left Kansas ten days later, making extra speed where possible to catch up with the main body of troops. On October 24, the Cummings party with the Dragoons under Colonel Cooke reached Fort Laramie. This is the only timeline source for this subgroup I have found so far.

With Governor Cumming was his wife Elizabeth, a sensitive and observant lady. She shared the difficult winter near Fort Bridger and with her husband occupied the William Staines home (or Devereaux House as it was later known) during the three years of their stay in Utah. Her letters provide a rare insight into events of that time, and record her impressions of the Utah landscape and social life as well as politics among the federal appointees, especially during 1857 and 1858.

Should these various federal parties be included? Comments. 65.54.154.117 (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

more duplicate info - mountain meadows in overview

In the overview section, mountain meadows keeps getting mentioned twice including the number of people killed, etc. I am erasing the second portion as duplicative.24.127.118.236 (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a rewrite to combine both sentences. Restored the dup material temporarily to facilitate such an effort. WBardwin (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have rewritten the section a little to reduce the duplication and yet explain the statistics. WBardwin (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the rewrite, but someone keeps trying to put clearly duplicative information back in the section.Panbobor (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits to this and other MMM-related Pages

I have recently added factual, referenced information correcting errors or correcting misleading information, for example the well-documented presence of Brigham Young at the 1861 destruction of the MMM Memorial (check the recent history of this page, the main MMM Page and the Mormon Public Relations page). These contributions were deleted without justification, and have the effect of maintaining the dominant slant of these articles, which tend to avoid, rationalize or disguise the role of Brigham Young and other most other Mormons in these events. Why try to hide the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.96.129 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith that I am not trying to hide any facts. The majority of your edits violated either WP:NPOV and WP:OR. For example, the list of Brigham Young quotes added here to prove a point is original synthesis if a reliable source has not come to this conclusion, in which case we need to attribute the conclusion and argument. Also using terms like "well-documented" is POV, when in fact there only a few second and third hand accounts of the events. Other edits are poorly written and are simply and cut-and-pasted from Denton's article in American Heritage. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you can't put Wikipedia in the position of saying "The following facts, missing from the above analysis, appears to support the view that Brigham Young knew he was regarded to be in rebellion against the United States and had, in fact, put the territory in a state of rebellion:"

One it is argumentative rather than encyclopedic. Two, it is not attributed to the historian who is making the allegation that they support this view. What is needed is to both reference and edit the article so that you are reporting facts rather than arguing a position, which is POV. It is a form of synthesis that leads to unacceptable edits. Cheers. --^StormRider 21:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Buchanan's Blunder

There was a minor conflict over the term "Buchanan's Blunder" on this article; another editor opined that "it seems unlikely there are many (if any) who do" use the term. Here is a sample of what a quick general Google search and Google Book Search on that exact phrase helped me find:

• Edward William Tullidge. "Life of Brigham Young: Or, Utah and Her Founders." 1877. p. 283
• Hubert Howe Bancroft, Alfred Bates. "History of Utah: 1540-1886." The History Company, 1889. p. 524
• Orson Ferguson Whitney. History of Utah. G. Q. Cannon publishing, 1892. p. 565
• The Contempory Review, Volume LXV, January-June 1894. Isbister and Company LTD, 1894. p. 352
• The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Volume VIII. Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1910. p 10
• Orson Ferguson Whitney. "Popular history of Utah." Deseret News, 1916. p. 151
• James Edward Talmage. "The Story of 'Mormonism.'" Deseret News, 1920. p. 83
• Paul Bailey. Sam Brannan and the California Mormons. Westernlore Press, 1953. pp. 211-212
• William Mulder. "Immigration and the 'Mormon Question': An International Episode." The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 2 (June, 1956), pp. 416-433
• Richard D. Poll and Ralph W. Hansen. "'Buchanan's Blunder' The Utah War, 1857-1858." Military Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 3, Part 1 (Autumn, 1961), pp. 121-131
• William Benton, ed. Encyclopedia Britanica. Chicago, 1965. p 798.
• Eponyms dictionaries index. James A. Ruffner, Jennifer Berger, Georgia Schoenung. Gale Research Co., 1977.
• Paul Bailey. Hawaii's royal prime minister. Hastings House, 1980. pp. 95, 97
• Utah History Encyclopedia. University of Utah Press, 1994. pp. 607-8
• Thomas E. Bonsall. "More than they promised." Stanford University Press, 2000. p. 21, ISBN 0804735867, 9780804735865
• Emmett M. Essin. "Shavetails and Bell Sharps." University of Nebraska Press, 2000. p. 65, ISBN 0803267401, 9780803267404
• Edward H. Anderson. "Brief History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Kessinger Publishing, 2003. p 138, ISBN 0766140016, 9780766140011
• Thomas G. Alexander. "Carpetbaggers, Reprobates, and Liars: Federal Judges and the Utah War (1857-58)." The Historian 70 (Summer 2008): 209-38
• Buchanan’s blunder. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 07, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
• Page 26 of this court filing with the Supreme Court of the State of California

