JOHN D. LEE: A SCAPEGOAT? MYTHS AND FALLACIES CONCERNING THE ROLE OF JOHN D. LEE IN THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE

by kcp52 (student)

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

JOHN D. LEE: A SCAPEGOAT?

MYTHS AND FALLACIES CONCERNING THE ROLE OF JOHN D. LEE IN THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE

Keith Paxton

History 497

Brother Coates

Date due: July 17, 2012

Date turned in: July 17, 2012

Assignment: Final Draft

JOHN DOYLE LEE: A SCAPEGOAT? (Outline)

Introduction
Thesis: Even though there were other, higher profile, men, such as William H. Dame, Isaac C. Haight and John M. Higbee, who were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, John D. Lee was the only person singled out for participating in a massacre therefore making him a scapegoat—who was used by Brigham to protect the Church.
A discussion of Myths and Fallacies

The way I am going to use myth.
The term fallacy, how I am going to use it, and what fallacies I am going to use.

How I am going to use the term ‘fallacy”
The fallacies that historians use when they write about John D. Lee’s role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Mormonism Unveiled and The Mormon Menace (myths and fallacies about John D. Lee’s role in the massacre)

Mormonism Unveiled and the authorship question

The use of Mormonism Unveiled to describe John D. Lee’s role in the Massacre
Mormonism Unveiled and the Fallacy of Possible Proof

What the fallacy is
Some authors who make the fallacy and why it occurs (hidden motives)

The Mormon Menace and Mormonism Unveiled compared

John D. Lee’s confession compared in The Mormon Menace and Mormonism Unveiled
Three myths about John D. Lee’s evolvement in the massacre debunked

The myth that John D. Lee acted alone and a contradiction in Lee’s final statement saying that the evidence against him was false.
The myth that John D. Lee acted on his own accord and a glimpse into John D. Lee’s personality.
The myth that God (or God’s prophet) sanctified the massacre

The Carleton Report and Captain John I. Ginn’s Account

The myth in the accounts that John D. Lee held a priesthood leadership role
What Elder Penrose and The Massacre at Mountain Meadows say about John D. Lee’s position in the Church

John D. Lee’s role in the Massacre

What Samuel Knight and Nephi Johnson say of John D. Lee’s involvement in their written testimonies and the myths that are in them.

Samuel Knight Field Notes From Andrew Jenson Collection
Samuel Knight Statement from David H. Morris Collection
Nephi Johnson 1908 Statement from David H. Morris Collection

What the trials of John D. Lee say about his role in the massacre

John D. Lee’s first trial- Philip Klingenslith (the only witness to name others as well as John D. Lee)

Testimony of Philip Klingensmith
Affidavit of Philip Klingensmith

John D. Lee’s second Trial- The Five Key Witnesses and the myths and fallacies that come from them.

Testimony of Samuel Knight
Testimony of Nephi Johnson and his refusal to place the blame solely on John D. Lee
Testimony of Laban Morrill
Testimony of Samuel McMurdy
Testimony of Jacob Hamblin and what’s wrong with it.

Other accounts of John D. Lee’s Role in MMM from the Andrew Jenson Collection and the myths and fallacies associated with them.

Mary S. Campbell Field notes
Corrections to Bancroft History Field Notes
Ellott Willden Field Notes
William Barton Field Notes

John D. Lee: A Scapegoat? The myths and fallacies in proving John D. Lee as a scapegoat

Poem Written by John D. Lee while in prison
John Doyle Lee: Villain or Scapegoat? by Catherine Turney and the fallacy of dichotomous questions.
Juanita Brook’s “The Scapegoat” from John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat pg 357-363
Ellott Willden’s statement that Lee was one of the most bloodthirsty of them all.
T. B. H. Stenhouse’s remarks about John D. Lee and the fallacy he creates

Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography

JOHN DOYLE LEE: A SCAPEGOAT?

In the year September 11, 1857 a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians attacked an Arkansas emigrant train and slaughter 120 men, women, and children in one of the greatest atrocities known in history—the Mountain Meadows Massacre. General J. H. Carleton calls this horrifying event in history a “hellish atrocity” and Captain John I Ginn calls it a “religious massacre” both describe the event as atrocious and disturbing.[1] The words of General Carleton and Captain Ginn echo the feeling that many Mormons and non Mormons alike feel about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. For non Mormons this event is used as an attack against the church, accusing the church as a whole as murders for Mormons it is an event in Mormon history which covered or ignored. Both views are wrong in many ways on one hand this event is remembered but obscured to fit a certain agenda and on the other it is covered a thought of as a subject that should never be spoken of. Both of these extreme views of the massacre have caused myths to formulated about what happened and about the people who were involved obscuring the facts about what really happened.

