Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/Archive 10

Untitled
Material archived from the Mountain Meadows massacre Talk page. (May 8 - Jun 20, 2007 approximate)

Specific Areas for review
Here are the statements or subjects or areas that I believe need some review:

B/T: 1. I do not think it was Nauvoo Legion

 * (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))
 * 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)
 * 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)

B/T: 2. I do not think the circumstances are controversial
The causes might be. Excluding those issues related to cause and motivati=on, what circumstances are controversial?

B/T: 3. *DONE*I think the word "highly" as a modifier for controversial is original research
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)
 * 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)

B/T: 4. *DONE*The "European Ancestry" description
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Fact 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)

B.T.: 5. I question the "prosperity" of the migrants.

 * 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)

B/T: 6. Can we be more certain that the lure of gold did motivate the young men?

 * (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)

B/T: 7.*DONE* The hostilities between Utah and the Federal government are described as potential
It should be "threatened", I think.


 * Agree 71.9.106.65 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Change is complete on this prior to today. I'm not digging through the edits to find out when. [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]] --Robbie Giles 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

B/T: 8. Rumors and antagonism section reads as self contradictory.
The Mormons were eager to trade... the Mormons were suspicious. It is a bit disjointed and looks like it was written by committees who took separate sentences to craft.
 * Agree that it needs smoothing

B/T: 9. Both Bagley and Brooks make it clear that understanding the MMM requires an understanding of the Mormon past
but this is not adequately found in this article.


 * I propose additional fleshing out of some or all of the Brooksian points of consensus as to motivations (that blogger David Keller phrases as) the (the) complex influences (that) 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 --Justmeherenow

B/T: 10. In addition, the relatively recent and uneasy peace between the Mormons and the Indians should not be completely ignored
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)

B/T: 11. The statement "However, the train's leadership likely were not aware of Young's martial law order" is original research
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. --[[User:Robbiegiles|Robbie Giles]] 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

B/T: 12. Also, that BY issued the requirement for a pass is not mentioned in contemporary documents...
I am not sure it is a factor in this matter.

B/T: 13.*DONE* "Only days before", should be specified as a date.
Changed to actual date. --Robbie Giles 01:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

B/T: 14. Young's order should be more properly characterized...
it was not that there was to be no trading with them, but it was to be limited.

B/T: 15. The section about the Missouri Wildcats should be reviewed
particularly the question of their existence. (All Bagley stuff is a mixed "bag" -- he quoted original sources but he played fast and lose with them -- they should be looked at with more than the usual bit of a critical eye).

B/T: 17. The impact of Pratt's death might be a speculation.
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)

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.
(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)

B/T: 19. The process of the decision to "eliminate" the trains just gets made suddenly.
There needs to be more detail.

B/T: 20. The statement "Meanwhile, organization among the local Mormon leadership reportedly broke down" is suspect.
It needs more investigation and review.

B/T: 21.*DONE*The term "widely known" for Mountain Meadows is original research.
It can be struck without damage to the article.

B/T: 23. The footnote for this important statement
"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)

B/T: 24. The "Innocent Blood" perspective of who should kill whom
should be included in the article as it gives an insight into the religious thinking of Lee and co-conspirators.

B/T: 25. The account of the Dunlap girls should be carefully reviewed
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)

B/T: 26. The burial description uses the words "lightly" and "soon"
These are vague, not well supported and should be struck or possibly re-established differently (I can think of a way to do it better).

B/T: 27. The selling or bartering of the children is suspect
given the claimed and likely motives of the perpetuators. This needs to be further investigated and possibly re-worded or removed for neutrality.

B/T: 28. In the aftermath, the several investigations and the trial
leading to the conviction of Lee should be more fully described.

B/T: 29. In the aftermath, the decision of the new Governor to give general clemency
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)

B/T: 30.*DONE* The word "scathing" for Carlton's report is original research
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)

B/T: 31. Carlton's account of the Mormons receiving payment might be in error
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)

B/T: 32. A section on theories of blame (conspiracy theories maybe)
should be included. Since it is important to many people to defend or impugn the character of Brigham Young (as Bagley suggests, accusing Young throws doubt on the Mormon beliefs in their leaders), the general religious intent behind the debate and a summary of the elements of the debate itself should be presented.

B/T: 33. Interestingly, the Gunnison Massacre and especially Brigham Young's reactions and reports to it are like mirror episodes
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)


 * 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) Also could somebody tell me what might be useful parallels from, for example, the researches of Brigham D. Madsen? An Associated Press review of his memoirs posted over at Signature Books says "His inaugural book, The Bannock of Idaho, came in 1958, telling the story of what had been an obscure tribe. It was the first of many works that made him the leading author on Indian-white relations and conflicts in the region./ ...In 1993, his article, 'The Almo Massacre Revisited,' declared that tales of an 1861 slaughter of some 300 emigrants near the southeastern Idaho village of Almo—memorialized with a stone marker that had stood since 1938—never occurred./ It was in 1985, a year after he retired from teaching, that Madsen lit historical powder kegs with The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre,..." --Justmeherenow 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I visited the Almo area a few weeks ago and observed the marker you refer too. It was a surprise to me. (http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/slideshowdisplay.php?slide=2) (http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=249)

White men, painted red, with fine boots... Almo, ID.(http://www.idahohistory.net/Reference%20Series/0232.pdf) Also, see Message of the President. September 23, 1859. Judge Eckels to Secretary of the Interior Thompson. The Miltimore Massacre.Tinosa 23:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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) ...(pg. 58): Not well known is the fact that in 1857, 1858, and 1871, Young was indicted by federal grand juries for treason as well as for the October 1857.... --Justmeherenow 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC) murder of UtahWar ammunition trader Richard E. Yates...

B/T: 34. Key sources, Brooks, Bagley, Shirts, should be given a section
'''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:


 * 1) The perpetration of the Massacre was brought about by local Mormon leaders and not Native Americans.
 * 2) Brigham Young was consulted too late to prevent the Massacre and it happened against his wishes.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) After the massacre the local Mormon leaders attempted to cover-up their crime from US authorities.
 * 5) John D. Lee, the site leader, was made into a scapegoat, while most participants went unpunished.
 * 6) 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)


 * 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) (Later): I see in a quick review posted on line the complaint that Backus's sources aren't primary ones? --Justmeherenow 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

B/T: 35. Some sources seem underrepresented
I do not see any of J.D. Lee's defense or comments (who, obviously would be extremely biased, almost certainly lied, but he was also an eyewitness). Also, Brooks, who probably spent the most years researching the incident of all of the authors shown here, and who arguably took the most objective perspective, is severely under-represented. (I do not exactly agree with some of her conclusions -- from a legal and military perspective -- but I respect her objectivity and courage). Gibbs, on the other hand, would clearly "improve" upon the truth and should not be used at all. Note also that Gibbs cannot even get the dates straight. Gibbs is an unreliable source. If Gibbs said anything that is not found elsewhere it should be struck and if it is found elsewhere the reference to the other source should be used, not Gibbs.

B/T: 36. Finally, several of the "references" do not seem to be used
for the article including:
 * Abanes, Richard (2003), One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church, New York, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, ISBN 1568582838
 * Beadle, John Hanson (1870), "Chapter VI. The Bloody Period.", Life in Utah, Philadelphia; Chicago: National publishing company, LCC BX8645 .B4 1870, LCCN 30005377.
 * John Cradlebaugh, elected delegate of the territory of NV. Speech on the admission of Utah as a State given before the 37th Congress, 3rd Session, February 7, 1863, titled "UTAH AND THE MORMONS."
 * Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture, Editorial Board. Finck, James (2005), Mountain Meadows Massacre, Little Rock: Central Arkansas Library System.
 * McMurtry, Larry (2005), Oh what a slaughter : massacres in the American West, 1846-1890, New York: Simon & Schuster, ISBN 074325077X. BookReporter.com review
 * Sessions, Gene (2003), "Shining New Light on the Mountain Meadows Massacre", FAIR Conference 2003.
 * Stenhouse, Thomas B. H. (1873), The Rocky Mountain Saints, New York: D. Appleton and Company, LCC BX8611 .S8 1873, LCCN 16024014, ASIN: B00085RMQM.
 * Thompson, Jacob (1860), Message of the President of the United States: communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, information in relation to the massacre at Mountain Meadows, and other massacres in Utah Territory, Washington, D.C.: United States. Dept. of the Interior.
 * Waite, Catherine V. (1868), The Mormon Prophet and His Harem, Chicago: J. S. Goodman 1866, ISBN 1425532209
 * Newspaper Articles
 * o Los Angles Star(3 October 1957),(10 October 1957),(4 March 1958)
 * o Western Standard(13 October 1957)
 * o Mountain Democrat(17 October 1957),(31 October 1957)
 * + http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/misccal1.htm
 * o Corinne Reporter. ARGUS. see Stenhouse XLIII
 * o Deseret News(1 December 1869)
 * o Valley Tan((5 March 1859),(29 February 1860,see Brooks Appendix XI)
 * + http://www.lib.utah.edu/digital/unews/

