Letters

Editor, Utah Historical Quarterly 300 Rio Grande SLC,UT 84101

In his Fall 2006 article,“The Mountain Meadows Massacre:An Analytical Narrative Based on Participant Confessions,”Robert H.Briggs is to be commended for his excellent summary of the standards historians use to evaluate sources.Anyone wading into the evidentiary swamp surrounding this atrocity must recognize that “accomplice testimony involving blame shifting or accusations against others are the least reliable of all and [must be] treated with skepticism” (314).

Unfortunately,Mr.Briggs did not follow his own standards on a crucial point. Ignoring the transparent blame-shifting in the militia accounts concocted twenty to forty years after the crime,he presents without challenge the claims that “the number of Paiutes at the Mountain Meadows ranged from three hundred to six hundred”and Nephi Johnson’s report “that they incited 150 Paiutes to attack in the main massacre”(324).No knowledgeable anthropologist,historian,or member of the Southern Paiute Nation finds these numbers credible.One of the leading experts,Martha C.Knack,concluded “the number of warriors needed for such an attack far exceeded the capacity of local Paiute bands”(Boundaries Between:The Southern Paiutes,1775–1995.Lincoln:Univ.of Nebraska Press,2001,79–80).

Unfortunately,Mr.Briggs ignores Indian and participant statements given to several federal investigators in 1859,disregarding another essential historical standard:that evidence collected closest to the event is the most reliable.The earliest sources indicate John D.Lee led the initial attack at Mountain Meadows with about sixty local citizens “in the guise of Indians,”as Capt.Albert Tracy reported in the pages of the 1945 Utah Historical Quarterly.Briggs’s statement that “The first Indian attack was a sudden assault”perpetuates the most cowardly and despicable lie to come out of the trials of John D.Lee:that Indians initiated the event and then compelled the stalwart pioneers of Southern Utah to commit a mass murder. Could there be a more classic example of blame-shifting?

The claim that participant confessions made decades after the event “form the bedrock of what we can know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre”(333) is false.It ignores the compelling evidence collected shortly after the murders and the statements of the young survivors,which have something the participants’evasive and self-serving “confessions”lack:consistency and the ring of truth.

Sincerely, Will Bagley

Polly Aird

John R.Alley,Ph.D.

David Bigler

Ed Firmage,S.J.D.

Ronald L.Holt,Ph.D.

Jeffrey Nichols,Ph.D.

Shannon A.Novak,Ph.D.

W.L.Rusho

Douglas Seefeldt,Ph.D.

Editor,Utah Historical Quarterly 300 Rio Grande Salt Lake City,UT 84101

I write in reply to the letter from Will Bagley and his co-signatories.Since the letter tacitly raises the significant question of responsibility for the massacre,I will address that first.

Responsibility for the Massacre

Of course,neither the Paiute nation nor any living Paiute bears any responsibility for what occurred in a massacre one hundred fifty years ago.But what about the involved Paiutes? The evidence shows that the Iron County militia incited the involved Paiutes to gather at Mountain Meadows,attack the emigrant train,persist in sporadic attacks throughout the week and finally,assist in the final massacre.In their incitement efforts toward the Paiutes,the militia distorted and misrepresented the emigrants’misconduct while they provided other inducements.Given all the circumstances including the Paiutes’subaltern position relative to the Mormon settlers,the misrepresented reports conveyed to them,the key role played by Indian Farmer John D.Lee and other factors,it is my judgment that the involved Paiutes bear a relatively small portion of the moral blame for the massacre.My study supports this conclusion.

Methodological Questions

As to the particular points raised in the letter let it be recalled that the article sought to identify a defensible methodology,provide justification for it,and apply that methodology to an incomplete and conflicting body of documentary evidence.The narrative of the massacre consisted of two component parts:seventytwo statements containing confessional elements plus other narrative supported by the evidence.

The letter of Mr.Bagley et al.challenges two particular statements.These statements are found in the two sections dealing with how the militia leaders planned the attacks and how they incited Indians to join them.The statement,“The first Indian attack was a sudden assault ...”was not a confession but I consider it supported in the evidence.Confession 21 deals with Indians at Mountain Meadows and is in the section discussing militia efforts to incite Indians to join their efforts. Its significance is not in the estimate of the number of Indians involved.These were only estimates and I agree that they could be wildly inaccurate.Its significance lies in that it is yet further evidence of militia involvement.In other words,not only did militia leaders plan to incite the Indians and execute these plans but their plans were successful.There is strong evidence supporting the conclusion that the Indians did not arrive unbidden at Mountain Meadows.Rather,the Paiutes’arrival and participation were in direct response to militia solicitation.