Despite all the men who were involved in the massacre, only one man was accused and slaughtered in a cowardly manner. This man’s name is John D. Lee one the most widely known participants in the massacre and the only one who was punished for the deed. John D. Lee’s involvement in the massacre is tainted with both facts and myths that obscure what really happened. There are many myths and fallacies that are used when describing John D. Lee’s role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and these myths have been preserved from generation to generation. Even though there were other higher profile men such as William H. Dame, Isaac C. Haight, and John M. Higbee who were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, John D. Lee was the only person singled out for participating in a massacre, therefore making him a scapegoat—who was used by Brigham to protect the Church.

Before we began discussing the myths and fallacies surround John D. Lee’s involvement in the massacre it is important to discuss the term myth and how the word is going to be used in this paper as well give a brief overview of what myths about John D. Lee’s role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre will be discussed. It is also important discuss what the fallacies are that are going to be discussed in this paper. According to Percy S. Cohen one definition of the term ‘myth’ is an “erroneous [belief] clung to against all evidence”.[2] He continues to state five main characteristics of myths which are as follows: first “a myth is a narrative of events”, second the narrative has “sacred quality”, third the narrative symbolic in nature, fourth at least some of the events or objects that happen in the myth never occurred or existed outside the myth itself, and finally the narrative in “dramatic form to origins or transformations”.[3] William H. McNeill shares the same idea as Percy Cohen when he compares myth to history and calls them “close kin” in the sense that they both explain how things got to the way they are by telling a story the only difference is that history is, or tries to be, true while myths are completely false.[4] This idea that a myth is a false or erroneous belief that is clung to despite all the evidence against it is the way that the term ‘myth’ will be used in this paper. In other words, in this paper, the term ‘myth’ can be defined as false statements of facts, interpretation, and logical historical errors.

Now that it has been explained how the term ‘myth’ is going to be used in this paper it is now time to identify the historical fallacies that authors who write on John D. Lee and his involvement in the massacre use . Before we can talk about what the main historical fallacies are that authors use when writing about John D. Lee’s role in the massacre it is necessary to define exactly how the term ‘fallacy’ is going to be used in this paper. In the words of David Hackett Fischer a fallacy is “a way of falling into error” that “consists in false reasoning so that false conclusions are generated”.[5] The same way that Fischer used the term ‘fallacy’ is the way in which the term ‘fallacy’ is going to be used in this paper. The categories of fallacies in which I am going to use in this paper are the fallacies of factual verification, the fallacies of narration, the fallacies of motivation, and the fallacies of composition. These four groups of fallacies are the most common groups of fallacies that I see in the writings of historians when they try to tell the story of John D. Lee’s role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. These fallacies in which the authors commit come about because the authors have an agenda or they have misread or misinterpreted their facts.

Two of the most prominent resources on John D. Lee and his involvement in the Mountain Meadow Massacre are Mormonism Unveiled: Or the Life and Confessions of John D. Lee which was latter edited by his attorney William W. Bishop and The Mormon Menace, Being the Confession of John Doyle Lee, Danite, an Official Assassin of the Mormon Church under the Late Brigham Young with an introduction by Alfred Henry Lewis. Both of these books claim to be a history of John D. Lee written by John D. Lee himself and both contain a document entitled ‘The Confession of John D. Lee’ in which he describes his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which he writes “ALL THAT I DO SAY IS TRUE AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH” a statement in which both Samuel Knight and Nephi Johnson write in a similar matter in their written statements as well showing that Lee’s confession was written by himself or at least dictated by himself.[6] Because both these books can be considered autobiographies of John D. Lee it is important that we compare what these two books say about John D. Lee’s character and his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre to what other authors say about John D. lee and his role in the massacre as well as explore some of the fallacies that are contained in these authors works.

