Posted on 09/10/2012 6:58:49 PM PDT by NorthernCrunchyCon
Wagon Train Descendants tell tale of 1857 massacre in Utah
Taping an episode of WTJR's "Truth Outreach" with host Rocky Hulse, the four men forgot about the cameras.
They didn't forget their story.
A massacre in 1857 in southwest Utah claimed the lives of some of their ancestors. What came to be called the Mountain Meadows Massacre shadows each generation, but Scott Fancher said the public knows little of "one of the single most important historical incidents" in the nation's history.
"Apart from the Oklahoma City bombing, this was the single largest act of domestic white-on-white violence in the history of the U.S.," he said.
The 150th anniversary of the massacre on Sept. 11 renews the push by Scott Fancher, Bob Fancher, Phil Bolinger, Ron Wright and the Mountain Meadows Massacre Foundation to boost awareness and gain federal stewardship of the property where the events occurred.
The effort pits the foundation against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , which controls the burial sites and, the men say, has never taken responsibility for the deaths of 120 men, women and children.
Scott Fancher said perpetrators included church leaders and militia members. "They have never once apologized to the families of the massacred victims," he said. "We think frankly it's high damn time."
Alexander Fancher thought it was time to start a new life as a rancher in California in 1857. He gathered up 140 people — mostly relatives who were Methodists, not LDS members — and left Arkansas with 40 wagons, close to 1,000 cattle and 200 horses.
The Fanchon-Baker train was one of the wealthiest and best-provisioned wagon trains to make the trip through Kansas , then onto Salt Lake City and southwest Utah.
"What they didn't know probably was at the time Utah Territory was in rebellion against the U.S.," Bob Fanchon said.
"This wagon train happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time," Bolinger said.
The train was besieged by Indians and local Mormons dressed as Indians. Fighting lasted until Sept. 11, when John D. Lee, representing the Mormons and the adopted son of Mormon leader Brigham Young , rode into the wagon camp under a white flag. Lee said the Indians would allow train member to leave, unarmed and without their possessions, under a Mormon escort.
The wagon train members — women holding their infants, children under the age of eight in one group, older children in another group and the men with individual Mormon escorts — walked along a one-mile stretch away from the wagons. Then a signal was given, and all but the youngest were massacred.
"The men mostly were lucky enough to be shot at point-blank range. The women and children, most of them received a billy club to the head," Bolinger said.
The attackers not only took the wagons and all the goods, but stripped the bodies of clothing and jewelry, Bob Fanchon said, and the bodies were left on the ground. The surviving children were taken in by Mormon families.
"It was such a horrible mess. They rerouted the wagon train (route) several miles so they wouldn't be able to smell the stink of the rot," Bolinger said.
U.S. Army Maj. James Carleton led the investigation of the incident. Carleton buried the dead in four mass graves, including one that came to be known as the Carleton Cairn marked with a cross, along the mile-long killing field. He testified before Congress and the Army returned the surviving children to their families in Arkansas in 1859.
Fifty-four warrants were issued, but Lee was the only one arrested.
"To this day, he was the only one out of the 50-plus clubbers and shooters that were on the killing field that day ever tried, convicted, executed and held responsible," Bolinger said.
"For the longest time, the Indians were blamed wrongly, the emigrants themselves were blamed," Scott Fanchon said. "More recently, the LDS church to its credit has admitted at least local Mormons were involved which we've all known."
The original cairn was destroyed and rebuilt several times. The most recent monument was built in 1999 by the church.
"It has a little plaque embedded in it the basically says the site is owned and maintained by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . That's all the interpretation we get for the victims, for our families," Bolinger said.
Bolinger said the foundation won some initial support from Elder Marlin Jensen, the church's liaison with massacre descendant organizations, but lost that after church leadership declared it was "not in the best interest of the church" to pursue federal stewardship.
As a compromise, the foundation has asked the church to consider national historic landmark designation as a way to protect and preserve the site.