Some still believe that Indians may have independently instigated some actions. But the admissions of the militiamen regarding their repeated efforts to incite local Indians show that this view is unfounded.The section on “incitement” summarizes these efforts:Majors Haight and Lee made plans to attack the emigrants;Lee carried orders to Carl Shirts in Fort Harmony to incite Paiutes; Samuel Knight received similar orders at Mountain Meadows and headed to the lower Virgin River to incite Paiutes.In Cedar City,Nephi Johnson admitted attending a meeting in which Haight revealed a plan to incite Paiutes and destroy the emigrant train.It was included in the section treating militia efforts to incite local Paiutes because it shows the planning and intentionality of the militia leaders toward the emigrants,including their incitement of Indians to join their conspiracy. The confessional element is in the “incitement.”

The Number of Indians Involved and the Extent of their Involvement

The letter challenges the estimates of the number of Indians involved and appears to challenge Indian involvement in the massacre.If the main point of my critics is that the number of Indians was not as high as estimated,particularly John M.Higbee’s estimate,I agree.As to the question of Indian involvement,the evidence is substantial for their involvement in the main massacre.As to the first attack,I gave weight to Lee’s statement that he was the only white man there.I reasoned that since in his statements Lee made every effort to distance himself from criminal responsibility,it was a significant (and perhaps unintentional) admission that he was the only white man with the Indians in the first attack that produced seven to ten emigrant deaths.However,I agree that the evidence for Indian involvement in the first attack is conflicting and that reasonable minds may disagree.In acknowledgment of the conflicting evidence,perhaps rather than stating “first Indian attack”I should have said,“first attack.”

Mr.Bagley’s letter also cites the evidence from the 1859 federal investigation and appears to challenge whether Indians were involved at all.But the evidence for Indian involvement is considerable.Further,the earliest evidence is not in 1859 but in 1857,within two weeks of the massacre.It supports the conclusion of white-incited Indian involvement.The first massacre accounts reached Indian Agent Garland Hurt in central Utah within days of the massacre.His informants included Spoods,a Pahvant Ute,who reported the involvement of “Piedes”(i.e., Paiutes) but also stated that the Piedes had been “set upon the emigrants by the Mormons.”Another informant was an Indian boy named Pete who had encountered a “large band of Piedes”who acknowledged “having participated in the massacre”but said “the Mormons persuaded them into it.”Pete reported that John D.Lee had “prevailed on [the Paiutes] to attack the emigrants ...and promised them that if they were not strong enough to whip them,the Mormons would help them.”Further,the Paiutes “made the attack,but were repulsed on three different occasions,when Lee and the bishop of Cedar City,with a number of Mormons,approached the camp of the emigrants,under pretext of trying to settle the difficulty,and with lying,seductive overtures,succeeded in inducing the emigrants to lay down their weapons of defense....” These reports,made within days of the massacre,are remarkably consistent with the accounts of Lee and other militiamen two decades later.

Finally,Mr.Bagley cites his preference for the 1859 investigation and child survivor accounts over the confessions of primary militia witnesses.The irony here is that given the evidence from 1857 for Indian involvement in the massacre,if we don’t resort to the militia confessions of inciting the Paiutes,it weakens the case for exculpating the Paiutes from responsibility.While I doubt whether that was Mr.Bagley’s intention,that is the conclusion to this line of reasoning.That is,the child survivor accounts can only be read as implicating rather than exculpating the Indians.As for the findings in 1859,they are equivocal at best.Yet if Mr.Bagley et al.will reconsider the article and the statements about Indian involvement in context,I believe they will see that while Indians were involved,they were incited at every turn.The fact that this evidence comes in the form of “admissions against interest”from first-hand or reliable second-hand militia accounts makes it doubly valuable.A reasonable reading of my study is that the involved Paiutes do not bear moral responsibility for the massacre.It is precisely the militia confessions which give weight to this conclusion.

Robert Briggs