Posted on 09/09/2009 6:04:19 AM PDT by Colofornian
***My guess is the Mountain Man was probably Kit Carson. I know he was working for the U.S. military back then. He was active in the Navajo Wars as a scout.***
It was NOT Kit Carson.
Since you are interested in American history let me ask you a question.
How did Joseph Smith’s prophecy fo Christ’s return lead to the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890?
fo=of
proofread,
proofread,
proofread!
Did the Ghost Dancers believe they were dancing for Christ?
If Kit Carson was not the Mountain Man, who was? John Beckworth?
I mean JIM Beckworth.
***Did the Ghost Dancers believe they were dancing for Christ?
If Kit Carson was not the Mountain Man, who was? John Beckworth?***
FOUND HIM!
FIFTY YEARS ON THE TRAIL by John Young Nelson.
Chapter 15
Our mission was, in addition to burying the bodies,
to chastise the Mormons for their cruelty, and the troops
required no inducement to do this. They had not for-
gotten the capture of our provision trains, and many
were the deep anathemas hurled at the unrelenting
scoundrels as we made for the scene of action.
Arrived there, the most horrible spectacle imaginable
met our gaze. There were skeletons all over the place
shining in the sun, picked as clean as ivory by the
vultures and wolves. Many were lying in the few
yards’ space that separated the ashes of the corral from
the water-course. Beside them were their pails and
other articles for carrying water, showing how they had
fallen. Here and there, hanging on the sage brush,
were tresses of women’s hair, and bones were scattered
about wherever the wolves had gnawed them.
The soldiers were much overcome at the sight, and
many brave men shed tears as they stooped to pick up
all that remained of their fellow creatures. Every trace
of a human being that we could find we reverently
buried, and then retraced our steps homeward, making
a slight detour of between seven and eight miles to call
at a Mormon settlement which we had been told was in
the vicinity.
There we went to the principal house in the place.
The village was deserted by the men, who had all fled,
not caring to settle scores with us. Indeed, from the
time we left Salt Lake we had not come across a male
Mormon of any description.
In the stables of this house we found several fine
carriages and horses, quite out of keeping with the sur-
roundings. These at once excited our suspicions. The
women that we saw were also dressed in silks and satins,
and wearing these garments as ordinary day clothing.
The house we ascertained belonged to John D. Lee, the
bishop of the district.
No one would give any information ; the women
knew nothing, and flatly refused to answer any of our
queries. We determined not to be done, and orders
were given that every house in the place should be
thoroughly searched. Whilst doing this we found a
child in one of them, a pretty fair-haired little thing
of about three years of age. Her hair hung in ringlets
down her back, and she was both bright and intelligent,
of a breed not to be expected amongst the class of
people who inhabited the place.
She was brought to me, and I took her to the officer
commanding the expedition. He put her on his knee
and began playing with hen We thought as we could
get nothing out of the women we would try the child.
After a time she became very talkative, and we
romped about with her, crawling over the floor and
amusing her to the best of our ability. When her con-
fidence was thoroughly obtained we led her on with
questions, so that when one of the elegantly dressed
women was brought in, she pointed at her and said,
“ That my mamma’s frock,” pointing to the dress that
the woman was then wearing. Then she said, “ Naughty
Indians come and kill mamma, papa, and aunty.”
This was conclusive proof that we had found the perpetrators
of the outrage, and it was as much as the officers could
do to prevent the men from lynching every woman in
the village.
Nelson was not always accurate in his story. He says only one child was saved while other writers mentioned children found eleswhere.
As for the Ghost Dance, Wovoka was raised in a white man’s home (David Wilson) to believe Jesus would return in 1890 as Joseph Smith claimed. Some say David Wilson was a Christian others say he was a Mormon.
Wavoka preached this to the Indians that the messiah would return then and resurrect the dead about 1891.
The Plains Indians misunderstood the message to mean the whites would disappear and the buffalo return if they did the Ghost Dance.
Interesting.
I never heard of that Mountain Man. Have to check him out.
When did they engage in a fair fight?
I pray that this comment is not a premonition on your part....and that the prominent muslim is not now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW in DC.
The infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre, inscrutable enough just on the basis of the known facts, has been clouded over the past century and a half by myths and misconceptions.
Some such myths surround the 1875 and 1876 trials of John D. Lee, the only man ever tried and convicted for his role in the 1857 mass murder of Arkansas emigrants near Cedar City, Utah, by Mormon militia men.
In a May 22 session at the 44th annual Mormon History Association Conference meeting this year in Springfield, Robert H. Briggs, an attorney from Fullerton, Calif., and an author of articles on the massacre, appraised Lee's first trial.