--Blue Tie 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with about half of your ideas to improve the article. I caution that a pro-mormon bias is apparent in some of your ideas. For example wanting to spend more time citing and quoting Brooks but discounting Bagley's and Gibbs views (and all but ignoring Sally Denton's views who is perhaps the harshest on the Mormons of the 4 mentioned). Though I overall respect what you are trying to do with this I don't think you are in a position to judge which historian's account is the most accurate. I don't think I am either.
 * Davemeistermoab 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by default I tend to be "pro" things and against "anti" things... be they Mormon, or Catholic or Islam. I suppose what you are saying is that I shall raise the ire of some folks with a pov against Mormons or perhaps I will generate support from Mormons.  I would not be too quick to suppose either way.  My condemnation of Gibbs is strong because it can be demonstrated that he did not provide the truth, specifically with respect to the contributions on this article.  It is really a strong case. As for Bagley, as I said, a mixed bag.  He has some great sources, but he goes into speculation beyond what I consider appropriate.  This is not altogether unlike reading Holy Blood Holy Grail.  It makes for compelling reading, but you have to make sure you know the difference between insinuation and speculation vs fact.  Brooks book, is as far as I am concerned, iconoclastic yet I think it is objective.  I do not completely agree with her conclusions either.  I suppose her notion that he was a scapegoat is true, but there is a sense there, that it was unfair.  I do not agree.  I also disagree with other conclusions of hers.  So it would not be fair to say that I am in love with any of the sources.  But I do think hers is the best and least biased.  As far as being in a position to judge which historian's book is best?  I disagree completely with that.  There is no doubt that Gibbs account is falsified.  You can judge that as much as I or anyone can.  As for an argument between Bagley and Brooks quality, well, Bagley did have more sources than Brooks.  But Brooks spent more time and had some access to personnel who had more intimate knowlege than Bagley does.  More importantly though, Bagley insinuates and makes jumps beyond the content of his data.  Some people think this is the hallmark of a good historian.  I think it is the hallmark of a creative mind, but not necessarily a good historian.  I suppose it would be interesting to read the critical discussions about each book:  Bagley and Brooks.  I do not think positive reviews count so much because cheerleading can happen even with bad books (its an industry after all, with books to sell), but the criticisms will highlight real problems.   Denton, I did not comment on because I have never read her book and the article did not rely upon her much.


 * As for my own pov on the issue, I believe I am pretty neutral on this subject, but I would try not to express it if I had a pov because that would tend to have people drawing lines for or against my edits on the wrong basis. The content is the thing.  Pov should be left outside of wikipedia. I believe if I am unable to abide by that rule, I should not edit an article. Having said that I am sure that I could carefully craft my pov so that people who hate Mormons would love me... or alternatively, I could craft my views so that Mormons would love me. In either case, I would be honest in my views... but perhaps not fully expressive of them.  Do you suppose that I am more neutral if both side would love me... or if both sides would hate me? How about if I keep that all to myself? :-) --Blue Tie 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nauvoo Legion Chain of Command, as it relates to the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/commandchain.html.

"Before I started on my mission to the Mountain Meadows, I was told by Isaac C. Haight that his orders to me were the result of full consultatation [sic] with Colonel William H. Dame and all in authority." LAST CONFESSION AND STATEMENT OF JOHN D. LEE. CHAPTER XVIII.http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm

"C. Haight came to Hamblin's, where I had said children, and fell into a dis­pute, in the course of which said Haight told Colonel Dame, that, if he was going to report of the killing of said emigrants, he should not have ordered it done;" TESTIMONY IN THE TRIALS OF JOHN D. LEE http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leetestimony.html Tinosa 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect you added that because you believe it confirms that it was the Nauvoo Legion that perpetuated the deed. You might be surprised though, that it is not really that conclusive. If you read some of my prior comments on this matter you would see what the issues were.  Not only that, but John D. Lee had reasons to lie, you know.  --Blue Tie 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That last quotation was from the testimony of Philip Klingonsmith, not John D. Lee. If you read all the testimony given at the trial, you'll see repeated references to the massacre as a militia operation. Really, all of the major sources on MMM are in agreement that it was conducted as a militia operation; your insistence that it wasn't appears to be original research. BRMo 05:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Or would be OR under your conditions if I was editing the article. Notice that I did not.  That is because I am investigating and building a case. --Blue Tie 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) NB:  Klingonsmith does not appear to say it was the Nauvoo Legion.  I think he calls it the "Iron Militia".  He also does not describe John D. Lee as being in charge but rather acting as though he were in charge. He made that distinction a few times for some odd reason.  Altogether rather unconvincing that the Nauvoo Legion was responsible.  But I have not edited yet.  --Blue Tie 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"European Ancestry"

I questioned this some time ago. Some people claim the gentiles or mericats were of Cherokee decent. http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Cherokee/index.html If you aren't careful, the bones will dug up at the Captian Campbell, Army Surgeon Brewer internment sites and Major Carleton's carin and the remains returned to Cherokee Nation.

http://www.wovoca.com/hidden-history-mormon-massacre-mountain-meadows.htm Tinosa 15:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Of course, given that we're back to revert warring, I've requested it. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Uh oh... An anon reverting back to a version by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is not helpful, in my humble opinion. Gwen Gale 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not technically an anonymous user. It's someone who failed to log in, obviously in error. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know? Gwen Gale 16:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (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. -  auburn pilot  talk  17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't notice his post above until after. Why is he calling these edits vandalism? Gwen Gale 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)edit which removes cited and verified materials which would com


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

September Dawn
Since the content is related, would anyone care to contribute? Tom Harrison Talk 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It says its fictional. I hope the movie studio contacts the paiutes before airing it.  They may be in for some trouble based upon the DNA and forensic evidence the paiutes did not commit any of the killing.   We can only report on what they are doing with the movie, not alter its content. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a citation from an independent source supporting an interpretation that "based upon the DNA and forensic evidence the paiutes did not commit any of the killing." Also, please remember that at least 5 emigrants were killed prior to the massacre, during the siege. Gwen Gale 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The forensic evidence cited in the Utah BIA investigation found no evidence of any of the victims being killed by paiutes. The only evidence was that the victims were headshot by mormon militia.  Since there is no evidence the paiutes did any of the killing, and since they have denied such involvement, and given the Mormon Churches obvious lies about the matter in published sources, lies which get bigger and bigger with each telling, there is sufficient evidence to form a belief historically the church has attempted to blame the paiutes from the beginning of this ordeal, and will keep doing so through biased church pulbications.  Perhaps the church historians who keep pushing this viewpoint should read the book of mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 "Woe be unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."   I realize this is controversial, but the evidence and sources to date clearly demonstrate the paiute involvement was related to taking the cattle, not participating in the killings themselves. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a relevant citation in any of that. To get started, if you would please, provide a citation from an independent publication which supports (that is to say, makes) the specific assertion, "The forensic evidence cited in the Utah BIA investigation found no evidence of any of the victims being killed by paiutes." Thanks for your help. Gwen Gale 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then go read the Slat Lake Tribune Article again. Gwen, I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who refuses to read the materials.  Check out Forrest Gurch's comments.  They speak for themselves. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your kind and helpful response. The article you cite contains this passage quoting a forensic professional:


 * Recognizing the new scientific evidence is bound to prompt a reassessment of long-held views of Paiute Indian involvement in the massacre, Novak cautioned: "Obviously, skeletal trauma cannot corroborate ethnically who was responsible for the shooting and whom for the beating."


 * I am aware that some modern Paiutes are claiming that their ancestors at MM did not carry guns. However, I am not aware of any historical documentation that might support this assertion. Moreover, the article content clearly describes some of the skeletons as bearing evidence that some victims were beaten to death, not shot.


 * Consequently, as an editor, I respectfully conclude that your citation does not support the modern assertion by some Paiute representatives that the recent forensic evidence eliminates their ancestors as direct participants in the massacre.


 * Lastly, the URL you provided leads to what is likely a copyright violation. Wikipedia articles, as a matter of policy, cannot be linked to materials posted in violation of copyright. Hence, that URL will more than likely be removed. Thanks again for replying. Gwen Gale 20:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the Tribune article. It is very carefully worded, and far more balanced than you suggest. It does not support what you say just above. Also, the headline on the Tribune article is Forensic Study Aids Tribe's View Of Mountain Meadows Massacre; Analysis of emigrants' bones could back Paiutes' claims of being bystanders; Massacre: Forensic Analysis Supports Tribe's Claim of Passive Role - not Paiute Tribe sets record Straight, results of forensic and DNA analysis of MMM victims, as our article says now. The headline presented at wovoca.com is MORMON Massacre at Mountain Meadows: Forensic Analysis Supports Paiute Tribe's Claim of Passive Role - at best a selective edit of the actual headline. If we mean to cite the Tribune, we should cite it, not wovoca.com, and we should cite it correctly, not attributing things to it that it does not say.
 * Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you have access to the article and have reviewed the materials, then I suppose you can cite it. But please leave the piautes denials in place, as well as DNA and forensic evidence the victims were Cherokee Indians.  I have access to the actual forensic reports, which are not online.  There is no evidence the paiutes did this.  That being said, I did not remove any of the hisorical references, just placed the denials and a general statement at the head of the article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem mentioning the Paiute denials, they're documented. However, the wording must make it clear that their denials are not accepted as forensic or historical fact at this time. Moreover, I see no need for highlighting their denials in the header. You may not have noticed, but the version of the header which I edited and which you reverted contained no mention of Paiute involvement at all.


