Now, this “peach” of an idea is really interesting, because it makes Brigham Young sound like Richard Nixon with the missing 18 1/2 minutes….but if the allegation is true, Brigham seems to have been more thorough than Nixon.

The hard part of proving a coverup is the so-called evidence is missing. This reminds me of the recent discussion we had on the Solomon Spalding manuscript. Of course, the original theorists believed that Joseph burned the Spalding manuscript. Then when it was found and shown to be different from the Book of Mormon, Spalding theorist invented a 2nd manuscript to keep the theory alive. So, it will be interesting to look at Bagley’s evidence for the coverup. Is it innuendo like the Spalding guys (which I don’t find convincing), or is there more to it like the Nixon coverup?

From what I understand, Brooks gives Brigham plenty of blame for fomenting the milleniest fervor. From my limited knowledge of the time period, I think Bagley probably has a point that Mormons wanted to avenge Pratt’s murder. From what I understand, Bagley discounts anything the Mormons say as unreliable. Well, I think it takes more than a theory that Brigham Young ordered the deaths–of course the missing evidence is extremely problematic. Was Brigham simply involved in the coverup to protect Mormon leaders in Southern Utah? I think the evidence probably seems to say “yes” Brigham was involved in a coverup. Did Brigham actually order the massacre? I’d be hard-pressed to believe that without some pretty good evidence.

Peter mentioned that nobody sneezed without Brigham Young’s knowledge. Now, I think Brigham was very powerful, but there are evidences of people defying Young. As I recall, at least 2 wives divorced Brigham. He was effective in setting up United Orders, but his force of personality couldn’t make them all function efficiently. Certainly, Brigham adapted many of his methods to meet community strengths. But without reading Bagley’s book yet, I don’t think he was quite as powerful as I understand Bagley makes him out to be.

“Two months after Lee’s execution, attorney Sumner Howard pointed out
what he learned in his preparation for Lee’s second trial: “. . .
whatever written communications . . . sent by Brigham Young . . . have
long since been taken care of . . .” because Young was not “. . .a
fool or so indifferent to his own safety as to allow written evidence
of his own guilt to remain in the hands of men over whom he as supreme
control for all the time since this crime was committed, now about
twenty years.” Knowledge that all factual substantiation placing
responsibility on Young had been destroyed, is another consideration
to in Howard’s failure to attempt any overt link of Young to the crimes.”

“Howard’s Defence,” New York Herald, May 9, 1877.

Rick

To me, this is one of the simpler of the controversies. Newell’s essay makes it clear that the Turley/Walker book props up the notion that though the white men did most of the killing. They push the notion that it was the Native American’s that killed the women and children. In the author’s narrative, they didn’t correct this notion. I’m hearing that even the staff working on that project were torn over this issue and does not represent the opinions of some if not many who worked on that project.

This seems that the larger failure of the project was not to build a consensus among those historians and present that consensus. Major opportunity lost and the project is now, so much more ephemeral.

As for Brigham Young’s knowledge or participation in the planning of the Massacre. This is a bit of a squirrel chase. The fact that there is near consensus that he created the atmosphere that lead to the massacre is all I really needed to know. It’s like my present ward. The regular folk in the neighborhood are easygoing good folk. But one or two outspoken radicals in leadership positions can greatly change the tone for the whole block and can even create a dangerous situation.

Tom K

By the way, the Turley and Walker book stops at the actual massacre and deals nothing with aftermath or cover ups. Apparently there is another book planned for that.

@mh
Brooks wrote her book in about 1950 the most important reads are “The Mountain Meadows Massacre”Juanita Brooks, “Blood of the Prophets” Will Bagley, Massacre at Mountain Meadows”, American Massacre” Sally Denton, I am sure there are other book to be read. Be careful none will know the whole truth for many lies were told or the truth withheld til memories drifted. Some of the writers had family in volved, some were hired by ex-members with the intent to make connections.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre should have never happened.

Brigham Young never ordered the attack, his concern was to prepair for the possiblity of an armed attack from the U.S.Government. The government had cut mail service to Utah which added to the problem.

If you could change one fact to have the event not happen that would be the acts of sendind 2500 plus troops to utah without carring out a investigation as to the charges, this is Buchanan’s Blunder. Brigham Young was replaced within six month by Governor Cummins who was in charge when General Johnston who replaced another gerneral who was known for his harsh treatment when carring out attacks, the date of this transfer of command 11 September 1857.

General Connor got his rank because he carried out a massacre of 250 men, women and children lost in history because killed were Native Americans. The Nineteenth Century was filled many cases, Trail of tears, ect..

Again this act at Mountain Meadow was wrong and should have never happened. This was seen after the fact by those who carried out the crime. Lies were told to not only protect those who carried out the crime, but were also to protect their friend and neighbor in Sothern Utah From those that would have gathered from California.