P.S. I understand how you took the question about the Utah War. I was thinking just about the military aspect of it–the wagon-burning and so on–because in our private emails before I took the discussion public, it was implied that one of the cobloggers thought even that was questionable and distasteful. In retrospect I think I misunderstood that individual, but when I posted that was the question I had in mind. No way you could have known that. My apologies.

Somebody who names their essay The Grand Ol’ War sets up a polarized premise, whose patriotism will but memorialize a previous generation’s selfless acts as exemplify great pride, courage, and sacrifices. For such a lecturer to afterwards receive dissonant comments from the floor (that is, ones NOT thus polarized) could disconcert him. But the problem is the adjectives in our essayist’s title . . . As any war is ever too morally conflicted of a thing to earn such a sobriquet in reality!

Rather than such a polarized label upon an entire war, it’s better to examine individual actors’ motives, to what moral underpinnings they aspired, and how these were modified in the face of inevitable exigencies. And under such a calculus there can be no grand ol’ actors — whether these be He Who Saved the Union, Abraham Lincoln, or that genteel scion of noble character and civility Robert E. Lee, or that stalwart saint Hoseah Stout. There can only be Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Hoseah Stout and an examination of what we can deem to have been their motives, the moral ideals to which they aspired, and to what exigencies they compromised.

N.B. Oman believes Young’s sealing of borders a mistake. OK, sure: Maybe or maybe not. But the fact is that he “sealed” them. Or, that is, at the imposition of martial law, Young warned that Americans could no longer count on being provisioned by the Saints nor any longer protected from having their stock pillaged by the Indians. And there was a policy put into place at this juncture effecting covert action by paramilitarists or irregulars to facilitate (under the cover of this being due to spontaneous warfare from hostile Indians) stock be taken from these American emigrants caught in the territory at this time. Some men whom Greenwood would otherwise extol took part in this covert expediency. The honorable J. Hamblin took part in it, albeit in his case, the party of emigrant Americans assigned to lieutenant Hamblin and his party of militia to covertly plunder did NOT become massacred by the “marauding Indians” Hamblin had assembled thereabouts.

However, in the case of the raid on the Fancher party (wherein Hamblin was innocent, most definately NOT being present), his colleague, John D. Lee, WAS. And this party was dishonorably massacred.|*|
________
|[*(Perhaps to protect the militiamen's cover? As, Fancher party men had escaped their encampment that had been under seige by -- ostensibly -- only Indians, only to have some of these escapees killed by militiamen, with the surviving escapees somehow returning to their embattled encampment. Thus militiamen would reasonably believe these militiamen's compicity in the Fancher party's having been attacked was known to the Fancher party.)]|

Please allow me an attempt to clarify:

In #33 You quote me explaining other events apart from the burning of wagons which I consider to be a part of what I think of when I think of the Utah War. I am in other words trying to clarify why I said L. Smith’s and Rockwell’s activities were a “small part� of the war. I would add a variety of other aspects to that list too: actions and reactions in Washington, actions and reactions in SLC, actions and reactions of the Eastern press, Kane, Cummings, Johnston, the Limhi expedition, etc. When I think Utah War, I think of all of these aspects and more. You then respond to my more expansive view of the war by saying “None of these were necessary or even principal causes of the massacre.� True. I never claimed that they were. I was simply clarifying why I said the wagon burning was a “small part� of the overall war.

You then write: “You’ll notice that in the original post its the wagon-burning I’m talking about, but if you want to expand our consideration to include calling in outlying settlements and so on I have no problem with that. It’s making the massacre the measure of the war, like you do in #17, that I object to.�

Your original post ended by asking: “(3) whether the Utah War was, in fact, something to be proud of. Feel free to comment on any of these points or to make your own observation.�

I wrote my original post (#17 which now seems to be #18) in response to your question 3. Notice how I begin and end the post with “not much to celebrate.� No where in any of my posts have I suggested that we make “the massacre the measure of the war,� and especially not in #17 [now #18]. Notice that in #18 (the post formally known as #17) that “celebrating the bloodless delay tactics of the Nauvoo Legion against the army on its approach to Utah must be tempered by the sobering fact that priesthood holders in that same Legion massacred innocent civilians, including women and children, at Mountain Meadows.� I say “tempered by� not replaced by, made the measure of, or anything else. My point is that if you are going to celebrate the delay tactics of Lot Smith and Rockwell and their men (my g-g-grandfather was one of Rockwell’s men btw) then you need to temper that exuberance a bit with the more sobering outcome at MM. That was only a small part of my post. The rest dealt with the causes for the war, which I see as avoidable if cooler heads had prevailed especially in DC, but also in SLC.