 * Paiute involvement at MM is acknowledged by all accounts, although, as the article has long stated, these accounts vary. The available documentation indicates that at the very minimum, the Paiutes actively participated in the siege (in which a number of emigrants were killed, then buried within the wagon enclosure), later waited in plain sight of the mass murder, doing nothing to aid the innocent men, women and children as they were being slaughtered, then swooped in to loot their belongings and property. From my perspective, however, there is reasonable evidence to indicate that Paiutes (armed with guns or not) did participate in the final killings. Most sources do support this view and the article text should reflect that. Gwen Gale 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your statements. Forensic analysis by the Utah Bureau of Indian Affairs is credible and historical fact -- certainly as much or more so that Mormon Church historical accounts, which are about as fictional as the book of abraham.  And no, you placed accusations the paiutes participated in the massacre back into the mean header. Accounts vary?  There are several conflicting accounts, and none of them jive.  I will replace the comments and a direct citation to the Salt Lake Tribue, scan the forensic reports and post them online to my site and reference them.  If the citations are removed, I will just replace them. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please study this diff carefully. There is no mention of Paiute involvement in the header version I edited.

I agree that forensic analysis by the Utah Bureau of Indian Affairs is credible. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it is "historical fact." Clearly, when Novak says "Obviously, skeletal trauma cannot corroborate ethnically who was responsible for the shooting and whom for the beating," she is stressing that the forensic evidence in no way eliminates Paiutes from direct, hands-on involvement in the killings.

Lastly, when you say "If the citations are removed, I will just replace them," I wonder if you understand that a citation is a supporting reference to an assertion, not the assertion itself. Either way, unless your assertions are accompanied by citations which indeed support them (and the one you have offered so far does not), your assertions will not last in the article, no matter what we do on this talk page. Gwen Gale 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I should mention something about original research here. Sometimes I get the impression that you are offering raw forensic data and results along with your own original interpretation, and then asserting that the raw data "proves" or "supports" your interpretation. If this is true, that's original research, which can't be used in an article here. If one wishes to include an interpretive assertion in the article, the assertion should be supported by a citation which directly supports (which is to say, declares) that interpretation, otherwise another editor may act within WP policy and delete the material as original research. Gwen Gale 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [A http://www.abc4.com/content/specials/as_seen_on/story.aspx?content_id=c96203e6-5fad-4964-bd80-64aeff12a04f 24 May SLC ABC4 piece]. --Justmeherenow 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request Unprotection but leave Semi-Protected
editprotected

I think we can unprotect now. It appears we have a reached concensus. Let me take a stab at the first edits then Gwen can POV scrub them afterwards. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌ - I'm not seeing much consensus here - A l is o n  ☺ 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I endorse this (non) action. Although I'm not happy with the current locked version, the editor above who asked for unprotection has in truth not yet expressed an acceptance of consensus both as to content and editing behaviour (although he may have sincerely believed that he had). Gwen Gale 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When the article is finally unprotected, there is no reason to leave it semi-protected. Vandalism has not been a major problem. The issues have been disputes about content, not vandalism. BRMo 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, vandalism almost never happens here. I think Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is asking for semi-protection to prevent anon IP editors from other websites from following him over here. Gwen Gale 02:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct. Leave it semi-protected.  It's almost better to proxy the changes through an admin and have the admin insert the materials based on the lack of concensus here.  Even if we all agree, anon IPs may revert it all. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose semi-protection or any edit by proxy scheme. WP can handle anons. Gwen Gale 06:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Geez, let's unprotect - there's agreement in place for editors to offer up compromise text and should they revert to warring, the article could always be re-protected. After all, consensus doesn't mean no conflicting accounts. And, in fact, we've consensus that the conflicting accounts should be given their place.


 * So that while there's (a) affidavits from Mormons claiming they'd been forced to particapate by the tribe otherwise the tribe would also massacre the Mormons (Note: a version of this is what I'd heard growing up, yet somehow combined with the idea that the Arkansans were bad people)--there's also (b) the tribe's insistance then-'til-now that its members basically hung back and declined to participate; and we shouldn't give any unquestioning stamp of approval to either view.
 * For example, while we know of the accounts that federal investigators heard from Paiute chiefs about their having allegedly had a letter read them from Brigham Young asking them to attack emigrant trains, our article yet affirms that there's no evidence linking Young to the murders--why?--I think because we distinguish between evidence Young supported Indian attacks and evidence he approved of an entire company's utter annihilation. Surely we can extend the same courtesy with regard the Paiute chiefs. If neutrality means tippy-toeing around LDS sensibilities by not implying that participation by one-time members of the militia equals proof of sanction by Legion commander Wells or not implying that participation by church members proves approval by the church qua Mormon church, isn't the least we can do is extend the same courtesy to the tribe? --Justmeherenow 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree. The article had already acknowledged that the accounts conflicted, in effect, to the point of uncertainty. Gwen Gale 20:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected Could an administrator change the wording in the Cedar City Meetings section from Thursday evening on the 10th to Sunday afternoon on the 6th? Thx --Justmeherenow 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Cherokee ancestry of emigrants
Months ago I included that in the article (I thought it was fascinating and ironic), then quickly reverted myself when I understood how thin support for that assertion truly is (other than the nominal, scattered Cherokee ancestry found in any diverse group of European-Americans in 19th century America). So far, I cannot support any mention at all of Cherokee ancestry and as I recall, other editors have expressed similar opinions. Is there consensus on this? Gwen Gale 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We have identifiable skeletal characteristics, including unique skull features, even in mixed blood dilutions. I was surprised my half German son has them as do I.  The forensic evidence indicates they were Cherokee, and we have records of a group of Cherokee Families going to the San Diego area slaughtered by mormons in Utah.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you cite an independent source (preferably a peer-reviewed scientific one but for starters any published interpretation will do) which declares this conclusion, that skeletal remains of the emigrants murdered at Mountain Meadows in September 1857 bore Cherokee features and that this proves that many of the emigrants had significant Cherokee ancestry? Thanks in advance for your patience. Gwen Gale 11:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I know less about this than most of you, so excuse me if I repeat something everyone else already knows.

The Salt Lake Tribune article of 21 Jan 2001 says "The analysis of bones from some of the 120 emigrants in a California-bound wagon train who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows also shows some of the remains have distinct American Indian characteristics. Those traits may be attributed to the mixed Cherokee ancestry of many of the emigrants from northwestern Arkansas who were murdered." Note that this falls short of supporting "The forensic evidence indicates they were Cherokee."

From Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagly: "Like Alexander Faucher, John T. Baker, one quarter Cherokee and fondly known as Captain Jack..."

From American Massacre, by Sally Denton: ""Captain Jack," fifty-two, was a "farmer, cattleman, and slave owner" who lived on Crooked Creek near Harrison. Part Cherokee and the son of an Alabama plantation owner..."

From a news story:

If we wanted to say many of the party were part Cherokee, this is thinner evidence than I would like. It is well established that John T. Baker was part Cherokee; the Cherokee group above believes many of the party may have been of Cherokee ancestry; that is consistent with the recent forensic evidence. On the strength of that, we could say, 'probably were' or something like that. But I have to wonder how central this is to the massacre. I imagine some of them were French, or Irish, or African-American. The ethnicity of western emigrants is important, but might go better in another article. I think we need to find a solid published source that makes this connection. That way we avoid doing original research, and giving greater weight to a point than historians have given. Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say this citation supports no more than a "suggestion" of Cherokee ancestry for some of the emigrants and is neither strong enough nor significant enough for the article header. Cherokees successfully integrated into European-American culture through inter-marriage very early on (beginning in the colonial period), so much so that millions of mainstream Americans are 1/8, 1/16 or 1/32 Cherokee. It's a demographically unremarkable trait and I'm not aware of any evidence that Cherokee ancestry among the emigrants was more represented than among many other European-American groupings in 1857, hence it seems to be of low significance. Gwen Gale 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Identifying Baker as a quarter Cherokee seems a reasonable compromise. This was presumably rarer in 1857 than it is now; although the mountain men probably had more connection with the Indians than most. (When this is unprotected, he should be linked. A redlink is an invitation to write an article, and it will tell us when somebody else does.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A mention of Baker's individual Cherokee ancestry in the text body is more than ok with me, it's documented (and interesting). I only wish to say that any reference in the article header to Cherokee ancestry among the murdered emigrant group as a whole (for example, characterizing the whole group as partially Cherokee by ancestry) is not supported by the evidence, either as to fact or to significance. Gwen Gale 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I support PMAnderson's and Gwen Gale's comments above. alanyst /talk/ 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of trivia and this seems to be trivia and has no significance to the topic. If someone is saying because they were Cherokee they were massacred then we have another fish. However, that is not the allegation. This is the equivalent of how many of the men combed their hair to the left or to the right. How many were right-handed or left-handed or ambidextrous.

