Talk:Utah War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Utah War article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Utah Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Utah.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

Contents

[edit] Mountain Meadows Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

State the orders (verbal or written) for such and such military unit to do such and such. It doesn't exist. The participants were not acting in an official capacity as a military unit. —B|Talk 21:37, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
This is confirmed by American Massacre (a decidedly non-NPOV source, but whatever), FWIW. As much as Sally Denton tried, she could find no direct orders from Salt Lake (let alone from Brigham Young himself) to the militias at Parowan and Cedar City ordering the attack on the Fancher train. The letter from Young to Lee supposedly ordering the MMM turned out to be a Mark David Hoffman forgery.

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

In reply to your questions above: 1)As implied by me earlier, the Fanchers are not casualties of the Utah war. 2) Nick Berg is not a casualty of the Iraq War. The Iraq War is over. It has been for some time now. What is going on in Iraq now is peace-keeping, not war. 3) For you to say, "Do we have to show paper orders to assign [war] casualties?" mischaracterizes my comments. I did not limit orders to "written", as you imply. I would think that good sense would lead someone to believe that generally a war casualty only occurs when one military unit engages another military unit. As I already stated above, MMM "was not an attack on or by a military unit". Even if it was fair to characterize the attackers as a military unit, it is still arguable that the Fanchers were not war casualties because an intentional attack on civilians is generally an illegitimate action for a military unit. As it stands, there were no verbal nor written orders authorizing a military unit to engage civilians. period. It's not like any of the Mormon attackers were sort of full-time regular soldiers. 4) The respect for the Fanchers is given by recognizing them as victims of MMM, not the Utah War. 5) Your comparison with Nick and MMM/Utah War is problematic, but anyway: Nick is not being disrespected by not being listed as an Iraq War casualty. He is a civilan victim of insurgent-rebel-terrorists, not military units. —B|Talk 15:06, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
The two are interconnected events, but not part of the same issue. The Utah War was very much a northern Utah "Mormons versus US Govt" deal. The Fancher party were not the government, they had nothing to do with the removal of Mormons from political office (one of the major issues of Mormon's fighting back). The MMM was a completely seperate, albeit, interconnected issue.
However, they were part of the same retrenchment/reformation era. Both events likely contributed to the other's issues - in a similar way as the war in Afganistan and the War in Iraq are related (although that is a bad comparison), but totally seperate issues. -Visorstuff 00:14, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Would it be fair to say then that the Utah War never really happened--only threatened? It seems to me that if there was a war at all, MMM was what you might call a war crime of it. Tom (hawstom) 02:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Utah "War" is a misnomer; it's more like the "Utah standoff". AFAIK, there were no casualties resulting from the few engagements between the Mormons and the US Army. War crime? That's getting too ananchronistic, don't you think? MMM is not a war crime. Lee was convicted in civilian court, not a courts-martial. —B|Talk 14:13, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
A civilian court. I was wondering about that myself. I have to say I have immersed myself deeply in MMM, and the only way I can make sense of it is in the context of the Mormons having written off the USA and having sworn vengeance for the wrongs of Missouri and Nauvoo and for the blood of the Prophet and Hyrum, which was of course the attitude that got them in trouble and brought on the "standoff" in the first place. Tom (hawstom) 21:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV issues with links

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

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

[edit] Expansion possibilities: "Response in Utah"

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

[edit] Removal of NPOV & Cite templates

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

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

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

[edit] Comments

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

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

[edit] Amassed forces

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

Hi! In my recent edits, I added some info about militia troop movements and shuffled things about. Material you have specific concerns/issues about did remain in the article. They are found in:
  • troop numbers of 2,500 (which I agree are very important) were moved to the topic sentence under Troop movements section.
  • Consequences section defines Buchanan's Blunder and consequences are discussed there.
Let me know if you have any additional concerns, and please feel free to add or edit. WBardwin 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secessionists as cause of War?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Recent edits and upcoming changes

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

[edit] Source needed

Material taken from D'lin's recent edits -

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

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

[edit] Short Creek Raid?

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

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

[edit] Consequences section

The 'Consequences' section contains the following paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Amassed forces & Casualties

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

THE ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT 1818-1865

by Mary C. Gillett

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

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

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

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

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

[edit] Article Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Information Box

The information currently in the information box under "result" should be modified. I have changed it before, and it has recently been changed back. I am more than willing to come to a compromise, but let me state my objections.

The current tone of the information suggests a total US victory, and this seems debatable. While in the end the Mormons capitulated to American demands, in fact Buchanan was all but begging the Saints to take his deal. He was scared to death of an open conflict, and while the rhetoric of the pardon was very harsh, Buchanan's offer was rather conciliatory. He was also under incredible pressure from Congress to make a deal.

