Posted on 05/29/2010 11:36:46 PM PDT by Colofornian
INDEPENDENCE, Mo. — The Haun's Mill Massacre should be called the Hawn's Mill Massacre.
Jacob Hawn, owner of the Hawn's Mill, was never a Mormon.
BYU Professor Alexander L. Baugh discussed these two historical corrections in his presentation at the Mormon History Association conference in Independence on Saturday morning.
With 17 Mormons killed and 14 Mormons injured, Baugh explained that the massacre on October 30, 1838 was the "singular most tragic event in terms of loss of life and injury enacted by an anti-Mormon element against the Latter-day Saints in our entire church's history."
...Baugh has researched the Hawn's Mill Massacre and has successfully identified all the Mormon victims and documented the Mormon defenders as well as more than 50 of the Missouri vigilantes.
"But one individual baffled me," Baugh explained. And that was Jacob Hawn...
This changed in January 2007 when a family history researcher sent Baugh an e-mail explaining that she had found a Jacob Hawn...
Digging into this claim, Baugh is now "absolutely certain" that this Jacob Hawn of Oregon was indeed the same Jacob Haun of Mormon history.
Baugh explained that "in virtually every family source I found, it always used the H-A-W-N, even their grave markers used the 'w' spelling, a clear indication of what was correct." Baugh further clarified that "Missouri state histories and county and atlases generally cite him as H-A-U-N, which probably explains why most historical literature written about the massacre usually uses the same spelling."
SNIP
Baugh also discussed why Jacob and Harriet Hawn were never Mormons. "I like many other historians mainly assumed they were Mormons." But among other proofs, Baugh explained that they arrived earlier to Caldwell County before the Mormons, and no family records report that they were Mormons.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at mormontimes.com ...
Report of the Committee of Clinton county.
The undersigned committee were appointed at a public meeting, by the citizens of Chariton county, on the 3d day of October, inst., for the purpose of repairing to De Witt, in Carroll county, to inquire into the nature of the difficulties between the citizens of Carroll and the Mormons. We arrived at the place of difficulties on the 4th of October inst., and found a large portion of the citizens of Carroll and the adjoining counties, assembled near De Witt well armed. We inquired into the nature of the difficulties. They said that there was a large portion of the people called Mormons, embodied in De Witt from different parts of the world. They are unwilling for them to remain there, which is the cause of their waging war against them. To use the gentleman’s language, they are waging a war of extermination, or to remove them from the said county. We also went into De Witt, to see the situation of the Mormons. We found them in the act of defense, begging for peace, and wishing for the civil authorities to repair there as early as possible, to settle the difficulties between the parties.
Hostilities have commenced, and will continue until they are stopped by the civil authorities. This we believe to be a correct statement of both parties.
This the 5th day of October, 1838.
JOHN W. PRICE,
WM. K. LOGAN.
Sworn to and subscribed before me, the undersigned, one of the justices of the peace, within and for Chariton county, and Stale of Missouri, this 5th day of October, 1838.
JOHN MORSE, J. P.
General Atchison to the Governor.
Boonville, Oct. 16, 1838.
To His Excellency, L. W. Boggs.
SIR:—From a communication received from Gen. Parks, I learn that the Mormons in Carroll county have sold out and left, consequently every tiling is quiet there, but Parks reports that a portion of the men from Carroll county, with one piece of artillery, are on their march for Daviess county, where it is thought the same lawless game is to be played over, and the Mormons to be driven from that county and probably from Caldwell county. Nothing, in my opinion, but the strongest measures within the power of the executive, will put down the spirit of monocracy.