Suffices to say that term is widely used, and has been for 100+ years. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of enforcement of Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act

I strongly disagree with the wording of the following sentence that currently is found in this article: "However, President Abraham Lincoln did not enforce these laws, as the United States could not spare any Federal forces to deal with the problem at the time, as it was then in the midst of the American Civil War." There _were_ federal troops in Utah in 1862: General Patrick E. Connor arrived with the 3rd Regiment of California Volunteers in 1862, establishing Fort Douglas, Utah three miles east of Salt Lake City. His men were so bored with garrison duty that he encouraged them to go exploring for mineral deposits, and then sent them out to slaughter Native Americans in the Bear River massacre. There were troops in Utah just itching for a fight, who would have been more than happy to enforce any law that they were told to, and who would not have shied away violent confrontation. Instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit approval to ignore the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in exchange for not getting involved with the Civil War. After signing Morrill, Lincoln compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was "too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That's what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone."(Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803) -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Length of article

This is quite long for a less than year-long conflict in which few people died. Let's think about making it more like an encyclopedia article than a long essay. The timeline is very detailed; again, too much give the extent of the conflict.Parkwells (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm editing to reduce quotes from primary sources; this is not supposed to be making the historians' arguments from primary sources, but using historians' work to summarize what was going on. Also am editing to reduce OPED language - too much subjective wording: "Indeed", "in fact", "actually", as well as many more dramatic words.Parkwells (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Am removing lengthy quotes by Young - article should not be telling what he said, then having quote from his speeches and journals. This is not a study of Young.

I agree. I also think a large part of the problem is that the article is filled with unsourced commentary (or statements of what unnamed 'historians' think) comparing the conflict to other conflicts such as the Revolutionary war, contempareous troubles in Kansas etc. There is also a lot of text that seems to have no purpose but to try and justify various actions by the Mormon side. I think we need to chop the commentary and just focus on the facts. Ashmoo (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing to remove quite a few irrelevant comments from the timeline. Likewise, removing some of the events. Is it really necessary to note when the first white settlers arrived in Utah as a contributing event? I think not.

Neutrality and Brevity

After reading this article for the first time, being genuinely intrigued by the subject, I found it full of unnecessary asides and analysis to defend the Mormon viewpoint, such as comparing their situation to that of the American colonists, an unsourced and irrelevant mention of William W. Drummond's infidelity, and unnecessary details concerning the presence of polygamy amongst the Mormons where a link to an article discussing plural marriage and the Church of Latter-Day Saints would suffice.

If this article was covering a more complicated and well-known conflict, such as the Civil War or the Second World War, I believe such analysis would be acceptable as long as the point-of-view was evenly balanced between the major perspectives. Since this article is already longer than it is relevant, I would suggest adhering only to the concrete facts. The analysis is excellent and intelligent, but this should read as an article for an encyclopedia instead of an academic essay.

I would work on fixing up this article myself, but since I think it requires an extensive re-working, I would feel more comfortable if a more experienced wiki-editor undertook this project.