"The LDS church as an institution promotes many of its historic sites to be designated including Nauvoo and Temple Square," Scott Fanchon said. "When they say we don't want the federal government involved, we say it's a bit hypocritical."
Church spokespeople in Salt Lake City did not return a call from The Herald-Whig.
In a June story by the Associated Press, spokeswoman Kim Farah said Mormon leaders are committed to appropriately preserving the site.
"The church has owned the monument site at Mountain Meadows for many years. The property is open to the public, and considerable time and resources are allocated to ensure that the property is well-maintained, open to the public, and that those who perished there are appropriately remembered," she said.
In the same article, Bolinger said it's not right for the church to own the site. "How do you think the Kennedy family would feel if the Lee Harvey Oswald family had control of the Kennedy tomb?"
Really? I raise the issue? I guess your reposting of a very old article concerning an event that happened over six generations ago, was happenstance. And just coincidental that you happen to know the genealogical details of Romney's connection to it.
But, as I appear to have also brought up the issue of ancestral guilt, SO WHAT OF IT!? Unless you can prove a non-branching (possible) family tree of purity back to the beginnings of time, you are most definitely the genealogical remnant of heathens, murderers, rapists, and thieves. What have you got to say for yourself?
Respectfully, do you have a historical source for that claim?
The only time I've ever seen the claim was in the book of Mormon lore called "In the Company of Angels," which claimed that the Illinois Legislature (not Governor) enacted the bounty in 1846. The book cited no source for the claim.
I've never seen the claim made in any book of Mormon or American history by an LDS historian, and I've certainly never seen the text of either of the two bounties you allege.
If you spend time on the religion forum, you'd learn that the regular posters here are Christians first, conservatives second, and Republicans third. We're not going to stop pointing out that Mormonism is not Christianity just because it might hurt the Republican candidate (who has never had a conservative political thought in his life). Concerns for the distant third loyalty are not going trump the much stronger first two loyalties.
You religious people are nuts!
I should have made it clear in post #43, I was directing that at your critics and not you. I shouldn’t have used “you” in the second paragraph when I meant “the critics.” Sorry for any confusion - I was in a hurry to get my thoughts posted and should have slowed down and proofread more carefully.
Probably because they don't exist dewey.
CommerceComet wrote: “If you spend time on the religion forum, you’d learn that the regular posters here are Christians first, conservatives second, and Republicans third. We’re not going to stop pointing out that Mormonism is not Christianity just because it might hurt the Republican candidate (who has never had a conservative political thought in his life). Concerns for the distant third loyalty are not going trump the much stronger first two loyalties.”
Well said.
As Christian voters we have too often been betrayed by RINOs and CINOs once in office.
The arguments used by the Rombots to scare up votes for their candidate (Did Reagan ever have to point out he was better than Carter?) are eerily similar to those used by the Cameronbots in England to scare up votes against an inept Gordon Brown and Labor Party.
So how has electing the CINO Cameron as British Prime Minister worked out for English Christians and conservatives?
Here’s a clue:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2928990/posts
The only thing that has changed is that Christians and conservatives in Britain are now being persecuted by politicians with “C” after their name rather than politicians with “L” after their name.
> What have you got to say for yourself?
What do I have to say for myself?
I find it interesting how much more thinned-skin, conspiracy-minded and trigger-happy ROMbots are than Ronbots whenever they sense the least slight towards, criticism of failure to enthusiastically embrace their candidate. It seems Rombot fanaticism is nearing the same level as Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law.
Least slight? Did you choke on that?
My last choice was Romney, but he’s now the only choice.
You antics are pure BS. What is your goal with this crap? Please do share, and don’t insult us with a lie about how you “just happened to post this without even thinking of Romney...”
Have you already reposted an old story about his dog on the roof? If not, I’m sure you can find it over at Dummie-land.
> What is your goal with this crap? Please do share, and
> don’t insult us with a lie about how you “just happened to
> post this without even thinking of Romney...”