The troops ordered into the field, from Parks’ report, partake, in a, great degree, of the mob spirit, so that no reliance can be placed upon them, however, in this I believe Parks to be mistaken. I would respectfully suggest to your Excellency the propriety of a visit to the scene of excitement in person, or at all events, a strong proclamation. The stale of things which have existed in the counties of Daviess and Carroll for the last two months, has been, in a high degree, ruinous to the public, and disgraceful to the State. 1 would again respectfully suggest strong measures to put down this spirit of mob and misrule, or permit them to fight it out. If your Excellency should conclude the latter expedient best calculated to produce quiet and restore order, issue an order to the Major General, 3d Division, to discharge the troops now engaged in that service.
I have the honor, &c.,
DAVID R. ATCHISON.
Liberty Oct. 22nd 1838
To his Excellency the Commander in Chief.
SIR:- Almost every hour I receive information of outrage and violence; of burning and plundering in the county of Daviess. It seems that the Mormons have become desperate and act like mad men. They have burned a store in Gallatin, they have burnt Millport; they have, it is said, plundered several houses and have taken away the arms of diverse citizens of that county. A cannon that was employed in the siege of De Witt in Carroll County, and taken for a like purpose to Daviess County, has fallen into the hands of the Mormons. It is also reported that the anti-Mormons have, when opportunity offered, disarmed the Mormons and burnt several of their houses. The great difficulty in settling this matter seems to me in not being able to identify the offenders. I am convinced that nothing short of driving the Mormons from Daviess County will satisfy the party opposed to them, and this I have not the power to do as I conceive legally. There are no troops at this time in Daviess County, nor do I deem it expedient to send any there. For I am well convinced that it would but make matters worse for, Sir, I do not feel disposed to disgrace myself, or permit the troops under my command to disgrace this state, and themselves, by acting the part of a mob. If the Mormons are to be
[Fifth Judicial District, State of Missouri] 47
drove [driven] from their homes, let it be done without any color of law and in open defiance thereof. Let it be done by volunteers acting upon their own responsibility.
However, I deem it my duty to submit these matters to the Commander in Chief, and will conclude by saying it will be my greatest pleasure to execute any orders your Excellency should think proper to give in this matter, with promptness and to the very letter.
I have the honor to be your,
Excellency’s Most Obt Servt,
David R. Atchison,
Maj. Gen. 3rd Div. Mo. Mi.
N.B. I herewith enclose you a report from Gen. Park, also one from Capt Bogart.
D.R.A.
The Governor to General Clark.
Head Quarters of the Militia,
City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838. }
Gen. John B. Clark.
SIR:- Since the order of this morning to you, directing you to call 400 mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Rees Esq., of Ray, & Wiley C. Williams Esq., one of my Aides, information of the most appalling character which entirely changes the face of things and shows the Mormons in the attitude of an open and armed defiance of the law, and of having made war upon the people of this state. Your orders are therefore to hasten your operations with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace. Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increases your forces you are authorized to do so to any extent you may consider necessary. I have just issued orders to Major Gen. Willock of Marion Co. to raise 500 men and to march them to the northern part of Daviess and there unite with Gen. But when a door Doniphan of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the north. They have been directed to communicate with you by express. You can also communicate with him if you find it necessary. Instead, therefore, of proceeding as at first directed to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond and there operate against the Mormons. Brig Gen. Parks of Ray has been ordered to have four hundred of his Brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command.
I am very respectfully your ob’t serv’t,
L. W. Boggs, Commander-in-Chief.
E. M. Ryland to Messrs. Rees and Williams.
***Hey, while we are at it, why don’t we get into Sand Creek to paint all whites in a negative manner?****
Because I will be on your case proving the Indians there were bloodthirsty murderers.
In winter they made peace with the Whites. In spring they went on the warpath, year after year. When the “peaceful” Indians at Sand Creek were killed there was found amongst them many “scalps of white men and boys so fresh they had not been tanned” and blankets fringed with the scalps of white women. Furthermore, the message sent to the US military from the Indians wishing peace, showed they were actually hostiles.
Read Massacres of the Mountains by J P Dunn Jr.