I respect that to some people it may be important even when there is no concrete proof, but the reality is that it has no significance to the event. Keep trivia to a bare miniumum like the day of the week; it makes for a better article. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean I should remove "Friday" from the lead? J/K :) --Tom 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see the :) glyph. Gwen Gale 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider: "If someone is saying because they were Cherokee they were massacred...."
 * The place of origin if not ancestry of the Baker-Fancher emigrant company was thought the cause of its being massacred by none other than Major Carlton, who says because of the "bishop shot in Cherokee Nation" the Mormons "swore vengeance on the people of Arkansas" (Special Report - at about par. 40). "But there is another side to this story. It is said that some two years since Bishop Parley Pratt was shot in Cherokee Nation near Arkansas by the husband of a woman who had run off with that saintly prelate. The Mormons swore vengeance on the people of Arkansas, one of who was this injured husband. The wife came on to Salt Lake City after the bishop was killed and still lives there." --Justmeherenow 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is very helpful context which could/should go into the main text, thanks so much Justmeherenow! Whilst it points tantalizingly in that direction, it doesn't support an assertion that the Fancher party had notably significant Cherokee ancestry. It does support an assertion that the assembled Fancher train did originate in a region which, bad luck to them, had a potentially incendiary reputation in SW Utah because of the recent murder of Parley Pratt (Mitt Romney's gg grandfather by the bye, though I see that tidbit has been surgically removed from the current WP article over the mass-marketing concerns of certain editors, I guess). Gwen Gale 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. A lot of good content.  Gwen, have you figured out the summary of the proposed changes?  Appears to be quite a list. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Jeffrey, I want to help, the only worry is, we haven't hit on any documentation I can use to support an assertion such as "The Paiutes didn't do it, they only did innocent stuff later on, like looting the emigrants' cattle and ripping the clothing off the corpses of dead mothers with babes in their arms and so on." The truth is that the available documentation tends to depict them as accomplices to murder, upon whom the Mormons then attempted to shift all the blame when they indeed only carried some of it. Hence, I fear anything I write will only become a platform for dispute over sourcing policies, original research, the cultural memories of modern Paiutes and your RfC. In other words, I'm stuck for now. Meanwhile, cheers! Gwen Gale 12:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"The command went as far south as St. Clara, twenty miles beyond the Mountain Meadows, where we camped and remained about a week. During our stay there I was visited by the Indian Chiefs of that section, who gave me their version of the massacre. They admitted that a portion of their men were engaged in the massacre, but were not there when the attack commenced. One of them told me in the presence of the others, that after the attack had been made, a white man came to their camp with a piece of paper, which he said, Brigham Young had sent, that directed them to go and help to whip the emigrants. A portion of the band went, but did not assist in the fight. He gave a reason that the emigrants had long guns, and were good shots. He said that his brother(this chief's name was Jackson) was shot while running across the Meadows at a distance of two hundred yards from the corral where the emigrants were. He said the Mormons were all painted. He said the Indians got a part of the clothing, and gave the names of John D. Lee, President Haight, and Bishop Higbee, as the big captains. It might be proper here to remark that the Indians in the southern part of the Territory of Utah are not numerous, and are very low, cowardly, beastly set, very few of them armed with guns. They are not formidable. I believe all in the southern part of the country would, under no circumstances, carryon a fight against ten white men." ( Judge Cradlebaugh. Utah and the Mormons. p. 122)

"Besides, "fifty men that would do to tie to" in a fight, all well armed and experts in the use of the rifle, could have wiped out ten times their number of Pah-Ute Indians armed only with the bow and arrow. Hamblin himself, their agent, informed that to his certain knowledge in 1856 there were but three guns in the whole tribe. I doubt if they had many more in 1857. The emigrants were to be destroyed with as little loss to the Mormons as possible, and no one old enough to tell the tale was to be left alive. To effect this the whole plans and operations, from beginning to end, display skill, patience, pertinacity and forecast, which no people here at the time were equal to except the Mormons themselves. Hamblin says three men escaped. They were doubtless herding when the attack was made, or crept out of a corral by night."

"I observed that nearly every skull I saw had been shot through with rifle or revolver bullets. I did not see one that had been "broken in with stones." Dr. Brewer showed me one, that probably of a boy of eighteen, which had been fractured and slit, doubtless by two blows of a bowie knife or other instrument of that character." (Carleton Report)

I saw several bones of what must have been very small children. Dr. Brewer says from what he saw he thinks some infants were butchered. The mothers doubtless had these in their arms, and the same shot or blow may have deprived both of life. (Carleton Report) Tinosa 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That unsticks me, Tinosa, thanks :) Jeffrey, I'll start a draft as time allows, which uses Carleton's own account of an interpretation that the Paiute's did not and could not have reasonably participated in the deeds of killing during the massacre and that there are doubts even as to their active participation in the siege that came before.


 * Some sort of comment from you, Jeffrey, that you are willing to abide by consensus as to ordinary written WP practices in sourcing and editing the article (no admin proxies, no semi-protection, no special conditions of "approval" by you at all but rather, your participation and cooperation as any other content-oriented editor) will be very helpful in making me comfortable about writing and posting a Paiute section which not only cites the modern Paiute stance on MMM, but documented historical support to back it, which could likely create lasting content for the article. I don't think I can helpfully submit such a section until the article has been unprotected so please let us know where you are at with this, thanks so much. Gwen Gale 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my view in the past that both opinions—that the Paiutes were participants and that they were not participants—ought to appear in the article. Historians are split on the issue—Brooks and Bagley regard the Paiutes as participants, whereas Denton argues that they did not participate. Wikipedia's NPOV policy recommends including both points of view. Countering the Cradlebaugh report, which minimizes the role of the Paiutes, is the following quote from Garland Hurt, which Tinosa cited earlier on this talk page (Senate Executive Document 42, 36 Cong., 1 sess., 94-95; reprinted in Brooks, pp. 252-253):

"This affair had become so much the subject of conversation, that on the 17th [September 1857], I started an Indian boy, named Pete, who speaks the English language quite fluently, with instructions to proceed to Iron county on a secret route, and to learn from the Piedes if possible, and also from the Utahs, what the nature of th difficulty was, and who were the instigators of it. He returned on the 23rd, and reported that he only went to Ammon's village, in Beaver county, where he met a large band of Piedes, who had just returned from Iron county.

"They acknoweldged having participated in the massacre of the emigrants, but said that the Mormons persuaded them into it. They said that about ten or eleven sleeps ago, John D. Lee came to this village, and told them Americans were very bad people, and always made a rule to kill Indians whenever they had a chance. He said, also, that they had often killed the Mormons, who were friends to the Indians. He then prevailed on them to attack the emigrants, who were then passing through the country, (about one hundred in number,) and promised them that if they were not strong enough to whip them, the Mormons would help them. The Piedes made the attack, but were repulsed on three different occasions, when Lee and the bishop of Cedar City, with a number of Mormons, approached the camp of the emigrants, under pretext of trying to settle the difficulty, and with lying, seductive overtures, succeeded in inducing the emigrants to lay down their weapons of defense and admit them and their savage allies inside of their breastworks, when the work of destruction began, and in the language of the unsophisticated boy, "they cut all of their throats but a few that started to run off, and the Piedes shot them!" He also stated that there were some fifteen or sixteen small children that were not killed, and were in charge of the bishop."

My recommendation is to present both versions of events in a balanced manner. BRMo 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks BRMo. This was my plan. When I said I was stuck it was because I hadn't remembered (for example) that the Carleton report contained an interpretation which could be used to support the modern Paiute version. Gwen Gale 12:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no need for two versions. There seems to be no disagreement among Judge Cradlebaugh, Capt. Campbell, and Major Carleton concerning Indian participation.


 * "A Pah-Ute chief, of the Santa Clara band, named "Jackson," who was one of the attacking party, and had a brother slain by the emigrants from their corral by the spring, says that orders came down in a letter from Brigham Young that the emigrants were to be killed; and a chief of the Pah-Utes named Touche, now living on the Virgin River, told me that a letter from Brigham Young to the same effect was brought down to the Virgin River band by a young man named Huntingdon [Oliver B. Huntington], who, I learn, is an Indian Interpreter and lives at present at Salt Lake City." (Carleton Report)

Cradlebaugh interviewed the Indians around San Clara and concluded that they had very few rifles. Did Chief Knosh's tribe from Beaver, who Hurt spoke of, have few rifles? It seems Knosh, a close ally of the Mormons, is given credit for the Gunnison massacre.Tinosa 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that some of these old accounts are but documentation of hearsay. Personally, I think it likely that BY did order the MMM but we have no proof that he did, hence the article text. With Paiutes, their lack of firearms is not evidence of non-participation: Many accounts relate that women and children were hacked to death by Paiutes who sprang from hiding places when the order to kill was given. All told, given the lack of hard documentation and conflicting hearsay and speculation from that era, it's clear Paiutes were present at the MMM, it's clear BY encouraged them and other tribes to worry transient emigrants, it's clear that Mormons were disguised as native-Americans, it's clear that Mormons planned even before the massacre to shift as much blame as possible to the Paiutes, it's clear that the Paiutes took part in looting the dead. How many Paiutes were directly involved, as killers, in the killing? Accounts do vary. Gwen Gale 21:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence that BY ordered it is non existant. The evidence that he did not order it is substantial. On the other hand, there is no doubt that BY encouraged the Indians to harass the Americans.  The idea his defenders put forward is that he meant the Army.  And this is supported by many many public statements and direct orders to that effect.  His detractors claim that he also ordered the indians to attack wagon trains.  There is no evidence of that except for the fact that immediately after the Indians left a meeting with him they started doing that.  Was it ordered?  Did they do it to please him without knowing his real intentions?  Maybe.. Maybe he ordered it.  Attendees of the meeting indicate that the Indians did not really speak English well and BY did not speak their language well.  So communication could have been blurred.  No way to know for sure, but it is clear that within about a month or so BY issued orders to see that such things stopped. Of course that was a bit hard once they started, but it got under control eventually. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that Indians were involved in the massacre in one form or another.  The spread of the men from the women is well documented.  The reasons for this are fully explained.  The Mormon men who were involved were just enough to handle the men.  So who was it who took care of the women -- separated from the men by quite a distance?  The Paiutes.  There is ample documented evidence of this.  The real question that I have is this:  Was Lee really in trouble with them after a few days and thus had to placate them by an enforced assisting of them or was this a lie?  Several people testified that he was in trouble with them and he did also.  So it is possible he was in a bad spot and that may have motivated his actions.  On the other hand, maybe he did not mind much.  He says he did mind and tried hard to save them.  I find that hard to believe, but it is what he said.  No one testified that he tried to save the wagon train, but he was not present when the meeting to exterminate them came down. --Blue Tie 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I) Stack quotes Shipps on Walker, Turley & Leonard/ II) - & Sundry other items
In a 26 May 2007 Salt Lake Tribune article "Scholars discuss 3 LDS authors' massacre account" by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Jan Shipps is quoted as saying that Walker, Turley and Leonard"...marshal evidence that directly indicts John D. Lee . . . with the complicity of his immediate ecclesiastical superior Isaac Haight. With the Lee-Haight duo providing a foundation for local villainy, these authors moved forward to construct an elaborate argument that the massacre was essentially a local affair."