71.205.172.50 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are definite issues with length and irrelevant details. Two that you mention are noteworthy however. Drummond's moral behavior (which appears to have been edited out) was a source of friction between him and the Mormons - and contributed to him leaving his Judgeship and making accusations of rebellion. Likewise, stopping the practice of polygamy was a long standing political issue contributing to the war.

unknown

I know it is unclear exactly how many people were on the Mormon side, but I want atleast a rough number like "somewhere between 0 and 1 000 000 000" because even that would be better than "unknown." Evrythn1outof8infity (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnston picture photoshopped

The picture of Johnston in this article is photoshopped. It is Johnston's head pasted on the body of Henry H. Sibley from this photo: [3.jpg]. That is why Johnston's head looks so crooked and awkward. Wrad (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. It will have to be removed, and/or replaced if a suitable replacement can be found. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced it with a real photo, taken from the Johnston article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Abolitionists

The article makes a reference to "contemporary Abolitionists", then has a link pointing to a completely unrelated article on the movement to end slavery. This link should be pointing towards a relevant article. Whatsmore, it is unclear what the link is supposed to be pointing to, or if there is even an article on the subject.-Zyrath (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive?

This talk page is long, and the conversations are stale. Will someone please archive this talk page? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A Really Good Question.....

Why would the Federal Government dispatch a military force to the middle of nowhere to deal with the Mormon "Rebellion" if those people had their Constitutional rights violated on multiple occasions, being threatened with annihilation by the State of Missouri, the mobs of Illinois, along with assassinations, robbery, rape...setting aside all the propaganda....

All this before any real sign of misconduct and before September 11th Mountain Meadows Massacre which many people argue was a direct result of Mormon Paranoia....

I mean...look at the totality of it.

What, the, hell.

Can anyone find words simple enough to describe the stupidity of it all? The word "Blunder" hides the answer to WHY.

Clinton/Waco pales in comparison to what might have happened in Utah.

After including everything...and I mean EVERYTHING that has happened in the last 20 years...I'm ready to admit myself into an insane asylum after reading our nations darker history.

Please, somebody ANSWER WHY. Enough of the POV NPOV bs.

It's obvious Brigham Young believed the U.S. Military was a hostile force. He was no prison warden either since people WILLINGLY followed him to the middle of nowhere.

I can't find any record of his wives expressing any feelings of oppression. If anything, they describe liberation (lol). Utah was after all the 2nd state to grant women sufferage (right to vote and hold political office). Another (disturbing) fact is that on average women in Utah for a long time coming possessed more college degree's than anywhere in the nation.

MY 'GENDER IN AMERICA' COLLEGE TEACHER WAS A MORMON & A FEMINIST WHO GRADUATED FROM BYU! ( I hated her with a libertarian passion...especially for the C+ ! )

I am absolutely befuddled! This article does not suffice in answering my question. All I'm asking is "Why".

I think this just goes to the poor content of the article. I will not settle with "THE FINAL SOLUTION" as an answer!....although Mormons were referred to as the "Mormon Problem".... PLEASE HELP ME!

174.23.221.219 (talk)TheIndividual —Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Edit: I just found out that Mormons were also referred to as the "Mormon Question" according to a source here on this page. 174.23.221.219 (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)TheIndividual

(1)The outlandish stories being told by the Runaway Officials of 1851 (and those like them) to people in power, (2) the yellow journalism of the day vilifying the Mormons to the nation in general, (3) the isolated nature of Utah and lack of rapid communication to/from that area to confirm the true state of affairs (I think it was Lincoln that said words to the effect that the Utah War would never have happened if there had been working telegraph lines to that territory), and (4) Buchanan's desire to distract the nation from the issues of slavery and secessionism (which he hadn't a clue about how to handle) are some of the central elements to why this Wag the Dog type adventurism happened.

One additional thread that I find intriguing, but which modern historians currently discount for a lack of evidence, is that that John B. Floyd (Buchanan's Secretary of War) may have secretly been a secessionist while serving under Buchanan, and the Utah War was just one part of a string of traitorous actions under his leadership that weakened the federal Army &/or helped the South prepare for the Civil War. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also the "Mormon Question" was shorthand for "What is to be done about the Mormons", just as the "Slavery Question" was shorthand for "What is to be done about slavery". -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Daniel H. Wells.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Daniel H. Wells.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Utah War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080908072517/http://relarchive.byu.edu/MPNC/descriptions/proclamationgovernor.html to http://relarchive.byu.edu/MPNC/descriptions/proclamationgovernor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Utah War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106115654/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/jmh,14076 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/jmh,14076
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106115654/http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/4001.pdf to http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/4001.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106115654/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2905 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2905

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)