This is a preview of the whole essay

To begin with we will examine Mormonism Unveiled and then we will examine The Mormon Menace. Mormonism Unveiled is an autobiography supposedly written by John D. Lee himself and was later edited by his attorney William W. Bishop. Juanita Brooks relies heavily on Mormonism Unveiled along with other sources in here biography of John D. Lee entitled John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat despite the fact that later on she doubted that John D. Lee was the only author saying “I should like to determine, if I can, how much was written by lee himself and what part was filled by the Attorney, Bishop, from notes and conversations with Lee”.[7] Like Juanita Brooks Will Bagley as doubted that John D. Lee was the only author noting that there were “several puzzling errors” in the text but admitted that “without the manuscript of Mormonism Unveiled, there is no way to resolve the question of its authorship, but internal evidence reveals that no one but Lee could have composed it”.[8] However, Brooks and Bagley were not the first, nor are they the last, to doubt the authorship of Mormonism Unveiled Charles W. Penrose in his address The Mountain Meadows Massacre: Who Were Guilty of the Crime? writes “This confession [Mormonism Unveiled] is supposed to be the ‘only true and genuine one.’ Whether it is or not I cannot say. My opinion is from what I have read that John D. Lee furnished particulars and data to Mr. Bishop, who worked them up with some of his own notions and fabrications into this book.”[9] Richard E. Turley Jr. in his article “Problems with Mountain Meadows Massacre Sources” cites many instance in the text of Mormonism Unveiled that show that William W. Bishop did indeed embellish the words of John D. Lee, however it is not appropriate to discuss them in this paper. Despite the issues presented concerning the authorship of Mormonism Unveiled many authors still use the use the text as a primary source when they write about John D. Lee and his involvement in the massacre. Juanita Brooks in her biography of John D. Lee entitled John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat use the text of Mormonism Unveiled as one of her primary sources. However Juanita Brooks is not the only one to use Mormonism Unveiled as a source for learning about John D. Lee and his involvement in the massacre, Ronald W. Walker. Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard in their book Massacre at Mountain Meadows also reference the text when they talk about John D. Lee, but it is not their only source. Many other authors rely on text of Mormonism Unveiled as a source when discussing John D. Lee and his involvement in the massacre. Despite being heavily used the authors commit a serious fallacy in factual verification a fallacy in which David Fischer calls “the fallacy of possible proof”, which is proving that a statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of it being true or false.[10] Juanita Brooks, Will Bagley, and the authors of Massacre at Mountain Meadows all commit this fallacy by using the text of Mormonism Unveiled and then later talking about the possibility that Mormonism Unveiled was no completely written by John D. Lee. The reason that the authors commit this fallacy is the same reason that many other authors commit this fallacy which is they use the text to support their ideas even though they know that there is some doubt to whether the words are actually true. For this reason the fallacy of possible proof is one of the most prevalent fallacies that historians make.

Just like Mormonism Unveiled The Mormon Menace also claims to be the words of John D. Lee. At first glance the text of The Mormon Menace and Mormonism Unveiled seem to be completely identical, but after close evaluation they are not. When one examines the words of these two books they will notice slight differences in the text especially in John D. Lee’s Confession which then begs two questions one being which one, if any, is the actual text and the other being did John D. Lee’s attorney manipulate the confession of John D. Lee in Mormonism Unveiled or was the confession in The Mormon Menace just shortened? The first question cannot possibly be answered with a straight forward answer but based on the dates in which they were published—Mormonism Unveiled in 1877 and The Mormon Menace in 1905—it is more likely that the confession in Mormonism Unveiled is the actual text. From his information we can answer the second part of the second question and conclude that the confession in The Mormon Menace was most likely shortened. As for whether or not John D. Lee’s attorney manipulated the text of the confession in Mormonism Unveiled it is unknown.

Despite the small differences both the confessions in Mormonism Unveiled and The Mormon Menace both copies of John D. Lee’s confession dispel two myths about John D. Lee’s involvement in the massacre in the following words:

“I did not act alone; I had many to assist me at Mountain Meadows.

Those who were connected with the massacre, and took part in the transaction, were moved by a religious duty. All [who participated at the time of the massacre] were acting under the orders and by command of their Church leaders. The immediate orders for the killing of the emigrants came from those in authority at Cedar City. I and those with me moved by virtue of positive orders from Brother Haight and his associates.”[11]

The first myth that these words dispel is that John D. Lee acted alone. John D. Lee clearly debunks this myth when he says that there many others who assisted him at Mountain Meadows. This contradicts the words that he says in his last words “evidence has been brought against me which is false as the things of hell”.[12] Clearly the evidence that was against him was not completely false for he admitted that he did participate in the massacre. This begs the question what evidence against him was false and what evidence was true? We will attempt to answer this question later on when we explore what the witnesses say about John D. Lee’s involvement in the massacre. The other myth that John D. Lee debunks in his confession is that he and all the others wanted to do the deed. This idea is absurd for John D. Lee himself says that “all [who participated at the time of the massacre] were acting under the orders and by command of their Church leaders”.[13] Josiah F. Gibbs supports the idea that John D. Lee was acting on orders when quotes John D. Lee as saying “…I knew that I was acting a cruel part and doing a damnable deed. Yet my faith in the godliness of my leaders was such that it forced me to think that I was not sufficiently spiritual to act the important part I was commanded to perform”.[14] From these words it is clear that John D. Lee did not want to participate in the massacre, but he acted on the belief that his church leaders knew better than him. The idea that John D. Lee acted on orders from his church leaders fits well with John D. Lee’s personality. John D. Lee was so faithful to his church leaders and was willing to follow whatever they told him to do because he believed, just like any other faith Latter-day Saint, that his church leaders acted on the word of God and who can fight against the word of God? John D. Lee’s account of a conversation between him and John M. Higbee confirms the idea that the leaders who gave the orders claimed that they got them from God. According to John D. Lee John M. Higbee said, after praying for Divine instruction, “I have evidence of God’s approval of our mission. It is God’s will that we carry out our instruction to the letter.” To this Lee replied “My God, this is more than I can do. I must and do refuse to take part in this matter.” After which Higbee replied “Brother Lee, I am ordered by President Haight to inform you that you shall receive a crown of Celestial Glory for your faithfulness, and your eternal joy shall be complete.”[15] This idea that the orders come from God was also portrayed by Isaac C. Haight. From the many accounts that John D. Lee gives we can see that John D. Lee and those who were with him participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre having been given the false impression from leaders such as William Dame, Isaac Haight, and John Higbee that God wanted them to participate in in.

