Nothing backhanded about it. The history is reasonably clear that most if not all of the killing was done by Mormons organized into their official militia groups and under the command of the local church leaders.
The only major issue at dispute about what happened is to what extent the massacre was specifically ordered by Brigham Young, or indeed whether he ordered the locals to let the emigrants pass, but too late. There is no doubt at all that he and other church leaders used extremely violent rhetoric in the weeks and months before the massacre that played at least a major role in what happened.
And of course the Mormons had excellent reason to be paranoid and revengeful. But nothing justifies accepting the surrender of your enemies on promise of sparing their lives, then massacring them, including women and all children above eight years in age. Nothing.
The Utes later claimed they just watched the massacre and looted a little, but then they would say that, wouldn’t they?
I don’t hold this against the Mormons of today, any more than I bear a grudge against French Catholics for St. Bartholomew’s, against Anglicans for the Penal Laws, or indeed against Jews for the murder of Christ.
!
“But nothing justifies accepting the surrender of your enemies on promise of sparing their lives, then massacring them, including women and all children above eight years in age. Nothing.”
That’s true, there’s no excusing it. It was an evil act. God will judge accordingly.
“I don’t hold this against the Mormons of today, any more than I bear a grudge against French Catholics for St. Bartholomew’s, against Anglicans for the Penal Laws, or indeed against Jews for the murder of Christ.”
I appreciate that; however, in this you appear to be at odds with most of the detractors of the LDS Church. They rather like to beat us over the head with it, as we’ve seen in this thread.