When the Fancher-Baker Party did not make it to California, news traveled fast. Congress asked federal investigators to find out what happened in Mountain Meadows. Was it an all-Indian attack, or were Mormons involved? Richard Turley describes news of the massacre.
Turley: But the word made it quickly to California and then quickly to the eastern United States. So, people knew that their loved ones were killed or missing in late 1857 and early 1858, so it didn’t take long at all. At that point people in Arkansas, whose relatives were killed began to write to their congressional representatives saying, “We need to do something about this.” It wasn’t long before officials in Washington were demanding that something occur as well. So, they were sending orders with their people who were headed west with the Utah expedition telling them that they needed to do something about the massacre.
GT: Okay. So, because, if I remember right, didn’t it take about 10 years before they brought anybody up for trial? Or what was the time frame before they actually brought legal action?
Turley: So the Utah War ended in 1858, and before it ended, there was not anything done. In 1858, when the federal judges arrived, one of the federal judges, John Cradlebaugh, became responsible for that portion of the territory of Utah that included the South. So in 1859, in March, he convened a court and as part of that court had a grand jury, and he wanted the grand jury at that point to indict those who he felt were responsible for the massacre.
Without spilling a lot of the details of what’s going to be in our second volume, I’ll tell you that that was a complicated event. We explained in there exactly what happens during this trial. By the time you get to the middle of 1859, Church leaders are also concerned about what they’re hearing, and so they want to have some type of judicial proceeding as well. But for reasons, again, that we explain in our book, based on evidence no one’s ever seen before, that doesn’t work out. Then we get to the Civil War. After the Civil War, we get judges back in Utah, who are turning their attention to this crime again. So then in 1874, you finally have your first indictments, and then two trials of John D. Lee: one in 1875, and in 1876.
While it seems likely that Brigham Young was initially lied to about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, at what point did he learn that Mormons were involved?
Turley: Well, basically Brigham Young knew that he had received a letter from Isaac Haight. Again, this is a story that you’ll see in our book. He knew he had a letter from Isaac Haight midweek in the massacre, basically saying that the immigrants were under attack at the Mountain Meadows. He sent a letter back saying, “Let them go.” Then he got word that they had been attacked and massacred. So, the natural question he would have on his mind when he gets his first visitor from the south is what happened? What happened here? The story that he got, which we detail in the book, is a story of an all-Indian massacre.
GT: And that was from John D. Lee, correct?
Turley: It was from John D. Lee. That’s right.
GT: John blamed it all on the Indians.
Turley Yep. And he does it in such a way that he attempts to foist a burden of guilt on Brigham Young for his Indian policy, which was: get Indians to align with us in the Utah War, to be enemies against the Mericats,[1] the Americans. So, the way John D. Lee told the story led Brigham Young to believe: “My policy has contributed to spilling the blood of innocent people on Utah soil.”
GT: So you’re saying that when John D. Lee came up to tell Brigham about the massacre, he’s essentially saying, “Brigham, this is your fault, because you’re trying to align with the Indians?”
Turley: Yeah.
GT: That’s interesting.
Turley: It wouldn’t have been that crass, but that’s essentially what he was trying to do.
[1] Mericats was the word Indians used for Americans.
What did he try to do about it?
Turley: By the middle of 1859, he was very convinced that there was disturbing information about members of the church being involved. He was telling them at the time, “Look, if you had something to do with this, you’re not going to be protected. Get yourselves ready to go to trial.” I think he was very much in hopes that trials would occur. People said that he wanted to have those trials in probate courts that were operated by local bishops. Ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that the best way to resolve this is have it be done in the territorial courts, the federal courts, if you want to call them that. Unfortunately, for the reasons that we described in the book, it didn’t happen, and those are political reasons.
Do you agree? Do you think Brigham was aware of the massacre before, or after the attack? And if after, when do you think he found out about it?
Wheat & Tares 
I think Brigham Young’s rhetoric contributed to an atmosphere that led to the attack, but that Brigham Young knew nothing beforehand and worked hard to convince himself that members of the Church were not involved until the evidence became undeniable.
What we need are some qualified non-LDS historians, with full access to church archives, to write a thorough account of the post-massacre cover-up. I have my doubts about Mormon academics who submit their manuscripts to General Authorities for review prior to publication.
“Do you think Brigham was aware of the massacre before, or after the attack?”
I have insufficient information to think either way about it. What has been described on this page, which conforms reasonably well to my own study of the matter, is that Brigham Young expected conflict between Mormons and Americans but did not expect it to take the form that it appears to have taken. His “scorched earth” policy suggests a defensive posture since actually winning a war against the United States Army was highly unlikely but leaving them stranded at the end of an extremely long supply line was easily accomplished and the United States would find it too difficult to maintain the army in Utah.
As to what Brigham Young knows he took to his grave. There is only what is written either by his hand or by that of a scribe.