Besides the accounts from Mormonism Unveiled and the Mormon Menace we also have the accounts of Major J. H. Carleton and Captain John I Ginn. Both reports were given by leaders of the military who got there information from eye witness accounts. Because they got their information second hand Carleton and Ginn obtained many myths about John D. Lee’s role in the massacre. One of these myths resides in the account given by Captain John I Ginn. In his account Captain Ginn says that an Indian named Jackson told General Carleton that Bishop John D. Lee and Isaac C. Haight led the massacre. While the fact that John D. Lee and Isaac C. Haight led massacre is true, calling John D. Lee ‘Bishop’ is false. Of this myth Elder Charles W. Penrose declared “According to the evidence presented, it appears that John D. Lee was at that time a member of the Church—not a Bishop, by the way, I understand he never was a Bishop but was a member of the Church and looked after the interests of a great number of Indians in that part of the country as Indian farmer.”[16] From these words we can that at the time of the massacre John D. Lee never held a Priesthood position, but was just a member of the church was in charge of Indian affairs. The authors of the book Massacre at Mountain Meadows convey this same idea that John D. Lee was only in charge of communicating with the Indians. In his report Major Carleton also refers to John D. Lee as Bishop whether he was referring to the time of the massacre or at the time that he was in Southern Utah is unknown but, if he is saying that John D. Lee was Bishop at the time of the massacre he has also fallen into the myth that was spread by the Indian Jackson.

Another primary source that is used to explain John D. Lee’s role in the massacre is what Samuel Knight and Nephi Johnson say in their written statements and what the witnesses say in the two trials of John D. Lee. Samuel Knight has two statements that he did not give in the second trial one is found in field notes of Andrew Jenson which are located in the Andrew Jenson Collection and the other was a written statement that he wrote in 1904 that can be found in the David H. Morris Collection. According to the field notes of Andrew Jenson Samuel Knight said that John D. Lee, the Indians and others did the killing in the massacre, as for him he just held his horses that were shy. This idea that John D. Lee lead the killing in the massacre is seen in the testimony of others as well, thus many of the witnesses to the massacre believed that John D. Lee was in charge when in reality John D. Lee was just acting on that orders that he got from John M. Higbee who got them from Isaac C. Haight who got them from William Dame. All three of these men—Higbee, Haight and Dame—were local leaders in the Church and said they were acting on the word of God. In Samuel Knight’s statement in 1904 he says that he saw John D. Lee and he showed him “several bullet holes in his clothing” and that “[John D.] Lee found that he had gone to far to drop the matter as he was afraid that he might be known as one of the party who had made the attack and to let them go now was to give him away, and having commenced it he must see it through”.[17] With these words we can see that Samuel Knight’s statement agrees with many other testimonies in saying that John D. Lee led the massacre. Once again Samuel Knight portrays the myth that John D. Lee was the one who ordered the massacre when really John D. Lee got his orders from John M. Higbee. There is no doubt that John D. Lee was involved in the massacre, but he was not the main person in charge as others were lead to believe.

Four years after Samuel Knight Wrote his statement in 1904 Nephi Johnson wrote a statement in 1908 that is found in the David H. Morris Collection. In his statement Nephi Johnson says that before trouble arose between John D. Lee and the Indians because John D. Lee made an agreement with the Indians that they would get all of the horses, but John D. Lee sent some of the best horses back to Harmony. After awhile the dispute between the Indians and John D. Lee was settled and the Indians agreed to help kill the emigrants. According to Nephi Johnson the plan was that John D. Lee would lead them back to Cedar City with the wounded and “as many as the women and children as possible” in three wagons trains and the rest would walk.[18] Nephi Johnson continues with his statement by saying that the emigrants were suspicious of John D. Lee because they saw some white men with the Indians when the first attack was made but John D. Lee convinced them to trust him. According to Johnson after a while John M. Higbee gave the signal to stop and the Indians rushed in and, with the assistance of the white settlers, began killing the men. Then John D. Lee and the Indians killed the women and children except for the little children. Speaking of this event in his statement Nephi Johnson testifies “I saw John D. Lee kill some of the women and children, for I was in a position to see, and did see it all”.[19] The words of Nephi Johnson along with many other testimonies echo the fact that John D. Lee did participate in the massacre. Along with affirming that John D. Lee was a participant he echoes the same thoughts as John D. Lee in excusing the participants by saying “In justice to most of the men that went to the Meadows, I will state that they were mostly young, and were under orders what they did, and most of them thought that when they left Cedar City, that the emigrants had been killed by the Indians, and that they were going to bury the dead…”[20] Nephi Johnson in his statement, just like John D. Lee in his confession, excuses most of the participants in the massacre claiming that they were acting under orders. As for John D. Lee Nephi Johnson says that “there is no doubt in [his] mind that John D. Lee, in reporting the affair to Governor Young, lied to him and laid it on the Indians” and he says that he knows that John D. Lied to Brigham Young about what happened because when Brigham Young invited him to come and relate the event to him Brigham Young was “deeply impressed with the issue, and several times said why did Lee lie to me”.[21]

