Comments on: On the Significance of Mormon Wars

By: Curtis Allen

Curtis Allen — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:33:17 +0000

The secretary of war in 1857 was John B. Floyd, not Jeff Davis. Floyd has been accused of urging the army to Utah to deplete the eastern army at a time of possible southenr secession.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

What about the Walker war earlier in the 1850s? Would you consider that useful to?

By: Julien

Julien — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Knowing way too little about the Mormon wars, the only thing I can say I feel about this, is that the people were attacked on their territory by an “enemy” army, and thus were justified in fighting back, as simple as it may sound….

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I think that’s pretty much it, Julien. The only interesting wrinkle is the argument made in one of the million current threads on pacifism and just war that revolt against a government isn’t justified. Maybe the Saints felt different but the US was pretty clearly the sovereign so the Saints were in revolt. Maybe revolt is justified sometime (which I assume most people already believed).

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I would note that Brigham’s strategy with the Indians (often strangely schizophrenic) do parallel in some fashions our actions in Afghanistan. At the same time though clearly we were the guerilla force opposing an invading army. The difference is, if anything, how restrained we were. Yes MMM was a horrible tragedy that, if anything, supports Rob’s view of the corrupting influence of war. There were a few other atrocities as well. But by and large we didn’t see the kind of guerilla campaigns that one saw in Missouri up through the end of the Civil War. (And which our own part in the Mormon Missouri war of the late 1830′s were but one small part of an overall guerilla conflict)

What does this tell us about war? Perhaps the dangers of guerilla wars. Liddell Hart in his classic work _Strategy_ pointed out the consequences on the Spanish of their guerilla conflict against Napolean. In China one could argue that in many ways they’ve only recently, in the past two decades, begun to emerge from the consequences of their guerilla foundation. Mormons managed to find a workable relationship with their “enemy,” forced a limited guerilla war to sustain at least many of their perceived rights (at least up until 1894) and did so with minimal violence. In a way it was an impressive event that they managed to avoid the excesses that so often accompany guerilla war.

By: lyle

lyle — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Adam: I wouldn’t be so sure that the U.S. was the ‘sovereign’. Who says they were? Because the Spanish _gave them_ the West? Because they slaughtered Indians to get the West? Maybe I’m just a radical Locke type…but they settled it; they did treaties with the local indians…I say that the Saints were the only “sovereigns” around…and one’s whose rights were being tread upon. I still wish they would have formed their own country…

ah…our lovely deseret…

By: Julien

Julien — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Good points, both Adam and Lyle.

Adam: maybe this really is an example that rebellion against government is sometimes justified (Thomas Jefferson talked about a revolution every 20 years…)

lyle: I don’t know about the political situation in the U.S. was at that time, whether the Spanish owned what is now Utah – in that case you’d be right, and they would have only protected their possessions. I’m kind of skeptical as to a Mormon country, though, don’t ask me why… ;-) (just a side note, not to be expanded upon in here…)