Alright. You call. I am more than happy to lay down my hand.
I have two goals:
My first goal is to prevent the same type of RINO/CINO political persecution that British conservatives face under the rule of “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2928990/posts
If this seems scary coming from “conservative” leadership, I note that Cameron’s record prior to being elected prime minister (as bad as it is) was nearly as liberal as Romney’s.
My second goal is fulfill a promise to myself and my children after the 2008 election that I would NEVER support the Trojan RINO who not only back-stabbed Gov. Palin in the lamestream media during the final weeks of campaign, but was willing to saddle us wit Obama for four years for no other reason than his ego.
Here’s a little reminder about how Romney’s people played Judas to conservative Republicans last time around and kingmaker to Obama and the Democrats:
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/27/post-defeat-planners
http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2008/11/06/former-romney-staffers-behind-palin-trashing/
So you are standing in the middle of the playground and stomping your feet. OK, got it.
You and I would both would prefer a steak dinner to a bologna sandwich or dog excrement.
The difference between us, is that after finding out that there is no steak, I still understand that bologna is a vastly better option than dog excrement.
You prefer to spend you time being pissed off that there is no steak, ranting about how bad bologna is, and generally cutting off you nose to spite your face.
Fine, I get it. You would rather eat the dog excrement than even be perceived as liking bologna. Good for you; you get to be a purist. Now go away and let the grown ups deal with the problem.
A grown-up would realize that this election poses a serious dilemma to a true conservative. There is no good choice (which by your example, you even seem to realize). You do what you think is best with this dilemma. Allow us who won't vote for Romney the same courtesy without name-calling.
Go away? You do realize that you came on to NorthernCrunchyCon's thread in the religion forum? Who is the interloper here?
If Obama wins, YOU OWN HIM. Got it? Good.
Why? Because you put it in capital letters? I'm washing my hands of both of these candidates.
Perhaps, you should educate yourself before you make blanket assertions. I'm in a solid red state so the fact that I skip the Presidential line on my ballot will have zero effort on the election. You do what you need to do, I'll do the same with a perfectly clear conscience.
Ah, I see where you’re coming from with your analogy.
My problem is not choosing to a eat a bologna sandwich. I was willing to eat it in 2008, only to be pleasantly surprised when the bologna man added Alaskan moose steak (one of my favorites as a hunter) to the menu.
No, my problem is that the man offering me a bologna sandwich in 2012 is the same individual who stomped on my bologna-and-steak sandwich in 2008 (after the bologna man added Alaskan moose steak to the sandwich) and gave me marxist manure one instead.
For this reason, I think I’ll pass on the deli this time around and try the tea shop down the road.
As I stated earlier, Romney was not on my list. I didn't vote for him in the primary, and I'm not at all delusional that he is a conservative.
That said, we don't have a parliamentary system. In our system, everyone except the winner is a loser. Getting 5 non-Marxist candidates, each getting 15% of the vote makes us a loser every day of the week, and the Marxist wins.
My friend, I do feel your frustration and your anger. I share it, but this is a war we are in and this just one of the battles on its field.
Was Romney a great choice? Neither of us think so. Will he be "The One" that will turn everything around? No. But we are Constitutionalists and we don't rely on "The One". Such political concepts do not become us or our ideas. What I believe you seek, as do I, is the end of the imperial presidency, and a return to Constitutional government.
Looking at history, we fell off the path 100 years ago and have moved ever farther from it since, all down hill. The journey back to the ridge-line isn't going to quick or easy.
We have to take power away from the Federal government. Push the most conservative candidate you can in the primaries, and then pick the best of the bad choices in the general (if you must). Voting for Romney doesn't make Romney "my man", it makes me pragmatic.
What do I see pragmatic in that vote:
1. The larger the margin of victory for Romney, the larger Republican gains are likely to be in the House and Senate, and that is where real power resides (we need 60 conservative Senators to even start moving up the path).
