Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44

New Stuff...

I'm putting this into a new section, since there's so much stuff in the previous sections and subsections...

This morning I had only time for a cursory examination of the source offered by Keepitreal with regard to Order 44 and Haun's Mill. Upon examining this source more closely this afternoon, it appears that the incident referred to in it (as stated by the eyewitnesses themselves) occurred on October 26, a full day before Order 44 was issued. Hence, I can see the difficulties academic historians have, in using this as "proof" that the militiamen at that slaughter knew of Boggs' decree. However, since it refers to an alleged order of the governor extremely similar to the wording of Order 44 (the only real difference being the "ten days" part), I decided to include the quote here with appropriate notations as to the date to preserve NPOV.

I also reworked the opener somewhat (as you can see), to incorporate this new information. I also took care of the issue you raised, Tripleahg, by tying the "new orders" directly to Order 44 just prior to the quote.

Since this article is not about Haun's Mill (which has an article entirely devoted to it), I kept the Haun's Mill information here to a minimum--basically, just info that's directly pertinent to this subject, here--while providing a direct link to the main article for interested parties to access.

Take a look, and tell me what you think. I think this is the best we can do, given that the date given by the eyewitnesses themselves is one day prior to Order 44 being issued. I do thank Keepitreal2 once again, for bringing this source to our attention. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Took me a lot of time and reading today! I now have to try to sleep tonight with fresh memories of page after page of stomach-turning affadavits. But I found what I was looking for here, under Henderson, James: http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/mormon-redress-petitions-documents-1833-1838-missouri-conflict/part-iii-second-appeal-1 (spelling/punctuation updated and emphasis added as well as dates):

"What was more surprising then all the rest was the Governor's order of extermination, which reached Far West in some days after [it was given, which was October 27th]. This order reached Far West about the 4th or 5th day of November, but before this, there was [Major] General [Samuel D.] Lucas of Jackson County- arrived about the 29th or 30th day of October- which also had an order to eliminate us if we would not comply with their proposals. That was, if we would give up our arms, and sign away all our property to pay the expense of the war, and leave the State forthwith, that we could live. Otherwise we must die. Which order was a forged one, without contradiction. ... Among them was Captain S[amuel] Bogart, Mathew McGaw, John Craig, Kneel Gillum, Charles Morehead, Lieutenant Cook. (About this time there was a massacre. Took place at Haun's Mill, where the mob fell upon a settlement of our people and killed 18.) ... General Lucas then took 7 prisoners (and started for Jackson county), names of which is Joseph Smith Jr, Hyrum Smith, ... and started for Jackson County [on November 2nd]. The next day or two [November 4], general [John Bullock] Clark arrived with 1200–1500 men with the proper order of Extermination from the Governor. Though, between the time of Lucas' departure and the arrival of Clark, we was ... forced to sign this deed of trust. Among those of our antagonists were Wiley Williams, Thomas Berch, George M. Hinkle."

Henderson says it's uncontested that Lucas made up his "orders" but Clark had real ones. He associates the fake orders with the massacre in addition to the anti-mormon behaviors Lucas' men were enacting in Far West. I'll come back to the link to Haun's Mill in a minute, but first:

I see some substantial differences between the fake order and the real one. Even if we didn't have the above affidavit I think the first one seems less than legit.

1. I don't see the word "extermination" but rather "eliminate", while all or nearly all references to the real order use some form of "exterminate".
2. Lucas' "order" mentions "indiscriminately shoot[ing] down women and children", but even his own men found it controversial to murder children (as described later in the long block quote). These are the same men who thought nothing of wounding children, torturing adults to death, using human bodies as a latrine for days while the grieving families hide in nearby woods and watch, etc etc. Clark's militiamen were engaged in mob violence, but not to that level of depravity. They would not have stood for what Lucas was describing. In fact Lucas wanted Joseph Smith and the six other adult male prisoners executed the day after they were captured, but militiamen from a slightly less savage group refused to allow it, instead ensuring that Smith et al. were brought to a jail to await a trial with a judge who was not also jury and executioner. This is a huge difference between the two "orders." I have trouble believing this difference is just that Lucas was misquoted repeatedly and Clark was quoted accurately. It seems much more likely that Lucas, knowing that expulsion from various counties had already been happening, found it convenient to lie about this expulsion rule now applying to the entire state. I'll also come back to this later, with why he would want to be lying in this situation, but for now I'm just saying that the phrasing and implications are wildly different between the two. This would also explain why the murderers at Haun's Mill never cited EO44 as justification- they knew they had gone far beyond the scope of EO44, even in the eyes of fellow Missourians. If it was all the same order, we would expect that order to be mentioned as justification after the fact, but it wasn't.
3. While both "orders" say the Mormons can either leave the state or die, the first one adds that they must fully disarm and also sign away all their property to pay the troops acting against them. The latter requirement is counterproductive as they can't move if they have no property to sell to get provisions, and no livestock to pull wagons. Boggs would have understood that, and Clark demonstrates his understanding of it when he keeps most of the men with their families and withdraws the troops so they have some space to get ready to leave, plus gives them several months to get ready. Clark is actually trying to succeed in driving out the Mormons, knowing he has to be a bit more hands-off in order to get them out the door. Lucas is trying to fail at driving them out, so he can shoot everybody. His "order" conveniently aligns with that goal, and EO44 does not, which I think strongly suggests that this isn't a simple issue of people misquoting him.
4. This goes even further with Lucas demanding they be gone within 10 days, which is completely impossible even if he did allow them to keep their horses and the other things necessary to move. Boggs wants them out of the state. Clark wants them out of the state. Paradoxically, a 10 day requirement actually makes it harder for them to get out. Why try when failure is a guarantee? EO44 is worded as though Boggs wants them out. Lucas' wording is as though he wants to make ridiculous demands and then kill all the Mormons very slowly. Again, I think it's unlikely that these are both the same order and Lucas was just misquoted in a way that happens to be really convenient for him (see below). It's much more likely that the two orders are simply different from each other.