You will get an iconclast view of Sand Creek, the Washita, Meeker Massacre, the Whitman Massacre and Mountain Meadows.
http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=8027
This 1996 dissertation demonstrates that the expulsion of the Latter-day Saints from Missouri in 1838–1839 was “entirely unwarranted and illegal.” Analyzing the history of the seven military episodes of this conflict, especially in terms of the traditional roles of local militias in the United States, Alexander L. Baugh shows that Latter-day Saints as United States citizens “had every right to take up arms to defend themselves, particularly when local and state officials failed or refused to intervene in their behalf.” While there was wrong-doing especially on the part of some Mormon extremists, this study, contrary to other recent interpretations, places the balance of the responsibility for this antagonism heavily and decisively on the side of the Missourians.
This study demonstrates that local vigilantes, county regulators, and a number of state officials (both civil and military), operated illegally against the Mormons in their attempts to force them to remove from selected regions, and finally the entire state altogether. When the Latter-day Saints’ efforts to settle the difficulties by legal means failed, they were constrained to take matters into their own hands. Even then, however, the Mormons made every attempt to lawfully defend themselves by operating under the legally constituted militia of the county. Furthermore, the majority of the Mormon defenders who participated in the conflict did not have criminal intentions, nor should they be characterized as being a group of lawless miscreants. Theirs was a mission of community defense. Therefore, the 1838 contest must be examined from the standpoint of a defensive struggle on the part of the Mormons to maintain civil order and to protect their constitutional rights as citizens.
There were old men at Sand Creek - the warriors were elsewhere. A couple of the militia groups refused the order to attack. It was a massacre, no matter how some spin it.
There were old men at Sand Creek - the warriors were elsewhere.
Don’t give me that nonsense! It was the fall of the year, their larders were full, all huntable buffalo were down in the panhandle of Texas, and the Indians wanted peace because it was not convenient for war during the winter when they could mooch off the US Army till the next spring when they could go on the warpath again!
Scalps, scalps scalps! White men and women, found in the camp.
read L Captain Ware’s account in THE INDIAN WAR OF 1864, And Dunn’s MASSACRES OF THE MOUNTAINS.
Uh, yeah, sure, that is why so few men were killed during the massacre and so many women and children. Your revisionist histories don’t pass the smell test.
***Your revisionist histories don’t pass the smell test.***
Revisionist histories? There was large ammount of mythology made up about the Sand Creek batle, from them being peaceful Indidans (they wern’t), being influenced by Confederate agents to continue on the warpath(debatable), a flag pole ( none seen by anyone there), the number of Indidans killed, over 600 ( Not nearly that many),the baby abandoned in the snow ( The Indian women captives abandoned the baby)!
All these were DEBUNKED in the original inquests into the battle over 140 years ago! Definitly not “revisionist” history! Go to the original sources at the time!
Yeah, inquests like those we have today into Chris Dodd's Countrywide dealings? There is way too much evidence that warriors were not in the camp and that many soldiers refused to engage in the massacre. It was a massacre, pure and simple - and wrong.
Oh boy, that’s a real un-biased and accurate description of what happened. /s
***It was a massacre, pure and simple - and wrong.***
I used to feel the same way, until I got hold of writings of people living at that time. They told a completely different story of what is popularly distributed today. I found more about the shear brutality of the Indians, from Montana to Mexico than most people who get their history from TV have ever known!
The Sand Creek camp had lots of items and goods taken from slain white families . Fresh scalps of men, women and children brutally murdered the these heathern savages!
As for the claim that the men were out hunting, which can be proven wrong as there was a brutal snowstorm at the time which would have sent the buffalo down into the Texas panhandle area, a long way from Sand Creek. Furthermore, if they had been hunting the women and children would have been with them as hunting was men’s work, cutting up the kill was women’s work! Learn a little bit about the Indian buffalo hunts! Criminy!