2. We are bankrupt and the economy is more likely to implode than not in the next 4 years. I do NOT want a Marxist at the helm.
3. #2 is inevitable. Bankruptcy is a powerful tool for fiscal discipline, which is also a primary mover for restricted government. Obama will open the bilge cocks on the ship, before changing its course.
No one is asking you to like Romney, just to play the cards you've been dealt the best way possible. The outcome of Romney losing because a 3rd party conservative got 1-5% of the vote will not be massive epiphany by Country Club Republicans that they must back a conservative next time. They will just move farther to the Left.
I suggest channeling energy into long term tactics for changing the Zeitgeist of American political thought. Put money and energy into conservative causes that get our message out. Bad things are coming, and people are going to be receptive to change. We need to be ready to educate them when and however possible. Short term, I beseech you to make the best of bad options. I would point you to Churchill's position on Stalin's Russia after 1941.
There can be a point made for allowing Obama to win, so that he can reap the coming firestorm, but I don't think that is wise. History has shown that a socialist minded people do not suddenly become capitalist purveyors of freedom when confronted with collapse. With the media acting as Obama's propaganda network, I think that a majority (or enough) of the American populace is far more likely to back a move to nationalization and total government control. Think this strategy out long and hard, if it is what you have in mind.
I commend you on your honesty. Unlike most hostile "you-must-vote-for-Romney" types, you at least admit that your voting is based on pragmatism and not principles. Although I came to a different decision on how to vote, at least, I can understand why you came to your decision.
I disagree with your reasoning in #1 above. Actually, a far better outcome for conservatives would be for Romney to squeak by with the thinnest of margins while Tea Party conservatives win handily. Even the Romney people would realize that the people didn't want him and only voted for Romney because he wasn't Obama. The mandate would lie with the Tea Partiers who were elected to block the big-government agenda of both Romney and Obama. Romney would realize that he must take a hard turn to the right or else. If Romney wins big, he concludes that he has a mandate, governs by his instincts (which we all know are leftist), and uses his clout as President to force the Tea Party to his position.
Make no mistake about it - I don't want either of these clowns as President. However, I think that my strategy of withholding a vote from a Republican candidate who pushes liberal policies while voting for conservatives down the ticket is a wise one and does more for conservatism in the long run than blindly voting for Romney because he has an R behind his name.
What we must guard against is creating internal strife within a common cause. I still liken this to a battlefield and would go back to that for an analogy. In wars there are bad decisions, bad strategies, and stupid mistakes. Winners do not fixate on them, but rather move on to the next task at hand and try a different tactic. I also believe in broad front tactics. Interestingly, your ‘best case’ scenario wouldn't be possible if everyone committed to your strategy. Thus, in your best case scenario, we would both be choosing the right course of action. Wars take small and large unit actions.
The only thing that I'm very, very certain of going forward is that we have already passed a tipping point. Things are likely to change quickly and radically in our near future. We need to be ready to come together when that happens, no matter what past tactical mistakes we assign to each other.
Instead of picking at scabs with this type of article, I would recommend that you be straight forward about your strategy and reasons for it here on FR (as you have laid out in your responses to me). Yes, you will find many if not most disagree with your plan of action, but I think the vast majority agree with the summation of the problem. Regardless, your input and reasoning are valuable points for everyone to consider.
My great great great great great Aunt Cynthia Jones Tackitt was among the victims. I know the LDS has apologized, but for many of us this is the other 9-11.
Hey SampleMan, I appreciate your honesty, as well as your willingness to set aside polemic for the sake of conservatism. I agree that we are kindred spirits struggling with the hand we have been dealt this time around. Like you, I want what is best for this country.
I also believe that our approach has been colored by our respective experiences as conservative activists. Since you have been honest about yours, I am more than happy to share some of mine.