You again miss my point when you write: “No, but its pretty blinkered to see those as the foreground and actual conflict as a “small part,� to use your term. Its reductionist to treat everything else as an appendage to Abu Ghraib or to treat the Utah War as an appendage to the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Its a reflex to focus in on atrocities, nothing more.�
I didn’t even mention Abu Ghraib or atrocities, you did. My examples of other things apart from actual combat that I see as important aspects of ANY war do not focus on atrocities (loss of electricity, food, water, civilian casualties, etc). I chose Iraq because it is current, but in many American history text books there is often a chapter on the military campaigns of WWII and another on the home front, both of which are significant aspects of the war. I had one class in grad school on the Revolutionary War that did not talk about any battles. It seems ironic that you suggest that I’m guilty of reductionism when I’m arguing for a more expansive view of the Utah War than merely the burning of wagons.

As for the MMM I do say in #27 that it was “the most horrible event of the Utah Warâ€?–again, an event in a broader series of events that equal up to the Utah War. The war is essential context for MMM, but I have never argued the opposite, nor suggested that we only focus on the atrocities. Heck, I like the guerrilla tactics of Smith and Rockwell and see their actions as essential to achieving a more peaceful outcome than would have likely otherwise been possible. The fact that the Army spent a cold and miserable winter in WY outside the burned out remains of Ft. Bridger cooled the hot heads in DC and gave BY room to negotiate.

Even still, BY still proceeded with the move south, even after Gov Cummings urged him not to, assuring him there was no need. That move south disrupted lives, forced several thousand Saints to relocate yet again; all significant consequences/events of the war.

Leave MMM out of it if you want, there is a significant amount to talk about with regard to the Utah War, not much of which, however, is celebratory as per my original assertion in the post formally known as #17. Sure BY won the concession that the army not be stationed in SL, but there was an army of occupation in Utah nonetheless. At the outbreak of the Civil War the largest single deployment of US troops was in Utah.

Let me suggest, in the end, then, that seeing the war as a complicated series of events spinning in a variety of directions goes a long way in addressing your question #2 in your original post. How do you correlate something like this?

So I hereby call on all Saints to fess up to the complicated events of this tragedy!

To start here with all of YOU: that is, you OTHERWISE quite sophisticated folks at Times & Seasons!

Some here might prefer to believe some immaculately scrubbed up version of events wherein the local Saints/ miliamen (aside from the group immediately with Lee) just happened to be out and about trying to stop Indians who were the friends of the Mormons from pillaging non-Mormon emigrant trains. But such a belief is not only the type of intellectual pablum not usually seen at Times & Seasons, but is something which refuses to take a look at the historical sources and which would have serious readers of history try to believe that somehow, completely coincidentally to all the events happening in Utah simulataneously with the implementation of martial law, that Indians friendly with the Saints just decided at that very time to go on the war path against non-Mormon emigrant trains.

The first step understanding is to overcome denial, people.
=======
I’ve been having an H.G. Well’s time machine thing goin’ on in my head here — due to this couple who are friends of mine’s having had a child who was born two days ago. In zero-SIX.

And I myself was born in fifty-SIX.

And my dad was born in aught-SEVEN. (Also, coincidentally, his birthday was two days ago).

So, we’ve got half century increments goin on here, huh.

- Zero (Friends’ baby)
- 50 (Me)
- 99 (My dad)
- 149 (Mountain Meadows)
- 201 (the prophet Joseph Smith junior)
__________
(My dad was born in a formerly United Order settlement ((when the Saints were still striving to achieve a worldly slash otherworldly utopia behind or within what some have called some kind of separist “Zion-curtain.” And the same town his cousin Leavitt Brooks was born in, too, by the way)). There was still a czar in Russia, no electicity universally in homes, horses everywhere.

(This baby just born will experience HER “Bolshevik” revolution right soon. ((Which happened when my dad was in knickers.)) But by the time her “Berlin Wall falls” I’ll be long gone! ((Which happened when my dad was in his eighties.)) But even an un-murdered Joseph Smith would also likely have been dead when my dad was born ((as Joseph had been born in aught-FIVE a century before)). Unless he’d lived to 102 ((as Joseph would have been 52 when the MM tragedy occured, fifty years before my dad was born)). . . . )

– KLH

None of these were necessary or even principal causes of the massacre. You’ll notice that in the original post its the wagon-burning I’m talking about, but if you want to expand our consideration to include calling in outlying settlements and so on I have no problem with that. It’s making the massacre the measure of the war, like you do in #17, that I object to.