The most prominent of the witnesses of in trials of John D. Lee are the account of Philip Klingensmith in the first trial and the accounts of Laban Morrill, Samuel Knight, Samuel McMurdy, Nephi Johnson, and Jacob Hamblin in the second trial. The most interesting difference between Klingenmith’s testimony and the other testimonies is that Klingensmith is the only witness to name other people besides John D. Lee who were involved in the massacre—Isaac C. Haight, John M. Higbee, and others who were dead by the time of the trial.[22] According to Philip Klingensmith, Isaac C. Haight, John M. Higbee, Joel White, and himself were among those who were at the meeting that discussed the whether or not to attack the emigrants. Contrary to what others may believe John D. Lee was not at the meeting. Juanita Brooks confirms this statement when she says that “he [John D. Lee] was not present at the Sunday afternoon meeting where the fate of the emigrants was discussed, the gathering in which the idea of the massacre was first suggested. Neither was he in any way responsible for, or connected with, the death of Aiden, the first of the emigrants to be murdered…”.[23] These words alone prove that John D. Lee was not involved in the planning of the massacre, but he did participate in the massacre and carried out the orders that he received from Haight and Higbee. Klingensmith also says that Haight gave orders to John D. Lee “that they [the emigrants] are to be decoyed out and disarmed” and that they were to “got out in any manner the best way you can."[24] He then went on to say that the orders were given to John D. Lee to carry out the plan. In his affidavit Philip Klingensmith says that John D. Lee waved the flag of truce which told the emigrants to give up their weapons which statement agrees with other accounts of the massacre.

Along with Philip Klingensmith’s statement in the first trial of John D. Lee there are also the testimonies of Laban Morrill, Samuel Knight, Samuel McMurdy, Nephi Johnson, and Jacob Hamblin in the second trial. Laban Morris, just like Philip Klingensmith, says that John d. Lee was not present at the meeting when they discussed the massacre. Samuel Knight says that he saw John D. Lee strike who he thinks was a women, however this cannot be confirmed.

Samuel McMurdey says that he saw Lee kill some of the emigrants. The testimonies of both Samuel Knight and Samuel McMurdey both send the same message that many other testimonies say, which is that John D. Lee did participate in the massacre and that they saw him either harm or kill some of the emigrants, which statements John D. Lee denies in his confession when he says that he did everything that he could do to save the emigrants.[25] Samuel Knight said that Lee told him about the meeting before the massacre but he did not say who was involved. Nephi Johnson in his testimony refused to place the blame only on John D. Lee.

Even though were many other testimonies that placed John D. Lee at the sight of the massacre and said that he did horrible acts to the emigrants it was Jacob Hamblin’s testimony that condemned Lee the most. In his testimony Jacob Hamblin reiterated a story of two young girls who managed to hide in a thicket during the massacre but were soon discovered by an Indian who dragged them to John D. Lee and asked what should be done with them. According to the story John D. Lee cut the throat of one girl and ordered the Indian to shoot the other. [26] However convincing Jacob Hamblin’s testimony is it is not as trustworthy as other testimonies for two reasons. The most important fact that discredits Jacob Hamblin’s testimony is that Jacob Hamblin was not even present at the massacre. The jury in the second trial blindly accepted the testimony of a man who was not even present at the event when it happened. The second thing that discredits Jacob Hamblin’s testimony is that because he was present at the massacre he could not give his testimony of what happened at the massacre so instead he just repeated a story about John D. Lee that had been going around for a long time. The fact that the story was passed around and that John D. Lee himself completely denied that he did what the story claimed he did shows that Jacob Hamblin’s testimony was not completely accurate, but that instead it was based off a myth that was floating around concerning John D. Lee and his involvement in the massacre. The fact that Jacob Hamblin used a myth a testimony against John D. Lee brings two important questions to those who study the testimonies concerning John D. Lee and his involvement in the massacre which are, how accurate are the testimonies of the other witnesses? And are the other testimonies also based off of myths about John D. Lee’s role in the massacre? Since no historian was present at the massacre these questions remain unanswered and we can only rely on the words of these witnesses assuming that there is some truth to what they say.

Now that we have explored what the witnesses said in the trial concerning John D. Lee’s involvement we will now explore other accounts of the massacre and John D. Lee’s role in the Andrew Jenson Collection. The testimonies from the Andrew Jenson Collection that we will explore are the field notes of Mary S. Campbell, corrections to Bancroft History field notes, Ellott Willden field notes, and the William Barton field notes. Mary S. Campbell said she say Isaac C. Haight, Philip Klingensmth, John M. Higbee, and John D. Lee pass by her house down to where the Indians were camped and hold a consultation with them. Statement helps to confirm the John D. Lee Was involved it the massacre. The Bancroft History gives some information that other witnesses do not say which is that Lee was the only white man at the site from Monday until Wednesday when Higbee showed up. These words show that John D. Lee did participate and was the first white man on the site. According to Ellott Willdon John D. Lee could not hold the Indians back during the first attack, which shows that Lee tried to prevent a disaster.