Then in the Deseret News of the same day in the article "New Mountain Meadows book places blame on local leaders" Carrie A. Moore writes:"(Glen Leonard) also addressed a question many have asked the authors over the years. Because they accept Brigham Young as a prophet, could they accept information that indicted him as the instigator if they found it?/ 'We kept our minds open to all the eventualities,' he said, adding they initially overlooked the significant role that Isaac C. Haight played in ordering an LDS militia to carry out the massacre. Ultimately, 'we put him in the responsible chair many have said Brigham Young occupied.'" --Justmeherenow 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In a 22 April 2007 blogpost at millennialstar.org, David Keller shares his notes from a 29 March lecture by author Turley. /.../ * More setting the record straight: The Turner/Duke party really were Mormon haters/fighters and caused many of the problems that later conveniently transferred to Fancher/Baker one as an excuse./.../ The above informations served as a preamble. Turley then increased the amount of detail got to the main points he wanted to emphasize. He gave a play-by-play of the action mostly from Isaac Haight's point of view, and compressed other parts of the events (For example, he didn't talk much about what was happening mid-week at the MM and he didn't mention express riders, etc.)
 * The southern Paiutes were not particularly adept at carrying out violence against wagon trains, but now and then they might target stragglers and strays. Turley did not particularly emphasize the utility of keeping an alliance with them or their role in the Massacre. They were mostly just tools of the Mormons. This to me leaves some unanswered questions of just how they were manipulated so easily to get involved./


 * 1) The Baker/Fancher party bought some wheat from someone, even though Mormons were in general trying to stockpile. Typically wagon trains planned on re-furnishing when they arrived in Salt Lake, but the war preparations created tensions and drove up prices./
 * 2) Some members in the part stopped at Haight's mill wanting to get flour ground, but they felt the asking price of one cow was exorbitant. (Turley said the party had 900 head of cattle, much higher than previous estimates.)/
 * 3) Party members complained, used fowl language, and made threatening overtures. They did something that was against city ordinances and worthy of arrest./
 * 4) The party boisterously went from the mill to Haight's home to complain to him. Haight, a temple guard from Nauvoo, interpreted this group as a mob, escaped out his back door and went to the town sheriff to get an arrest./
 * 5) Turley than referenced typical interactions between passing through trains and local laws. They would either give up the guilty in their party and let him pay fines, make amends etc or band together and help that person resist arrest and get out of town. The Fancher party went with the latter./
 * 6) This was unacceptable to Haight who then asked Dame if he could use the militia to help make an arrest. Dame denied the request, pleading with Haight to let them go. There is some quote about harsh words blowing over, but I don't recall it./
 * 7) Haight was still angry, so he began to plot for extra-legal revenge. The plan seems to escalate from recruiting the indians to engage in a "brush" (steal some cattle) to wiping out the entire train. John D. Lee was present for this escalation and it would be his job to be a behind the scenes field commander. Turley seemed confident that it was a planned massacre from the beginning and not something that escalated over the week. [As an aside this goes against my prior conception of the massacre, namely that it was initially planned as a cattle raid (with not much concern about casualties) and a way to form an alliance with the natives; then escalated when John D. Lee was spotted, the Indians were not competent by themselves to carry a raid out successfully, the indians desired revenge to for losses they suffered, and needed to be kept happy so as not to turn on the Mormons.]/
 * 8) Kind of a continued aside here, but premeditated Mormon masterminding is harder to deal with then panic-escalation on the ground with John D. Lee at the epicenter. I wanted to challenge Turley during the Q and A on this point./
 * 9) Some reports of Lees difficulties reach Dame, who visits Haight to find out what is happening. Haight feigns surprise and both conduct an investigation./
 * 10) A council meeting rules against carrying out the massacre or at least delaying it./
 * 11) Haight meets Dame after the meeting and convinces Dame to let him go forward with the massacre plan. Dame seems to have been a Pontius Pilate (my description) here, not really consenting, but willing to let Haight have his way./
 * 12) Turley describes the decoy and deploy plan as Haight's./
 * 13) Then Turley described the massacre in all its morbid details. He began the lecture by calling it the worst atrocity in Mormon history and something he has lost a lot of sleep over. He talked about Lee shooting some teenage girls that the indians wanted to keep alive./
 * 14) He then talked a little bit about the unsuccessful cover up from Lee's perspective, such as burying bodies in shallow graves (which were easily found later) and Lee altering documents./

I think around this point he ended his lecture and began a formal Q and A. The only good question I remember was asking him about the status of the book. Some of the better questions were given a read and find out answer. I was frustrated I couldn't get my question in. Turley said that the manuscript had already been sent to Oxford, and that Oxford was a jury press. Essentially that means a lot of people will be reading advanced copies and there is an lengthy voting/approval process and a need for revisions./...

(Some things I notices in the above is the obvious motive of plunder, Dame's pre-approval of the operation, Haight's preplanning of massacre rather than any escalation into one, the Paiutes' disregarded request to spare the two girls' lives.--Justmeherenow 00:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Where do you note "plunder" as a motive? It looks like fear and revenge to me.  (I also think that the accounts indicate that the indians did a substantial amount of the killing.  Even if they were influenced by Lee or others, I do not think that they are less guilty -- they were somewhat enthusiastic or at least persistent and willing.)  When Turley says that it was a planned massacre from the beginning, does that mean that it was planned that Mormons would to the killing from the start?  I think it is clear that at least some of the Mormons were trying to eradicate the group (some also argued against that), but that they original plan was to use the Paiutes as the hammer, not do it themselves.  When that failed then they turned to alternative plans, which many Mormon participants said was a trick laid upon them when they came to bury the supposedly already dead emigrants.  Maybe that was true, though it is hard to believe it.  There are several witnesses though who agree it was a trick.  I do not buy the indian "traditions" that they did not participate.  There is too much evidence from too many sources to the contrary. --Blue Tie 22:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pay attention to what happened with the cattle and goods.


 * It's the night of the Oscars and whoever's the current president makes some kind of military move that's especially repugnant to a large contingent of the Oscar nominees, who decide to stage an impomptu protest rally right outside the venue for the Oscars. Oh, and they've stored all the diamonds they're to wear to the events in a big strong box during the rally.
 * I'm somebody' personal assistant so I'm there at the rally and you, Blue Tie, are in the California National Guard. You can switch roles with me if you want. And then you get secret, extra-legal orders from some conniving superiors......to shoot all male marchers and watch while local barios-and-ghettos hirelings - along with some middle-class hoodlums, too - have been bribed by the promise of a share of these jewels into doing a killing fields thing with all the rally's women and older children, the plan being to get rid of all witnesses and blame this pre-planned massacre on local gangs. And, indeed, afterwards, a percentage of the diamonds are turned over to the gangs while the Guard commanders pocket a share and turn over a large portion of the remainder to the likes of the Police Benevolent Fund. Or, if you'd prefer something from real life, there's the true story that the movie GoodFellas is based on. Before these out-and-out brigands - "slash" freelance soldiers/ men of honor - divy up the loot from a big heist, they off one of their accomplices and his wife, ostenibly only because they've got worries that he tells his wife stuff and she might talk. Nathan paid attention to what happens with a particularly beautiful and sophisticated Canaanite and native Jerusalemite woman named Bathsheba, after David had had her husband, Uriah the Hittite, sent to the front of the line in battle; did Nathan say "What sleight of hand?" or did he confront David these kingly cupidities? --Justmeherenow 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that plunder was probably the first or second motive for the Indians, but -- where do you see a reference to plunder in the Shipps/Walker/Turley/Leonard comments?. I do not see it in there.  --Blue Tie 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From out of the notes, a few paragraphs up, from Turlety's recent lecture at Utah State University: Haight...began to plot for extra-legal revenge,...escalat(ing) from recruiting the indians to...steal some cattle to wiping out the entire train. (Lee) was present for this escalation and (was) to be a behind the scenes field commander. Turley seemed confident that it was a planned massacre from the beginning and not something that escalated over the week. [As an aside this goes against (lecture atendee Keller's) prior conception... of the massacre, namely that it was initially...a cattle raid with not much concern about casualties,...to form an alliance with the natives; then escalated when John D. Lee was spotted, the Indians were not competent by themselves to carry a raid out successfully, the indians' desir(ing) revenge to for losses they suffered, and needed to be kept happy so as not to turn on the Mormons.]/
 * Kind of a continued aside here, but premeditated Mormon masterminding is harder to deal with then panic-escalation on the ground with John D. Lee at the epicenter. I wanted to challenge Turley during the Q and A on this point./