Eric,
Would your proposal actually produce answers that would satisfy critics? If you distrust the Church so much as to have a default position that the Church is covering something up, couldn’t the Church just refuse to disclose any damning documents to an independent reviewer? Or worse, destroy the documents? It seems to me that if you don’t trust the Church, there’s nothing the Church can really do to address your specific concerns.
Seeing no as how George A. Smith, Brigham Young’s right hand man, was one campsite over along with a relative of mine, when the massacre went down I find it most likely that Brigham Young was much more involved than currently thought through Smith. I think they covered things up quite well.
Eric,
You have no evidence for your assertion that Turley runs his books by the brethren. Besides, they wouldn’t be experts on the topic anyway. I did mention to him that some would claim that you can’t trust someone who works for the church. His response was that you must go to the primary sources to get the most accurate history.
Oxford Publishing is probably the toughest editor to get something published. Turley said he would only do the project if he had full cooperation from the Church, and he has tracked down the most accurate transcripts of the trial. It’s easy to use innuendo to paint doubt, but just provide some primary sources to backup your assertions of bias.
I have an upcoming interview with Mel Johnson coming up, and he pushed back on some assertions, but I have yet to hear any evidence that disputes Turley or Brown’s accounts.
Rick B,
“You have no evidence for your assertion that Turley runs his books by the brethren.” Actually, I do. On p. 237 of their first volume, “Massacre at Mountain Meadows,” the authors acknowledge that they had two apostles review their manuscript prior to publication. You really should read their book.
Perhaps the authors had the discretion to ignore the feedback they received from those two general authorities, but I know very few devout LDS historians who would have the courage to do so. Besides, whether or not these church leaders ultimately influenced the end product is not relevant; it is the appearance that they might have that is disconcerting.
In addition, one of the authors, Glen Leonard, stated on the PBS miniseries “The Mormons” that: “As I explored the sources, I felt relieved at what I found. I felt comforted that Brigham Young did what he thought was best in his Utah war policy.” This statement suggests that Mr. Leonard approached his research with the hope and desire that his findings would exonerate a former leader of his church. Such an open declaration of a predisposition towards a desired outcome will inevitably cause others to question the impartiality of your work. And whether Young thought he did his best is only marginally relevant; the important question is: did he? Simply stated, this is not what I expect of a professional historian.
Of equal concern is the authors’ conclusion that Brigham Young, George A. Smith and others were guilty of little more than “flamboyant rhetoric” that “stirred up some emotions that got out of control” (see pp. 99-100 of the book and Leonard’s interview on the PBS miniseries). I do agree that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that Young or any other church official in Salt Lake ordered the massacre. But they clearly contributed, in a variety of different ways over an extended period of time, to an environment of odium and distrust that allowed the idea for the massacre to germinate and blossom in all its horror.
The belief in personal and institutional inerrancy that seems to accompany all theocracies, the Mormon reformation in the mid-1850s, the compulsory blind obedience that was used to measure a church member’s righteousness and ultimately to compel participation in the massacre, the irrational millenarianism, the militant war policies, and the willingness to trade “hate for hate”–all of these were at the root of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and can be traced, to significant degree, to Salt Lake. The authors, in my opinion, soft pedaled these issues.
Also, the following statement you made is an obvious non sequitur: “I did mention to him that some would claim that you can’t trust someone who works for the church. His response was that you must go to the primary sources to get the most accurate history.” The fact that he had access to primary sources doesn’t mean that he has analyzed them impartially.
Lastly, I do believe the authors have made a valuable contribution to study of this tragic episode, and I will buy and read their second volume as well. But I think my concerns about their objectivity have merit; hence my desire to see a non-LDS historian’s take on the same primary source material.
And to Dsc: I said nothing about whether I trust the church to be open about its past (although there are plenty of precedents that would justify such an assertion); rather, I was merely suggesting that a non-LDS historian, perhaps someone like John Turner at George Mason University who has written two excellent works of Mormon history, would offer a valuable alternative perspective..
Rick B,
“You have no evidence for your assertion that Turley runs his books by the brethren.” Actually, I do. On p. 237 of their first volume, “Massacre at Mountain Meadows,” the authors acknowledge that they had two apostles review their manuscript prior to publication. You really should read their book.
Perhaps the authors had the discretion to ignore the feedback they received from those two general authorities, but I know very few devout LDS historians who would have the courage to do so. Besides, whether or not these church leaders ultimately influenced the end product is not relevant; it is the appearance that they might have that is disconcerting.
In addition, one of the authors, Glen Leonard, stated on the PBS miniseries “The Mormons” that: “As I explored the sources, I felt relieved at what I found. I felt comforted that Brigham Young did what he thought was best in his Utah war policy.” This statement suggests that Mr. Leonard approached his research with the hope and desire that his findings would exonerate a former leader of his church. Such an open declaration of a predisposition towards a desired outcome will inevitably cause others to question the impartiality of your work. And whether Young thought he did his best is only marginally relevant; the important question is: did he? Simply stated, this is not what I expect of a professional historian.