Furthermore, when CHIVINGTON (the officer who turned the Confederate advance into New Mexico at Glorieta Pass by doing the impossible), attacked the camp of these KNOWN HOSTILES, he did not demand a head count to see who was men and women bundled up against the cold.
Civington years later gave a speach before the Old Pioneers in Colorado. The public there LOVED HIM! His last words of his speech, detailing all that led up to Sand Creek, were..”I STAND BY SAND CREEK!”
The crowd of people went wild with applause and cheering.
Now you need to see what REALLY led up to the Washita battle! It is an eye opener, certanly not what you learned from TV!
People at the time felt Indians should be exterminated. That doesn't make it right.
The Sand Creek camp had lots of items and goods taken from slain white families . Fresh scalps of men, women and children brutally murdered the these heathern savages!
Yeah, and those engaged in the massacre had to come up with justification for such. From what I have read, the Northern members of the tribes in question were the ones causing problems. The Indians camped at Sand Creek were not. But they were massacred anyway because Chivington wanted to make a name for himself to go into politics.
Once again, attitudes towards the Indians back then were that they should be exterminated. And that is what Chivington did at Sand Creek - extermination - do you really think he was going to later have a change of heart and admit that what he did was pure blood lust and posturing?
***do you really think he was going to later have a change of heart and admit that what he did was pure blood lust and posturing? ****
Those old Coloradoans really appreciated what he did! Most of he men with Chivington had lost friends to the Indian rampages.
Do you know how whites and indians look at SOCIAL STATUS?
Whites get social status with wealth.
Indians get it by killing, stealing and scalping, and acts of bravery against anyone who was not a tribal memeber. That includes, men, women and children’s scalps. They were “Equal Oppertunity killers”, and each year they must prove themselves to the warrior societies to keep that standing. And the WARRIOR SOCIETIES were the ones who rejected peace with the White man.
When Captain Ware (THE INDIAN WAR OF 1864)was transferred to Colorado Territory in March, he expected war but found the plains at peace.
When he asked “where is the war”? the older soldiers laughed and told him...”When the grass is tall enough to feed an Indian war pony the wars will begin”!
Two months later the “peaceful” indians started their murdering rampage, for no known reason except to kill.
.
Spare me the lectures. I am well aware of the cultural aspects. Basically, settlers back then largely thought Indians should be exterminated and broke just about every treaty signed with the Indians, so of course they approved of Chivington’s action - which, BTW, triggered even more violence as Indians realized that peaceful co-existence with whites was not possible.
*** BTW, triggered even more violence as Indians realized that peaceful co-existence with whites was not possible.****
The Indians broke just as many as the whites! Mostly by opertunity killing if isolated families trying to make a living on land given to them by the government. Even the Navajo broke several treaties, both with the Spanish and the americans.
It was the “peaceful” Indians at the Washita who raided he farms in Kansas, then hitailed it back to Oklahoma. they left a beautiful trail in the snow, and the soldiers found murdered white children in the camp, murdered by the indian women when the soldiers of Custer attacked.
As for feeling Indians should be exterminated, there are lots of tribes that there was NEVER a war with. Poncas, Pawnees, Mandans, Otoes, Osages. We lived peacably with theses groups. Isn’t it interesting that the hostile tribes were also enemies of theses friendly tribes before the White man came!
As for the killing of Indian women, the indians did the same to the whites an other tribes. One of the worst things that could happen to a captive man, woman, or child was to be turned over to the sadistic Indian women. Even the children got in their licks against a captive.
Debate with you is pointless. I’m curious if you would be so sanguine if Mexico invaded and decided your home would be put to better use housing several families and forcibly evicted you.
***I’m curious if you would be so sanguine if Mexico invaded and decided your home would be put to better use housing several families and forcibly evicted you.****
Maybe we should just attack and kill them , cut them into peaces, scalp them and hang the hair on poles..like the Indians did.
http://www.dickshovel.com/scalp.html
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.