Some reports of Lees difficulties reach Dame, who visits Haight to find out what is happening. Haight feigns surprise and both conduct an investigation./ A council meeting rules against carrying out the massacre or at least delaying it./ Haight meets Dame after the meeting and convinces Dame to let him go forward with the massacre plan. --Justmeherenow 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, but again, that does not speak of plunder (except perhaps obliquely in terms of the Indians). The original plan was for the Indians to do the work and they did do some things, but were ineffectual at the real objective of obliteration.  However, the cattle raid was more in keeping with the cold war strategy of the Utah War -- in other words that is more like a motive than "plunder", except POSSIBLY for the Indians.  Other sources would make that more clear.  Frankly I think you are looking for hints of things in comments rather than just looking at the things themselves. Trying to interpret the facts rather than report the facts.  As I have said, this is not what wikipedia should do.  We should not have wikipedia express an opinion, but rather report the facts and when an opinion is to be expressed it should be attribtuted to someone else. That is the policy per NPOV and would make the article better all around. --Blue Tie 02:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Blue Tie: '(T)hat does not speak of plunder (except perhaps obliquely in terms of the Indians...to do the work.... (their) cattle raid...in keeping with the cold war strategy'"One really cool thing I am learning from my participating here in editing this article on wikipedia is how various, obviously sincere people can and will see things from such mutually unintellible points of view! To my mind, covertly directing auxiliaries to raid cattle is plunder just as covertly arranging for others to assassinate people is murder.
 * Not to get too political, but: Boom, the Taliban shields al-Queda so, ka-boom, our democracy, after its representatives reviews whatever the evidence, agrees to set about to assassinate Taliban leaders; which stuff is a spiralling circle since our country had assisted freedom fighters against the Soviets and now covertly assists paramilitary groups to distable (/destablize(?sp)) Iran, blah blah. But, anyway, the job of editors who merely summarize information is to simply state the facts. Yet once some secret deal siccing some militant group on one's enemy has been laid out in the open, the plausible deniability perpetrators had so carefully nurtured is void and the editors have to then tell it as it is. Would an editor, unless she was catering to some kind of agenda, give undue weight to the fact Manson didn't kill anybody, in the face of the all the evidence Bugliosi laid out that Manson conspired to commit murder? No, and neither should editors confuse the issue should a Patty Hearst - despite her being a heiress and perhaps because of certain, apparent traumatizations - stand guard with an automatic rifle in a lobby while confederates gather bundles of loot and that's why Wikipedia, I imagine, would terms her a bank robber...even should there exist whatever cadre of apologists who'd hope to mitigate the facts of whatever historical atrocity to the point of denial. --Justmeherenow 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I should have been a bit more precise in speaking. I should have said that it "...does not speak of plunder as a motive".  Was there an attack?  Yes?  Was there plunder?  Yes.  Did both Indians and Whites take it?  Yes?  Was it a motive?  Maybe for the Indians.  I do not see it for the Mormons. Does that clarify?


 * As for undue weight, I do not suppose that is ever appropriate, but it tends to be in the eye of the beholder. Again, if you just stick to the facts (and avoid denials of things such as "though there have been rumors of X, these are untrue") without editorializing, such things do not become quite as big an issue.  In your example about Manson.  One does not have to say that he did not kill anyone.  One may simply describe his actions.  This is exactly what WP:NPOV says to do:


 * "Let the facts speak for themselves ...the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately... Please do the same: list [Manson's] crimes, and cite your sources.  Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position."


 * I think this is the best way to deal with controversial articles. I do not understand why this is so difficult to do or why a more biased approach is preferred except to push an agenda.


 * And then, when it is agreed that we absolutely MUST express an opinion then it should be attributed to someone, and not be wikipedia's opinion. But it is best to avoid them if possible. --Blue Tie 18:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What I get from blogger Keller is that whereas in the Brooksian era people thought there was escalation, due to /x/, /y/, /z/, into massacre-with-looting, Turly et all reveal preplanning of massacre-with-looting. So with this preplanning I believe it now obvious that there was a motive for plunder - although you prove its obviousness wrong since you still don't see one. Yet how exactly does one pre-plan a cattle raid, with or without all its herdsmen additionally to be killed in it, without having the motive of plunder?


 * I feel as as though I'm waiting in the back of a courtroom where I'm to contest a ticket...


 * A nicely dressed woman is at the defense table with her lawyer and the lawyer's smoothly explaining how the woman's statement he'd given to her arresting officer is true: she'd gone into a drugstore embarrassed about the need to buy a personal item and so had forgotten to ring up thriple-A batteries, a lighter, and a pack of gum that her young son was carrying for her. Although she'd remembered this immedialtely upon leaving the druggist's counter, she left the store, anyway, because she just wanted to get the transactions over.


 * The prosecutor speaks up and gives an interpretation of events gained from observing the store's surveilance tape, which shows the woman first stoop over and hand a shopping list to her maybe 14-years-old son, after which the son boisterously swaggers through the store, stuffing small items into his pockets. Immediately thereafter the woman initiates a very agitated conversation with the druggist and after buying one item, grabs her son by the hand and whisks him out of the store.


 * I recognize you (there in your trademark blue tie (wink)) standing in the isle in the back near the doors to the courtroom.


 * I saunter over and whisper, Regardless... At least there's been a motive for thievery established, which she admitted when she allowed that she knew her son had the items but left anyway - and whether it was further motived by embarrassment, expediency, real or feigned anger at the druggist, or what doesn't matter."


 * You say, "I want, if possible, to judge this woman to be of upstanding character. What's been shown is a motive of thievery on the part of the son, but not on her part as of yet." (Which answer has me questioning whether your predisposition to admire this woman is putting you in denial of the culpability she admitted to her arresting officer.) --Justmeherenow 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A PBS soundbite from "GLEN LEONARD, LDS Church Historian: It was a new policy- 'We'll allow the Indians to take the cattle, which will teach the government a lesson that we can't control the Indians.' And so the Cedar City leaders decided to take some cattle, using the Indians, 'And by the way, if some of those bad guys are killed, we won't truly be sorry.'""CC leaders decided to take some cattle" sounds like their being brigands/having a motive of plunder to me. :^) --Justmeherenow 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then in Turley's (now current LDS Ensign) magazine article: "Cedar City leaders then formulated a new plan. If they could not use the militia to arrest the offenders, they would persuade local Paiute Indians to give the Arkansas company “a brush,” killing some or all of the men and stealing their cattle." --Justmeherenow 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In its thread of responses at #5 Andrew Hall comments:"Glen Leonard, one of Turley's co-authors on the project, gave a very similiar presentation at the Miller-Eccles group in Dallas last week./.../ Leonard downplayed the role of the Paiutes, saying they were not a warlike tribe, and although they were happy to be parrt of a cattle-russling operation, they were not at all instigators of the murders."And a 23 Sept 2006 blogpost featured Keller's notes of a lecture by Utah historian Thomas Alexander.

"... Alexander speculated that any well poisoning would have arisen from a wagon train that came after the Fancher train. In the lecture, he charitably allowed that Brigham Young was acting under possible misinformation about the party's misbehavior when he suggested alternative wording for an erected memorial 'Vengeance is mine [and I have taken a little].' Dr. Alexander considers Isaac Haight the most responsible, quipping that Machiavelli looked tame compared to Haight. He attributed to massacre in part to Haight getting upset with some rowdy members of the train who caused trouble. Adding fuel to the fire, their arrest was circumvented because they were shielded by the rest of the wagon train. Some one asked if George A. Smith's sermons incited the massacre. Alexander didn't grant that idea much credence but said it may have contributed to the atmosphere. In all, it was a very informative presentation by a master historian." --Justmeherenow 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was a combination of factors that helped each person "feel" less responsible. I am not sure who was worse: Dame, Haight or Lee, but I tend to think Haight was probably most responsible of all. He had the best information and the best ability to command a change.  Lee was "caught" in circumstances and then made the worst of them.  One of my problems with Brooks is that she was too sympathetic toward Lee, whose acts were dastardly, but he was somewhat "caught" between a rock and a hard place and then excused himself by "following orders".  I'm not sure about Dame.  He was either largely innocent of overt act but rather stupid or he was responsible in a substantial way but was too cowardly to admit it. He compares, in my mind, to Lords Lucian or Raglan at Balaclava and Lee might be like Cardigan, - a do or die type of mentality, though he did not face death until much later.  But Haight, instead of reversing course pushed it forward. So I generally agree. But it is hard to know ... the facts are not clear.--Blue Tie 22:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note here: there's another story in the Deseret News today that describes some of Turley's conclusions. You regular contributors here may find some useful information there. Regards to all, alanyst /talk/ 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what "Justmeherenow" was saying up above on the Oscars and killing stars, but I will participate if it means I can thrash B. Streisand and A. Gore. Gosh, I hope I am not revealing my political waywardness or is it that I am just tired of both of them (Streisand is presently being quiet, but she still just annyoys the heck out of me).  Who threw that bootle at the twit in the dress with no front? --Storm Rider (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (Re Storm Rider): lol! --Justmeherenow

Maybe weigh in re user Hipocrites' questions? 1) Are these longstanding Paiute claims notable?--
'2) Does either opposing view have more professional/popular support? 3) --Is more mainstream? 4) Is (whichever's the) minority view adaquately explained and represented? If it turns out we've consensus, let's unlock the freaking article.'''


