“ 'That was a terrible, awful act carried out by members of my faith. There are bad people in any church and it's true of members of my church, too.'
— Republican presidential Mitt Romney, on the 1857 massacre of travellers in a wagon train by Mormon settlers in Utah.”
Ed Cognoski responds:— Republican presidential Mitt Romney, on the 1857 massacre of travellers in a wagon train by Mormon settlers in Utah.”
Gov. Romney sidesteps the crux of the issue. That is whether the massacre was ordered by the President of the Church and Mormon hero Brigham Young. It's easy to acknowledge that any church has bad people. It's something else to admit the possibility that an early hero of one's church might have been a murderous zealot.
4 comments:
It's certain the Romney believes that Brigham Young did not order the massacre; but it's equally certain that Romney's opinion on that fact is irrelevant to him running for president. His position that the massacre was evil is relevant.
Brigham Young publicly and privately insisted that the Mormon people not shed blood--first with regard to the Native Americans and then later, American forces--when he learned that the US Government was sending a hostile army to Utah Territory.
The idea that Young would have ordered that this one wagon train be annihilated while allowing many other similar trains to pass through the territory unmolested just doesn't make sense.
Young knew that his only chance at winning the "Utah War" lay in public relations--getting the American people to see that there was no cause for war against the Mormons; not in letting it escalate into combat.
He knew that the Mormons couldn't match the military might of the United States and so he commissioned groups of "Mormon marauders" to keep the American army from arriving before he could negotiate a peace in Washington. Ordering or even allowing such a massacre would have been entirely at odds with his purpose of negotiating peace. He gave groups of marauders explicit instructions to burn the prairie, confiscate and burn supplies, stampede cattle and in other ways hinder the movement of the military; but they were to "shed no blood."
During the summer of 1857 these Mormon militias destroyed or confiscated millions of dollars worth of supplies, but not one life was lost in military action. Why would he go to such trouble while at the same time order the slaughter of innocent immigrants? It makes no sense at all.
Thanks, Alma, for explaining that Brigham Young "commissioned groups of 'Mormon marauders' ... to burn the prairie, confiscate and burn supplies, stampede cattle and in other ways hinder the movement of the military." That certainly absolves him of charges that he may also have been a murderous zealot. ;-)
The character issue will play a role in the 2008 Presidential race, just like it does in every race. Mitt Romney's attitude towards this dark side of the history of the Mormons will help shape American voters' opinion of his character.
Ed, what would you do if you were governor of the territory, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and then learned that an army was secretly on its way to attack the citizens of your territory? Brigham Young received no official notice that he had been replaced and no information about the military force's intentions. He had witnessed other government military forces expel Mormons from their homes in Missouri and Illinois. Didn't he have an obligation to protect the citizens under his care--or should he have waited until the shooting started?
Alma, you ask good questions. Today, we have a President who has decided that his responsibility to protect the citizens under his care gives him the power to ignore the Constitution. And we have a candidate for President whose religion contains a hero who may or may not have been a murderous zealot, whose acts are defended by some as just protecting the citizens under his care. More than ever, I believe Mitt Romney owes the electorate a thoughtful and detailed account of his own attitude towards his church's early President and how it may influence his own response to crises he might face as President.
Post a Comment