This is not my first time at FR. I was a member years ago and posted occasionally. Cannot recall my handle at the time, and the email address I had registered under has long since become defunct. Then I married a conservative subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Sadly, conservatism in the British Empire had all but collapsed.
So I left FR about twelve years ago to help my spouse rebuild the conservative movement in the UK, Canada and Australia. At the time it seemed like the right thing to do. Dubya had just been elected President, and both the House and the Senate were firmly in Republican hands. Plus conservative Republicans were winning at state, county and municipal levels. However, conservatism among our English-speaking allies was in shambles.
This troubled me because I felt that conservatism in America was always strongest when we have strong conservative allies internationally who share our values. Probably the best recent example is the Reagan-Thatcher alliance, which also included Mulroney in Canada (more of a CINO, but as conservative as one got in Canada at the time).
This experience helping to build the conservative movement among our traditional British/Canadian/Australian allies was a real eye-opener for me. One of the first things I learned was that conservatism had been destroyed in these countries not by leftist politicians representing leftist parties, but by CINOs and leftists who had taken over the various “Conservative” parties. One of the first things they did, once elected to office, was to purge the Conservative parties of actual conservatives.
The second harsh lesson I learned is that CINO’s seldom remain static or shift to the right once elected. In the vast majority of cases, they shift to the left. Hence the current situation in Britain where the “Conservative” government of David Cameron is leading the state persecution of Christians and Muslims who continue to stand for traditional marriage. Once a party is taken over by CINO’s, it becomes almost impossible for principled conservatives to take back the party. In fact, this was something recognized by President Reagan, who steadfastly refused to compromise with Rockefeller Republicans. At a minimum, it takes years and years of activism within the party, followed then by years of activism among the more general public.
A third lesson, which should not surprise any serious student of conservatism since Russell Kirk pointed it out decades ago, is that a nation’s conservative movement rises and falls on the strength of its commitment to social conservatism. Even the most economically marxist social conservative will shift to fiscal conservatism over time, due to real-life experience and the strength of fiscal conservative argument, if he feels that social conservative principles are securely adhered to. On the other hand, a fiscally conservative politician who sells out social conservatism will almost always in time - in order to retain political office - sell out one’s previously held fiscally conservative values. The reason that such a politician, while rejecting communism, has bought into its ideological mother - that is, cultural marxism.
Finally, the fourth lesson is that it communist and socialist government are sometimes the best reality check for voters, and that sometimes we must tolerate (but never support) such government for a time, in order to bring about principled conservative government. I believe it is no coincidence that Reagan arose in the aftermath of Jimmy Carter, or in the U.K. that Lady Thatcher was elected following the disastrous prime ministerships of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. Of course the best example from Canada is Mike Harris’ election following the premiership of Bob Rae. And who could forget John Howard’s four terms as Australia’s prime minister after Paul Keating?
So I’m not as concerned about stopping Obama as I am about replacing him with a true conservative. In my experience the bigger danger is electing a RINO or CINO, since when elected they usually set conservatism back several years. I’ve had several British friends flee to Canada and the U.S. in recent years because the current “Conservative” government has proven to be just as fiscally leftist and socially marxist as the Labour Government under Gordon Brown.
Likewise, it took the conservative movement in Canada something like 25 years to take back the federal government after Mulroney turned CINO and destroyed conservatism from within the Progressive Conservative Party - Canada’s historically conservative party at the time. First principled conservatives had to split off from the CINO government that had destroyed the Conservative brand among voters and found a new party. Then they had to suffer through inept Liberal rule for a decade, then a few more years of Liberal-socialist-marxist coalition rule, then minority conservative governments for a few years that was limited by three leftist parties holding a collective majority of seats. In other words, every time the conservatives wanted to pass legislation they had to negotiate with at least one of the three left-wing parties for support.
My fear is that America is headed in the same direction with Romney, that Britain has gone with David Cameron, or Canada with Brian Mulroney once he turned CINO. What is needed is a Reagan or Thatcher or Harper.
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.