 * 1) -st response: What seems to be the most mainstream view is that there  was much less involvement on part of Paiutes than of militia, however there's conflicting claims as to what was its actual extent. Thus I think how  the article reads right now is just fine (...although I imagine various of you folks could constructively finetune it into something even better).  --Justmeherenow 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Justmeherenow's take on this is close. Mormons were, by all accounts, behind the planning and took part heavily in both the siege and the massacre, along with some kind of significant Paiute involvement. There is evidence the Mormons planned and then later tried to shift all blame over to the Paiutes. Accounts agree somewhat that Paiutes took part in the siege, that they were very much present at the massacre and that during both stages there were also Mormons disguised as Paiutes. There is some conflict as to how much killing the Paiutes took part in during the Friday massacre but most accounts do assert that at least some did appear from "hiding places" after the order to murder the emigrants was given. Gwen Gale 19:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel the first paragraph should be left the way it is. The dead have been verified to be of Cherokee ancestry and the Piaute Tribal Leadership denies involvement.  Any piautes participating may have been mormon converts and probably were, which means they were mormons, not paiutes.   The tribe has stated they had no involvement as a directive of that sovereign government.   I have reviewed all of the materials, and it appears some individuals participated, but they clearly did not have the consent or backing of the Paiute tribe as a whole.  The mormons did it, its verified, their dishonesty about the affair is a matter of verifiable public record, I do not see where any other debates are necessary on the matter of the cultural identity of the victims or the involvement of the Paiute Tribe. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide some independent, published citations which directly make (which is to say, plainly declare) the following interpretations:


 * The dead emigrants were all of Cherokee ancestry
 * Any participating Paiutes may have been or were Mormon converts
 * That local Paiute leadership in no way consented or backed the participation of Paiutes at MM in any way (the modern Paiute denials can be included in the article but are not relevant to this request for a supporting citation)

The Mormon complicity in the massacre and their subsequent evasiveness about their involvement is well-established in the historical record and I'm not aware of any lack of consensus about that on this talk page. However, without independent sources to support them, the above three assertions (ancestry, Paiute converts, role of tribal leadership) appear to me to be your own original research. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:OR if you haven't already. Either way, thanks! Gwen Gale 17:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't we're needlessly going back and forth here? Since actually, regarding the Cherokee ancestry question, citations have been given


 * ) to the federal reports that noted that the victims were associated with the Cherokee nation and
 * ) to the modern forensic examination that determined many of the victims to have been of Native ancestry.


 * Then with regard to the question of the extent of tribal participation, a citation has been given that said its major participation was unlikely, due to the observation of gunshot wounds to almost all the skulls and because of the officer's perception of the tribe's being less war-like in nature, politically, at the time (with essentially its taking a stance towards the U.S. in general that was fairly dependent upon the Mormons).


 * As for proof there had never been official sanction by the tribe, the tribe need not prove a negative. If on the Mormon side, we have reports of Dame's consent, Haight's active planning, Higbee's command and Lee's active involvement, our article yet goes to pains to say that nothing known implies Young's countenance. Again, doesn't the way the article is now worded simply apply a similar standard to an assignment of guilt to the ultimate chief and religio-political leadership of the tribe? --Justmeherenow 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Citiations from the Tribe and the evidence presented by the Salt Lake Tribune Article is not Original Research as near as I can tell. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed with the SLT article, it pithily contradicts any assertion that Paiutes were not involved. In other words, it does not support the modern assertions of the Paiute tribal leadership, regardless of whether or not someone has posted a copy of that article on a website saying that it does.

Being "associated" with the same geographical area as the Cherokee nation has aught to go with genealogical relationships and offers no support for any assertion that the emigrants were Cherokee. If you can provide the specific citations I've asked for, by providing publication names and bried excerpts (or URLs) here, I would support including these assertions in the article (giving sway to appropriate weighting with other documented sources). Meanwhile I'd like to hear from some of the many other editors who contribute to this article. Thanks! Gwen Gale 20:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Salt Tribune Article says what it says, and I believe am free to use the materials in this article. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey, with all due respect for your interests in these topics and my best wishes for your continued investigations and research, in my humble opinion WP:OR does not support your use of that article in the way you suggest. Gwen Gale 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gwen, The article is not OR and your continue assertions that verified materials from a reputable newspaper are OR give me concerns. As I said, you do not WP:OWN this article.   You know my views on the matter. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO your interpretation of the article is wholly WP:OR. Please try to refrain from accusing me of bad faith stuff like trying to "own" the article. Besides, I already said I'd like to see some consensus input from the many editors who are watching this talk page. Meanwhile, truth be told, my views and your views about MMM have no relevance here. What sways is WP:V. I still think you might consider writing a magazine article or a book about your views. After it has been published, I for one would be more than happy to cite it in this article, giving further heed, in effect, only to considerations of due weight and editor consensus. Thanks for your patience. Gwen Gale 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not referring to my interpretation of the article, I am referring to the statements in the article. It does not matter Gwen, I can edit the article as well.  I see no concensus here, BTW. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for another editor's opinion and after reading the aricle, I concur with Gwen' statement. Your interpretation of the article is the problem. The article does not support your conclusions and your desire to absolve the Paiutes of all participation.

As an aside, I frankly am a little stunned that just because people today state their ancestors did not do something has absolutely no value in history. There are people today that state the Holocaust did not take place; regardless of how many times they say it, does not remove the reality that is took place. Further, just because someone joins the Mormon church does not mean they "become" a separate people. As a descendant of the Cherokee people through my paternal great-grandmother I would call your comments highly subjective if not outright religious prejudice. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me guess, you believe everything Gordon B. Hinkley says despite history. At this time in history, the Mormon Church was a "sovereign" and was the government of Utah, that is, until after this shameful affair, then afterwards the Congress of the United States stripped all of the Churches Governmental powers in the territory forever.  How many prophecies did that trounce all over?   The leaders of another sovereign, the Paiutes, says its all lies.  Their statements have a place here, along with forensic evidence some of the victims were Cherokee (verified by forensic evidence).  As for the Cherokee claims, the United States disagrees with you .  Falsely claiming to be Cherokee or any other Indian Tribe is frowned on by the Government it appears.  You might want to read those references.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can speak for myself: I don't believe very much of what Mr Hinkley says about MMM. I wouldn't believe anything he said about the Paiutes, one way or the other.


 * The industrial-scale killings which took place in Germany between 1934 and 1945 are widely documented. The involvement of Paiutes in MMM is also widely documented. We can cite modern denials from tribal leaders but these do nothing to erase the historical record.


 * Jeffrey, you can edit the article, but if your edits don't follow WP policy (WP:OR, WP:V and the like), they will not last, even if I don't do any further editing at all. Gwen Gale 06:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia, rarely if ever, does any single persons edits last on a controversial topic like this one. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, a single person's edits often can, do and will last even in the most controversial of Wikipedia articles if they follow WP:OR, WP:V and are helpfully written through consensus and in encyclopedic style. Gwen Gale 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Could an administrator make the edits: Thanks. --Justmeherenow 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)''
 * Add in the word likely into the article's lead sentence to qualify its statement regarding the victims' being of partial-Cherokee ancestry.
 * To the end of footnote 1 (Salt Lake Tribune, Paiute Tribe sets record Straight, results of forensic and DNA analysis of MMM victims), but prior to the link ([1]), append in quotation marks "'The analysis of bones from some of the 120 emigrants in a California-bound wagon train who were slaughtered at Mountain Meadows also shows some of the remains have distinct American Indian characteristics. Those traits may be attributed to the mixed Cherokee ancestry of many of the emigrants from northwestern Arkansas who were murdered.'"--? Merci.''
 * Also: While the sentence, "There are conflicting accounts claiming participation in the event by members of the Paiute Indian Tribe, a charge the Paiute tribe denies publicly based upon their oral traditions related to the event."--(to my mind at least) appears uncontroversial, the very next sentence, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre precipitated Federal Intervention into the affairs of Utah during the 1800's"--should be edited by exchanging the phrase helped to precipate for the word precipitated,'' (to account for other factors arising out of the Mormon's theocracy that precipitated federal intervention as well e/g  polygamy).