The trials, the first of which ended in a hung jury, "presented a legal proceeding with implications far beyond the guilt or innocence of the individual defendant, a case in which the fate of the accused was threatened with being overwhelmed by larger issues and conflicts."
He called it "a case in which irreconcilably divided parties strenuously advanced positions to further their particular interests while all the while interpreting the trial through the prism of their own interests."
Brother Briggs said that for non-Mormons in the territory who opposed the Church's political dominance, the massacre was "Exhibit A" for what they regarded as "Mormon lawlessness."
The strategy of the prosecution was to establish links in the massacre to Church leaders in Salt Lake City, he said. "If they could implicate George A Smith [an apostle], that would be great, because that would just put them one step away from Brigham Young." In this, the judge who presided allowed them quite a bit of latitude, he added.
The jury was empaneled with eight Mormons and four "gentiles," and from the beginning, all sides recognized the probability that the case would end with a hung jury, Brother Briggs said.
Newspaper reporters at the trial scene sent dispatches mostly by telegraph, and the story was disseminated in every state in country, he said. "The prosecution, anticipating that they would receive much favorable coverage, and realizing that they might have a hung jury, made the very sagacious decision to try the case to the broader court of public opinion, which they were very successful at."
The trial ended with eight Mormons and one gentile voting to acquit and the other jury members to convict.
"Why did no Mormon juror vote to convict Lee?" he asked. In response he said that prosecutor Robert Baskin's closing argument went way beyond the issue of Lee's guilt and said the Mormon hierarchy was responsible, that the Mormons had a religious duty to shed blood, that Mormon men laid down their manhood when they became members of the Church by following the leaders.
"He has a whole section in there in which he says, 'I arraign Brigham Young.' "
Brother Briggs said Baskin insulted the Mormon men in the jury relative to their having made temple covenants.
"The strategy succeeded brilliantly," he commented. "During the otherwise slow months of 1875, the dramatic trial testimony had transfixed the nation. The Mormons', and particularly Brigham Young's, public reputation had declined precipitously. The Liberals [a political party in the state] were able to exploit the fact that despite the strong evidence of Lee's wrongdoing, the 'guilty' had failed to convict him. And the fact that not a single Mormon juror voted for conviction reinforced the widely held perception of the Mormon laity as a dupe of the Mormon hierarchy."
He concluded, "The Lee trials, particularly the first one, played a pivotal role in fomenting the national moral crusade that eventually transformed Utah's society, and politics and economy."
Yes. After this, for the next 15 years, Congress & fed marshalls stepped up pressure on both individual Mormon polygamists (even tho this was a separate issue -- it still represented Mormon lawlessness re: infractions & crimes) as well as the Mormon church itself.
America's "moral crusade" continued through at least 1898 -- when grassroots America produced 28 banners of 7 million signatures as an attempt to pre-empt Congress from seating then recently elected Utah would-be Democratic congressman B.H. Roberts.
What did Mormon Roberts do that so riled pre-activist America? Well, around 1893, Roberts took another plural wife -- years after even the Lds manifesto in 1890 which was supposed to start closing the door on polygamy.
Lds officials secretly solemnized over 200 additional plural unions between 1890-1910...and Utah voters voting in a Democrat polygamist who flaunted yet another plural union in their face was too much for Americans tired of relentless Lds lawlessness. Roberts was turned back and did not take a seat in Congress despite the wishes of Utah voters.
Okay, your point is made. Will you also be notifying us on the anniversary of every other massacre in history, or just the ones involving Mormons?
I'll consider answering this question provided you do the following:
#1 Promise to raise this similar questions on ALL other 9/11 threads this week;
#2 Follow through on that promise -- including retroactively posting on any 9/11 threads posted in the past week and proactively posting through 9/12.
And the post you need to offer up? Just ask EVERY 9/11 thread poster: Will you also be notifying us on the anniversary of every other massacre in history, or just the ones involving Muslims?
Elsewise, if I don't see such a promise AND a follow-thru on that promise, I'm going to assume several of the following considerations:
(a) You operate under a personal "policy" whereby single religions shouldn't be singled out for negative exposure like this.
(b) Apparently you feel so strongly about this standard, that it's not only personal for you, but that you then want to take the next step and impose it upon others.
(c) Then -- if you can't even practice enough self-discipline to apply it evenly -- by exporting it on every 9/11 thread dealing w/the week of 9/11 (2001)...why, then I'd have to further assume that either (1) your standard was so pathetic enough to begin with, you realized it wasn't worth the bother of imposing it upon others; or (2) you're quite selective in who you choose to impose it upon -- revealing a two-faced nature in the way you apply that standard.
So what'll it be? Since you're so interested in where I'm going to post next, and you think it's worth directing me when & where to post, I'm going to assume you like others doing that on your behalf as well. Agreed? (And if not, why not?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.