Indeed, the term "deposed" suggests that the army marched into Salt Lake City and threw Young from the Governor's chair. In fact, Young seemed quite willing to step down as governor, although he would have been perfectly happy to remain in that position. What he truly feared was the army. That being said, I propose that in the results column, Young was "replaced" as governor, that the army was allowed into Utah, and that the Saints were granted a global pardon. While indeed conditions existed, Buchanan's negotiators had also made significant offers to the Saints. I look forward to further discussion of this topic.Panbobor (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"We have got a territorial government, and I am and will be governor, and no power can hinder it, until the Lord Almighty says, 'Brigham, you need not be governor any longer.'" "For a man to come here [as governor] and infringe upon my individual rights and privileges, and upon those of my brethren, will never meet my sanction, and I will scourge such a one until he leaves. I am after him." Defining his position further, and the independence of his people, he said: "Come on with your knives, your swords, and your faggots of fire, and destroy the whole of us rather than we will forsake our religion. Whether the doctrine of plurality of wives is true or false is none of your business. We have as good a right to adopt tenets in our religion as the Church of England, or the Methodists, or the Baptists, or any other denomination have to theirs."
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 187-188.
So am I to understand that BY, stepped down from his high post (GOVENOR of the TERRITORY of UTAH, not because of an overwhelming military force, but because of a revalation from a higher authority? Possibly President Buchanan?75.167.186.10 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brigham, like in many cases, spoke with fiery rhetoric, but when it actually came down to it, he was ready to take a more moderate course. In explaining these comments in 1855, he said,

"The newspapers are teeming with statements that I said "President Pierce and all hell could not remove me from office." I will tell you what I did say, and what I now say; the Lord reigns and rules in the armies of the heavens, and does His pleasure. He walks in the midst of the people, and they know it not. He makes Kings, Presidents, and Governors at His pleasure; hence I conclude that I shall be Governor of Utah Territory, just as long as He wants me to be; and for that time, neither the President of the United States, nor any other power, can prevent it."
Journal of Discourses 2:183

Wilford Woodruff records on July 24th, 1847 that Young proclaimed,

"if General Harney crossed the South Pass he should send him word they must not come into the valley. If the Govornor and officers wished to come and would behave themselves well they would be well treated."
Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 5:68

On several other occassions, Young expressed his willingness to allow the new Governor into Salt Lake City. He understood that a new governor would mean no diminution of his practical authority, as Cumming later found out. Young stated in 1855,

"Though I may not be Governor here, my power will not be diminished. No man they can send here will have much influence with this community, unless he be the man of their choice. Let them send whom they will, and it does not diminish my influence one particle."
Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, 268.

Young was far more concerned about a federal army in Utah than one more appointee that he believed he could circumvent. He would no doubt have stepped down as governor even without an army at his door. However, I grant that the army certainly helped decide the matter.Panbobor (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Army reinforcements

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

[edit] Stewart Van Vliet

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

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

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

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

"If we can keep the peace for this winter I do think there will be something turn up that may save the shedding of blood."
Mormon Resistance: A Documentary Account of the Utah Expedition, 1857-1858, 47.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Possible Apocalypse

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

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

[edit] Question:

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

[edit] Peace Commision

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fort Limhi

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

[edit] Fillmore's appointment of Young

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

[edit] Duplicate information

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

"The Utah War had its formal beginning on July 18, 1857, when the Tenth Infantry marched out of Ft. Leavenworth. Six days later, while the Saints were celebrating the tenth anniversary of their arrival in the Valley, A. O. Smoot, O. P. Rockwell, Judson Stoddard, and Elias Smith rode in and confirmed what had been anticipated for several weeks, that the army was on its way to Utah. On August 5, 1857, Brigham Young issued his first proclamation declaring martial law and forbidding any US troops to enter the territory. This broadside, however, was given little, if any, circulation. Why this was so, and why a second proclamation was issued six weeks later, one can only speculate at this point. It would appear that during most of August the Mormon leaders had not precisely focused on a strategy for dealing with the approaching army; and after the first proclamation was struck off, they likely had second thoughts about a direct confrontation with the federal government. On August 29, Brigham Young instructed Daniel H. Wells to draft a second proclamation of martial law; but by this time news of the impending visit of Captain Stewart Van Vliet, an assistant quartermaster in the army, must have reached the Mormon leaders, prompting them to hold up any formal declarations until after his visit. Under any circumstances, Van Vliet arrived in Great Salt Lake City on September 8. Six days later he left the city to return to the army, having convinced Brigham Young that the Army intended to enter the territory, and convinced himself that the Mormons would resist any such attempt. The following day, September 15, 1857, Brigham Young reissued his proclamation of martial law. This proclamation is identical to the first, except for a rewritten sentence near the end and the change of the date." [1]

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cummings party

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

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

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

[edit] more duplicate info - mountain meadows in overview

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

I would suggest a rewrite to combine both sentences. Restored the dup material temporarily to facilitate such an effort. WBardwin (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Have rewritten the section a little to reduce the duplication and yet explain the statistics. WBardwin (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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