On a related note, why would Lucas have them sign the treaty if it's a law he is enforcing? They don't have to sign anything when Clark arrives holding an order that's actually legal to enforce.

I think Clark's speech implies the treaty and EO44 are different things: He says the saints signed a treaty with Lucas. He intends to hold them to it. If he had been in Lucas' place he would have made the same demands Lucas did. He makes a tangential comment about character, then makes his main point: Boggs ordered him to exterminate or drive out the Mormons. Had they refused to unconditionally surrender to Lucas they would have had their houses burned and then been killed, but in contrast, Boggs' orders to Clark allow him to be flexible. He is not actually going to enforce all the property seizures in the treaty, instead allowing them to live in their homes until Spring, and on top of that he is withdrawing the troops so the saints can raise funds/provisions for the exodus instead of cowering under muskets the whole time. In the speech he always calls the prior agreement a "treaty" but he calls what he has an "order". He doesn't come out and say that Lucas was lying about having orders from Boggs, but he certainly isn't conflating the treaty and EO44.

Looking at the above block quote from the murdered boy's mother, I think it's more consistent with Lucas lying than it is with Lucas telling the truth. He makes the refugees gather at Haun's Mill, disarming them on the way. Then according to other sources I read today, Lucas and his men come close to the settlement and look menacing just to freak people out. It works. Then they send a man into town and pretend at concern- we didn't want to scare you! Let's make a peace treaty just to soothe your anxieties! And then... the next day? Day after? I can't remember. Lucas invades and ignores the guy he'd signed the treaty with, even as the guy yells "Peace! Peace!" Some Mormon men start running into the blacksmith's while still calling out for a truce. Lucas says that any man who doesn't want to get shot should also go into the blacksmith's, implying he will accept their surrender once they all gather there. Then he waits several seconds with neither him nor his mob-men shooting at the men running toward the blacksmith's. He gives his men the signal and they all simultaneously shoot at the blacksmith's, just once, for effect. They then approach and surround it and we all know the story from there. While some of those details may have been exaggerated by the mormons writing the affidavits, I think it's pretty obvious that Lucas was planning a massacre from at least the time he re-routed the settlers to Haun's Mill if not before. Making up a lie about an order from Boggs fits the timeline better than EO44, which hadn't been written yet. And a lie fits with his vile planning process much better than the comparatively almost-civilized EO44. The similarities between his lie and the real order are easily explained when we recall that expulsion orders were already present for individual counties and they were on everyone's mind, making it only a small leap for Boggs to think up a statewide order, and a small leap for Lucas to also think up a fake statewide order, within several days of each other.

What cinched it for me was that Baugh in "A Call to Arms" (a very long, academic book on the Mormon War that was originally his PhD dissertation and then got picked up by a real publisher) has an entire chapter on the massacre. It has an eight page subchapter called "The Attack Not Connected to the Exterminating Order". I was unable to find any copies of this subchapter online for free, but Hartley in "Missouri’s 1838 Extermination Order" states "Baugh argues persuasively that the attackers had not heard about the extermination order; see Baugh, 'A Call to Arms,' 296–98". I looked into Baugh's credentials and there is no way he is simply unfamiliar with the sources we are reviewing today. So to me that strongly, strongly suggests that there is a solid case to be made that Lucas was lying, and EO44 and Haun's Mill are truly not directly connected. If anyone has access to Baugh's book or can determine what argument he spends eight pages making, particularly the three pages Hartley found persuasive, I think it would be extremely valuable for this discussion. Tripleahg (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm done here, folks. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It took some time for me to read over this. Thank you Tripleahg for looking over all this stufd. I agree what that EO44 and Haun's Mill are truly not directly connected. The statement is already cited with another source. Hopefully that will help calm things down.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hunted Like Rabbits

On October 14th, 1838, in Missouri, Joseph Smith declared his identification with Muhammad. “If the people will let us alone,” cried the prophet, “we will preach the gospel in peace. But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion by the sword. We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [al-Koran] or the sword.” So shall it eventually be with us–’Joseph Smith or the Sword’”. (Brodie, No Man Knows My History, ch. xvi, p. 231.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.231.32 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Giving Up

Ecjmartin has quit wikipedia over this. I'm out too. There are many published academic sources saying that EO44 was not related to the Haun's Mill massacre. Your source is the stories you were told as a child. If your family tradition states that satan himself took over the body of Governor Boggs and transformed him into a dragon who personally delivered EO44 across the state in less than a day before he ate several people and used their bones to guard diamonds, that's wonderful. Put it in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleahg (talk

Hartley, William G. (2001). "Missouri's 1838 Extermination Order and the Mormons' Forced Removal to Illinois" (PDF). Mormon Historical Studies. 2 (1): 6. is the source that Haun's Mill massacre used to show that published academic sources saying that EO44 was not related to the Haun's Mill massacre. It isn't hard to find others.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)