Now that we have explored some of the testimonies concerning John D. Lee’s involvement in the massacre we will explore the claim that John D was a scapegoat. Two authors some explore this idea Juanita Brooks when she entitles her final chapter of her biography of John D. Lee “The Scapegoat” and Catherine Turney in her article entitled “John Doyle Lee: Villain or Scapegoat?”. This question of whether or not John D. Lee is a scapegoat is sparked because John D. Lee himself both in a poem that he wrote while in prison and a in his final words claims he is a scapegoat. The following is the poem that he wrote while in prison in which he refers to himself as a scapegoat:

Old Mormon Bull, how came you here?

we have tugged and toiled these many years,

we have been cuffed and kicked with sore abuse

and now sent here for penitentiary abuse.

We both are creatures of Some Note.

You are food for prisoner,

and I the scapegoat![27]

With along with this poem in his last words he declares these words:

I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner. I cannot help it. It is my last word—it is so.

Evidence has been brought against me which is false as the things of hell, and this evidence was wanted to sacrifice me. Sacrifice a man that has waited upon them, that has wandered and endured with them in the days of adversity, true from the beginning of the Church! And now I am singled out and am sacrificed in this matter! What confidence can I have in such a man! I have none, and I don’t think my Father in heaven has any.

I declare I did nothing designedly wrong in this unfortunate affair. I did everything in my power to save that people [the emigrants], but I am the one that must suffer.[28]

However questionable this statement that John D. Lee made near the end of his life is there could be some truth to the matter when John D. Lee declares the evidence that has been brought against him is false. Catherine Turney in here article “John Doyle Lee: “Villain or Scapegoat?” gives light in to what evidence present against John D. Lee is false when she explains that Jacob Hamblin’s testimony was based off of a story that was being spread around about John D. Lee’s role in the massacre because Jacob Hamblin was never at the massacre. However, Catherine Turney herself commits what Fisher calls the “fallacy of dichotomous questions” in the way she frames her question because she asks her question in such a way that it demands a choice that cannot possibly be answer either way.[29] Along with John D. Lee’s last words Juanita Brooks adds to writes that “.. [John D.] Lee insists that it was only after he had withdrawn from the others and pled for strength…could he nerve himself to carry out his orders.”[30] John D. Lee’s own account of a conversation he had with Higbee supports this idea that he did not want to kill the emigrants. According to John D. Lee’s account when he received the orders from Higbee, who said he got them from Haight, he was “much shaken by this offer” because he “had full faith in the power of the Priesthood to bestow such rewards and blessings” but he wanted to save the people. He says that instead of killing the emigrants he proposed that they give all of the stock of the emigrants to the Indians except what was sufficient to haul their wagons, and let them go. However, despite his pleas, everyone opposed the idea saving their lives except for John D. Lee.[31] From this account and many other accounts from John D. Lee it is clear that John D. Lee insists that he was made a scapegoat and that he is innocent.

On the contrary to Lee’s words Ellot Willdon says that “it is well known that [John D. Lee] W[illia]m C Stewart, and Klingensmith were the most bloodthirsty.”[32] With the contradiction of John D. Lee’s words and Ellot Willdon’s words it begs the question was John D. Lee a scapegoat or did he deserve his fate? T. B. H. Stenhouse in his book Rocky Mountain Saints give a glimpse into to the reason why, despite the fact that he did participate in the massacre, John D. Lee is considered to be a scapegoat. Concerning John D. Lee Stenhouse writes, “John D. Lee, who has been selected as the chief scapegoat upon which to pile the responsibility of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, is not, in his own estimation, without defence (sic.).”[33] Stenhouse continues to state that John D. Lee was a faithful Mormon that did what he was told to do. According to Stenhouse a man who was close to John D. Lee described his character with the following words “Lee is a good, kind-hearted fellow, who would share his last biscuit with a fellow-traveller (sic.) on the plains, but at the next instant, if Brigham Young said so, he would cut that fellow-traveller's (sic.) throat."[34] The way that Stenhouse sees it John D. Lee is not to be completely excused for his actions but on the contrary he was made “the chief scapegoat” who was selected to carry the responsibility of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Stenhouse commits a huge fallacy in his statement about John D. Lee when he says that John D. Lee is “without [defense]” but then goes on to defend John D. Lee by saying that he was acting under orders and was made a scapegoat. From the evidence that is presented before me we must come to the conclusion that, despite the fact that he was involved in the massacre, in the end John D. Lee was sacrificed as a cover up for all others who were involved in the massacre and in doing so Brigham Young and all the others participants in the massacre made John D. Lee a scapegoat for crime in which he did not want to do.

