Talk:Mountain Meadows massacre/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a repeat of my post on the talk page of the article:

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

  1. I do not think it was Nauvoo Legion
  2. I do not think the circumstances are controversial. The causes might be. Excluding those issues related to cause and motivation, what circumstances are controversial?
  3. I think the word "highly" as a modifier for controversial is original research and should be removed.
  4. 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.
  5. I question the "prosperity" of the migrants.
  6. Can we be more certain that the lure of gold did motivate the young men?
  7. The hostilities between Utah and the Federal government are described as "potential". It should be "threatened", I think.
  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.
  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.
  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).
  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. 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.
  12. "Only days before", should be specified as a date.
  13. 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.
  14. 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).
  15. The rumors or actual deeds attributed to the party that were part of the problem should be given space.
  16. 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.
  17. 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).
  18. The process of the decision to "eliminate" the trains just gets made suddenly. There needs to be more detail.
  19. The statement "Meanwhile, organization among the local Mormon leadership reportedly broke down" is suspect. It needs more investigation and review.
  20. The term "widely known" for Mountain Meadows is original research. It can be struck without damage to the article.
  21. In the actual attack, I think the degree of participation by the Indians has been under-emphasized.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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).
  25. 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).
  26. 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.
  27. In the aftermath, the several investigations and the trial leading to the conviction of Lee should be more fully described.
  28. In the aftermath, the decision of the new Governor to give general clemency should also be mentioned.
  29. The word "scathing" for Carlton's report is original research and needs to be removed. Also the word "severely" associated with "criticized".
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.)
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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)