I do not agree with the word "likely". I do not think the addition of the information regarding ethnicity is important in any way. I also do not think that it helped to precipitate anything related to federal intervention. The edits you are making are not bad in themselves but the content in the article is not good. --Blue Tie 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To reiterate how the edits improve the article, what I'm saying is - due administrator Tom Harrison's (within the above talk section re victim ancestry) reference to the descendants organization's saying that evidence some victims' were of major Cherokee ancestry is inconclusive, I'd agree that our current version should be slightly qualified so we don't imply its assertion about victims' ethnicities is completely un-(uh, in-? damn!)disputed, despite scientific/historical factors indiciating it's likely. Then, while the massacre contributed a considerable influence towards, for example, fed appointees' eventually disbanding the Nauvoo Legion, the tragedy is not the only one - so shouldn't our article's introductory paragraph qualify its framing of MM's primacy to bring about such change or intervention? --Justmeherenow 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think it should be deleted or much more than slightly qualified. The disagreement here is one of degree. You are saying it should be a slight modification.  I am saying it should be a much larger modification.  It certainly does not even belong in the first paragraph.  One of the key tests of intelligence and reasoning skills is to distinguish between important items, secondary items and tertiary items.  This trivia about the speculation of possible ancestry of some of the victims is entirely irrelevant to the article.  I cannot think of any reason that it is interesting to any reader. But if it has to be included it should be way down in the article.   I also do not think that MMM was an important matter to the changes in the territory.  I think that was polygamy and US assertion of primacy vs Mormon Church assertion of primacy.  The MMM barely registered. But, if some historian thinks it did then we should quote him and ascribe the opinion to him... not to wikipedia. --Blue Tie 18:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Although MM really was a big deal in its time, we still ought to copy whatever nuances historians use when they determine what weight to give to the massacre in relation to whatever else - so, OK, yeah. And although I don't think a throw-away line mentioning some victims' likely Cherokee ancestry is undue emphasis, the issue's not that important to me. Anyway, Blue Tie, I appreciate your always well-considered and intelligent ideas and responses - thanks. --Justmeherenow 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reduced the protection on this page. Tread carefully, please. --MZMcBride 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Link

 * Mountain Meadows Massacre -- Reburying the Dead - Index of investigative news articles, books, documents, and sites related to this tragic massacre whose culpability continues to be denied by the Utah power ... Compiled by polemicist Sterling D. Allan, who has reason to believe he may have been John D. Lee in a former lifetime.
 * (Above unsigned comment was by sterlingda (whose reference to his own own stuff as polemics is refreshing --Justmeherenow :^)

Infobox addition
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)

Lengthy quotes at MMM
Hey, just a quick thought: those quotes you just added to Mountain Meadows massacre are pretty long; I wonder if it might be better to post them to the talk page first and ask for help in summarizing them or quoting smaller bits that will fit better into the article. They just seem a little overwhelming given their size. What do you think? alanyst /talk/ 22:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I pasted the comment immediately above and just below from my talk page to here. --Justmeherenow 20:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I went a little crazy with quotations in the Memorials section. (Once again! :^) But at the same time I think the article as it was, was just way too sparse and dry.''' Could editors help me to radically weed it? Thx --Justmeherenow 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will take a look. I did note that the footnotes are quite extensive in quotations. I believe I understand the rationale behind that in getting buy-in on the certain elements of the article. Now that the discussion has died down, it may be time to pare down the quotes and just rely on the footnotes.


 * There is a citation template I will try out on one or two to see if it helps. I will also try the refname= option to enter references once and use them multiple times. It does not allow for the specific page numbers to specific usages, but might also be helpful. I used it on the article on Deaconesses to slim it down. The template also helps on editing, as it makes it easy to see the inline refs. Just a few thoughts at lunchtime. I will look tonight. --Robbie Giles 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look. I collapsed two refs into one and dropped the direct quotation.
 * I did not hyperlink to the actual newspaper article, as it is password protected by the publisher. Anyone wanting a copy can get it with the specific citation listed.
 * The same for the quotation, I left it out. It forms the backdrop of the first paragraph and readers or other editors can verify using the citation. Putting the quotation in with your synopsis is redundant.
 * If you don't like this edit, just revert to the previous. I will hold off on any further collapsing until I hear from you and other interested editors. --Robbie Giles 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BRMo 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article semi-protected?
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)
 * I've removed the protection. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Second-hand report of Pauite admissions in lead
'''from the Cradlebaugh speech about their "involvement in MM" leads to a wide range of interpretion or misinterpretation. Shouldn't editors give the benefit of the doubt as to their whatever was the actual content of their first-handedly communicated "confession" to the confessors? I'd suggested Less than two years after the incident, a Paiute Indian Tribe sub-chief from the area named Jackson said (according to a second-hand report by federal investigator Judge Cradlebaugh) that tribal members were engaged by the Mormons as accomplices in the Mountain Meadows massacre, having gone there alongside "painted" militiamen, but had declined to "fight" (or, it's presumed, lethally massacre) the Fanchers since the emigrants "had long guns and were good shots."<sup[5]  --but I'm open to whatever everyone else thinks. ;^) Notice that "were 'engaged in (the MM) massacre' - 'went (...but) did not fight' are phrases in Cradlebaugh's own remarks. --Justmeherenow 02:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Federal Judge Cradlebaugh
 * "The command went as far south as St. Clara, twenty miles beyond the Mountain Meadows, where we camped and remained about a week. During our stay there I was visited by the Indian Chiefs of that section, who gave me their version of the massacre. They admitted that a portion of their men were engaged in the massacre, but were not there when the attack commenced. One of them told me in the presence of the others, that after the attack had been made, a white man came to their camp with a piece of paper, which he said, Brigham Young had sent, that directed them to go and help to whip the emigrants. A portion of the band went, but did not assist in the fight. He gave a reason that the emigrants had long guns, and were good shots. He said that his brother(this chief's name was Jackson) was shot while running across the Meadows at a distance of two hundred yards from the corral where the emigrants were. He said the Mormons were all painted. He said the Indians got a part of the clothing, and gave the names of John D. Lee, President Haight, and Bishop Higbee, as the big captains. It might be proper here to remark that the Indians in the southern part of the Territory of Utah are not numerous, and are very low, cowardly, beastly set, very few of them armed with guns. They are not formidable. I believe all in the southern part of the country would, under no circumstances, carryon a fight against ten white men." ( Judge Cradlebaugh. Utah and the Mormons. p. 122)

Brevert Major Carleton, USA:'''
 * A Pah-Ute chief, of the Santa Clara band, named "Jackson," who was one of the attacking party, and had a brother slain by the emigrants from their corral by the spring, says that orders came down in a letter from Brigham Young that the emigrants were to be killed; and a chief of the Pah-Utes named Touche, now living on the Virgin River, told me that a letter from Brigham Young to the same effect was brought down to the Virgin River band by a young man named Huntingdon [Oliver B. Huntington], who, I learn, is an Indian Interpreter and lives at present at Salt Lake City.'''


 * Jackson says there were 60 Mormons led by Bishop John D. Lee, of Harmony, and a prominent man in the church named [Isaac C.] Haight, who lives at Cedar City. That they were all painted and disguised as Indians.


 * 'That this painting and disguising was done at a spring in a canyon about a mile northeast of the spring where the emigrants were encamped, and that Lee and Haight led and directed the combined force of Mormons and Indians in the first attack, throughout the siege, and at the last massacre.' The Santa Clara Indians say that the emigrants could not get to the water, as besiegers lay around the spring ready to shoot anyone who approached it. This could easily have been done. Major [Henry] Prince, Paymaster, U.S.A., and Lieutenant Ogle, First Dragoons, on the 17th inst., stood at the ditch which was in the corral and placed some men at the spring 28 yards distant, and they could just see the other men's heads, both parties standing erect. This shows how vital a point the Assailants occupied; how close it was to the assailed, and how well protected it was from the direction of the corral. (Carleton Report)

Captain Campbell, USA
 * These emigrants were here met by the Mormons (assisted by such of the wretched Indians of the neighborhood as they could force or persuade to join them), and massacred, with the exception of such infant children that the Mormons thought too young to remember or tell of the affair. The Mormons had their faces painted so as to disguise themselves as Indians.


 * The Mormons were led on by John D. Lee, then a high dignitary

in the self-styled Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Isaac Haight, now a dignitary in the same.


 * This affair began by a surprise. The emigrants were encamped near a spring, from which there is a ravine. Along this ravine the Mormons and Indians crept to the spring during the night. When the emigrants arose in the morning they were fired upon, and some twelve or fifteen of them killed. The emigrants then seized their arms and defended themselves so bravely that, after four days, the Mormons and Indians had not succeeded in exterminating them. This horrid affair was finished by an act of treachery. John D. Lee, having washed the paint from his face, came to the emigrants and told them that if they

would surrender themselves, and give their property to the Indians, that the Mormons would conduct them safely back to Cedar City. The emigrants then surrendered, with their wives and children. They were taken about a mile and a half from the spring, where they, their wives, and their children, (with the exception of some infants,) were ruthlessly killed.


 * The infants were taken to Cedar City, where they were either sold or given away to such of the Mormons as desired them. It is a notorious fact that these infants never have been with the Indians. The property of the emigrants was taken to Cedar City, where it was putup at public auction and sold.


 * These facts were derived from the children who did remember and could tell of the matter, from Indians, and from the Mormons them selves. This affair occurred in the month of September, in 1857.


 * On leaving the Mountain Meadows, I proceeded on with my command to the river Santa Clara, where I arrived on the 8th of May, 1859. I sent for Jackson, the chief of the tribe said to be most hostile to the Americans. He acknowledged that he had committed some outrages on the people of the United Sates. He made the most humble protestations of future good conduct, in which I put some reliance, if he is not encouraged to commit overt acts by the Mormons. These Indians are a miserable set of root-diggers, and nothing is to be apprehended from them but by the smallest and most careless party. (Captain Campbell report to Major Porter USA)Tinosa 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From Turley's current (LDS Ensign) magazine article: "Despite plans to pin the massacre on the Paiutes—and persistent subsequent efforts to do so—militiaman Nephi Johnson later maintained that settlers did most of the killing." --Justmeherenow 05:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)