In conclusion John D. Lee acted on orders from John M. Higbee who got them from Isaac Haight who got them from William Dame all of them claiming that the orders were from God. Even though many testimonies put John D. Lee at the scene of the massacre, John D. Lee was acting under orders just like many others. In the end, because they wanted to cover it up, Brigham Young and all the other participants sacrificed John D. Lee and made him a scapegoat.

Annotated Bibliography

A History of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (San Francisco: The Pacific Art Company, 1877). (Accessed from )

Published at the same time as Mormonism Unveiled this is a good book on the history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Bishop, William W., ed. Mormonism Unveiled; or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee; (Written by Himself). St. Louis: Bryan, Brand & Co., 1877. (Accessed from )

Despite the question of authorship this book is on of most detailed books on John D. Lee’s role in the massacre.

Brooks, Juanita. John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1992.

This is the most comprehensive biography on John D. Lee and helps to explain about his character and why John D. Lee is considered a scapegoat.

Brooks, Juanita. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Normon: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950.

This book gives some new information on John D. Lee’s role in the Massacre.

Cohen, Percy S. “Theories of Myth.” Man 4, no. 3 (September 1996): 337-53. (accessed April 4, 2010).

This article helps to explain what the term ‘myth’ means.

Denton, Sally. American Massacre: the Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857. New York: Afred A. Knopf, 2003.

This is another book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and helps me to understand John D. Lee’s role in the massacre.

Farley, Steven E. The Mormon Mountain Meadows Massacre: From the Diary of John I. Ginn. Bloomington: 1st Books Library, 2003.

This contains Captain John I Ginn’s account of the massacre and helps to find myths about John D. Lee’s role in the massacre.

Federal District Court for the Second District of the Territory of Utah, First Trial of John D. Lee, (Documents on microfilm, California: Henry E. Huntington Library, 1972). (Accessed through the Mountain Meadows Association website )

The first trial of John D. Lee helps me to determine what others considered the role of John D. Lee to be in the massacre.

This document helps me to find the myths about John D. Lee and his role in the massacre that was around at the time.

Fischer, David Hackett. Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper & Perennial, 1970.

This book helps me to identify the fallacies that historians make so I can look for them in the authors that I write about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Gibbs, Josiah F. Mountain Meadows Massacre. Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1910. (accessed June 13, 2012).

Despite the fact that his dates are off, Gibbs gives an fairly accurate account of the events that took place in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

House of Representatives, Special Report on the Mountain Meadow Massacre Document no. 605 prepared by Brevet Major J. H Carleton, 57th Congress 1st Session, May 10th, 1902. (Accessed through Brainhoney)

This document gives another outsider’s point of view of the massacre.

Lee, John Doyle and Alfred Henry Lewis. The Mormon Menace, Being the Confession of John Doyle Lee, Danite, an Official Assassin of the Mormon Church under the Late Brigham Young. Introd. By Alfred Henry Lewis. New York: Home Protection Pub. Co., 1905. (Accessed from )

This book helps me to find what is wrong with Mormonism Unveiled and gives another account written by John D. Lee of the massacre.

Lee, John Doyle and Samuel Nyal Henrie. Writings of John D. Lee. Tuscan: Fenestra Books, 2002.

This book helps me to understand John D. Lee and what the myths are that surround his role in the massacre.

Mali, Joseph. Mythistory: The Making of a Modern Historiography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

This book helps me to understand myth and history.

McMurtry, Larry. O What a Slaughter: Massacres in the American West 1846-1890. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005. (Accessed through Brain Honey)

This is another account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

McNeill, William H. Mythistory and Other Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

This is another book that helps me to understand myth and history.

Penrose, Charles William. The Mountain Meadows Massacre; Who Were Guilty of the Crime? An Address by Elder Charles W. Penrose, October 26, 1884. Also a Supplement Containing Important Additional Testimony Subsequently Received. Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons Company, 1899. (Accessed from )

This address helps to dispel some of the myths about John D. Lee and his role in the massacre.

Stenhouse, T. B. H. The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full And Complete History Of The Mormons From The First Vision Of Joseph Smith To The Last Courtship Of Brigham Young. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873. (Accessed from )

This book helps me to understand John D. Lee and his role in the massacre.

Turley, Richard E. Jr., and Ronald W. Walker. Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents. Provo: BYU Studies, 2008.

This book contains other accounts of the massacre that help me to understand the myths about John D. Lee and his role in the massacre.

Turney, Catherine. “John Doyle Lee: Villain or Scapegoat?” Mankind 5, no. 8 (1976): 60-67. (Accessed through BYU-Idaho Interlibrary Loan.)

This article deals with the same question that I am dealing with and helps me to understand why John D. Lee is a scapegoat.

Walker, Ronald W, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard. Massacre at Mountain Meadows. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

This book is the most recent publication on the Mountain Meadows Massacre and gives new light into John D. Lee’s role in the massacre.