Of equal concern is the authors’ conclusion that Brigham Young, George A. Smith and others were guilty of little more than “flamboyant rhetoric” that “stirred up some emotions that got out of control” (see pp. 99-100 of the book and Leonard’s interview on the PBS miniseries). I do agree that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that Young or any other church official in Salt Lake ordered the massacre. But they clearly contributed, in a variety of different ways over an extended period of time, to an environment of odium and distrust that allowed the idea for the massacre to germinate and blossom in all its horror.
The belief in personal and institutional inerrancy that seems to accompany all theocracies, the Mormon reformation in the mid-1850s, the compulsory blind obedience that was used to measure a church member’s righteousness and ultimately to compel participation in the massacre, the irrational millenarianism, the militant war policies, and the willingness to trade “hate for hate”–all of these were at the root of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and can be traced, to significant degree, to Salt Lake. The authors, in my opinion, soft pedaled these issues.
Also, the following statement you made is an obvious non sequitur: “I did mention to him that some would claim that you can’t trust someone who works for the church. His response was that you must go to the primary sources to get the most accurate history.” The fact that he had access to primary sources doesn’t mean that he has analyzed them impartially.
Lastly, I do believe the authors have made a valuable contribution to study of this tragic episode in Mormon history, and I will buy and read their second volume as well. But I think my concerns about their objectivity have merit; hence my desire to see a non-LDS historian’s take on the same primary source material.
Dsc:
I said nothing about whether I trust the church to be open about its past (although there are plenty of precedents that would justify such an assertion). Rather, I was merely suggesting that a non-LDS historian, perhaps someone like John Turner at George Mason University who has written two excellent works of Mormon history, would offer a valuable alternative perspective.
Eric,
The “you” in my comment was an informal, generic “you”. My apologies if that came off as making a judgment about your particular standpoint. I understand and respect the idea, but I think that giving access to a non-LDS scholar just kicks the trust can down the road another few feet and doesn’t actually resolve the issue. Critics and conspiracy theorists will just say that said scholar’s sources are unreliable because they come from the Church. It’s part and parcel for conspiracy theories.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true when it comes to reading the minds of historical figures with complex agendas who are long dead.
Cuts both ways. Can’t prove BY organized it, Can’t prove he didn’t neither.
Who makes the rules of what constitutes allowable evidence? What if we concede that “Indian” actually means Lee’s renegade Mormon boys dresses as Indians? We have little evidence the Paiutes did much more than steal cattle, yet we continue to blame them. We have many eye-witness accounts that John D. Lee escaped his execution, yet they are from mostly apostate polygamous sources and hence have no weight as evidence. We sit on our high horses and designate this and that folklore. Since many documents are under church control, the church have considerable indirect influence. Since many documents have been lost or destroyed by the church in the past (For one, the first Pony Haslam letter Haight wrote to Young) they are again disallowing evidence (now by default) that might have weight and considerable leverage. Having done it in the past makes it plausible it still happens.
Who is the jury or the audience? If we are trying to give faithful and gullible members some little twig of plausibility- that is far different than if we are trying to convince a hostile and critical population outside of the church. The trust problem rears is head. How much people trust the church is crucial to the arguments the church makes. They don’t stand strongly on their own otherwise.The material the church currently allows to be considered seems to target a faithful audience; proof: who is making what comments above.
The problem with lying and obfuscating and destroying evidence is sometimes it works and the truth never will be known. That is good if we are protecting a loyal following from knowledge of misdeeds. But bad if we ever want to exonerate ourselves in the general public. For this reason the issue will never rest.
***
What perplexes me is the church is perfectly willing to throw Brigham Young under the wagon on the far more important topics of sexism and racism. The way he treated women; dozens of wives, Ann Eliza Webb, the deplorable feud between them after his death. His thoughts and teachings are so far out of line on several important topics that it contaminates almost everything else he taught.
Yet we dig in deep on the massacre issues: did he plan it and when did he know and why did he not lead a better investigation and did the only perpetrator get held legally accountable. To me his credibility is already so far in the toilet that organizing the massacre and obstructing its investigation during what he viewed as a impending war doesn’t even make the top 3 of his outrageous excesses. Blaming it on honorable local church leaders like Haight and Higbee and Dane really doesn’t help the case for me. Not at all.
Late to the conversation, but wanted to point out to Eric that while I agree perspectives from other historians (LDS and non-LDS) are always helpful, credit needs to be given for Turley and his colleagues who are working to make the primary sources of the MMM available for a broader audience (this upcoming book includes papers from both the Church and the federal government). Turley was very involved in the Joseph Smith Papers project, which is another fantastic scholarly resource getting primary sources into the hands of as many people as possible. I don’t always agree with his interpretation of the sources, but he has a long-time track record favoring transparency, even when it has the potential to casts the church or its leaders in an unfavorable light.