[1] Steven E. Farley, The Mormon Mountain Meadows Massacre: From the Diary of John I. Ginn (Bloomington: 1st Books Library, 2003), 39. Captain John I. Ginn quotes General Carleton’s words that he wrote two years after the massacre when he was reflecting on the event.

[2] Percy S. Cohen, “Theories of Myth,” Man 4, no. 3 (September 1969): 337, (accessed April 4, 2010).

[3] Ibid.

[4] William H. McNeill, Mythistory and Other Essays (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 3.

[5] David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Perennial, 1970) xvii. Fischer also says that broadly a fallacy has been defined as “a vulgar error”, or a common misconception (see footnote 4 on same page).

[6] John Doyle Lee and Samuel Nyal Henrie, Writings of John D. Lee (Tuscan: Fenestra Books, 2002), 206. For the text of the statements of Samuel Knight and Nephi Johnson see Richard E. Turley Jr. and Ronald W. Walker’s book Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents published by BYU Studies.

[7] Richard E. Turley Jr. and Ronald W. Walker, Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents (Provo: BYU Studies, 2008) 147.

[8] Ibid. For more information on the many problems with Mormonism Unveiled refer to Richard E. Turley’s article “Problems with Mountain Meadows Massacre Sources” on page 143 in Turley and Walker’s book Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents.

[9] Charles William Penrose. The Mountain Meadows Massacre; Who Were Guilty of the Crime? An Address by Elder Charles W. Penrose, October 26, 1884. Also a Supplement Containing Important Additional Testimony Subsequently Received, (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons Company, 1899), 40. (Accessed from www.archive.org)

[10] David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Perennial, 1970), 53.

[11] John Doyle Lee and Alfred Henry Lewis, The Mormon Menace, Being the Confession of John Doyle Lee, Danite, an Official Assassin of the Mormon Church under the Late Brigham Young Introduction By Alfred Henry Lewis (New York: Home Protection Pub. Co., 1905), 298). See also Lee’s confession in Mormonism Unveiled; or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee; (Written by Himself) (St. Louis: Bryan, Brand & Co., 1877), 213. And Lee’s confession in the Writings of John D. Lee by John Doyle Lee and Samuel Nyal Henri (Tuscan: Fenestra Books, 2002), 206.

[12] John Doyle Lee and Samuel Nyal Henri, Writings of John D. Lee (Tuscan: Fenestra Books, 2002), 422.

[13] John Doyle Lee and Alfred Henry Lewis, The Mormon Menace, Being the Confession of John Doyle Lee, Danite, an Official Assassin of the Mormon Church under the Late Brigham Young Introduction By Alfred Henry Lewis (New York: Home Protection Pub. Co., 1905), 298).

[14] Gibbs, Josiah F., Mountain Meadows Massacre (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1910). (accessed June 13, 2012).

[15] Writings of John D. Lee , 226. Note: The entire conversation between Lee and Higbee was taken from the account in this book.

[16] Charles William Penrose, The Mountain Meadows Massacre; Who Were Guilty of the Crime? An Address by Elder Charles W. Penrose, October 26, 1884. Also a Supplement Containing Important Additional Testimony Subsequently Received, (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons Company, 1899), 9. (Accessed from www.archive.org)

[17] Turley, Richard E. Jr., and Ronald W. Walker, “Samuel Knight Statement” in Mountain Meadows Massacre Documents (Provo: BYU Studies, 2008), 136.

[18] Ibid. “Nephi Johnson 1908 statement, 139.

[19] “Nephi Johnson 1908 Statement” BYU Studies, 140.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid. 140-141

[22] Juanita Brooks, John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1992), 360.

[23] Juanita Brooks . The Mountain Meadows Massacre (Normon: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950), 60.

[24] Philip Klingensmith, Federal District Court for the Second District of the Territory of Utah, First Trial of John D. Lee, (Documents on microfilm, California: Henry E. Huntington Library, 1972). (Accessed through the Mountain Meadows Association website http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com )

[25] John Doyle Lee and Samuel Nyal Henri, Writings of John D. Lee (Tuscan: Fenestra Books, 2002), 422.

[26] Catherine Turney, “John Doyle Lee: Villain or Scapegoat?” Mankind 5, no. 8 (1976): 60-67. (Accessed through BYU-Idaho Interlibrary Loan.)

[27] Writings of John D. Lee, 410.

[28] Writings of John D. Lee, 422.

[29] Fisher, Historian’s Fallacies, 9.

[30] Juanita Brooks, John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1992), 212.

[31] John Doyle Lee and Samuel Nyal Henri, Writings of John D. Lee (Tuscan: Fenestra Books, 2002), 227.

[32]“Ellot Weldon—Field Notes” BYU Studies, 95.

[33] Stenhouse, T. B. H., The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full And Complete History Of The Mormons From The First Vision Of Joseph Smith To The Last Courtship Of Brigham Young (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873), 461. (Accessed from www.archive.org)

[34] Ibid.