From Chris Mato Nunoa: In the language of the first Minnesotans, this is a greeting, which means, "Hello my relatives, with a good heart, I greet all of you with a handshake." 

I would like to begin my presentation with this quotation by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Our nation was born in genocide. ... We are perhaps the only nation who has tried, as a matter of national policy, to wipe out its Indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today, we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode."

We celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s holiday on Monday, January 17, 2022. This man is a hero to me. His philosophy included me, a dark skinned Dakota man. Some of the white men who were presented as heroes and good men here at the Granite Falls Public Schools despised Native peoples. In fact, most of them were haters of, or fighters against, or killers of, First Nations Peoples. Many were all three: haters, fighters and killers. Dr. King's quotation could readily apply to the inception of Minnesota as a state. One can say, and Dakota people can also say, our state was born in genocide.

I think of Governor Alexander Ramsey's statement which he said many times in public, "Extermination or removal," referring to the Dakota people. Ramsey even said this to the Minnesota State Legislature. Ramsey was a genocider, a perpetrator of genocide. Or consider Jane Swisshelm's comments, editor of the St. Cloud Visitor, regarding the Dakota people: "Exterminate the wild beasts and kill the lazy vermin." Her comment regarding vermin foreshadowed Hitler and Himmler by 70 years plus in the Nazi's genocidal attitude toward the Jews, characterizing them as vermin. Also, her description of the Dakota people as wild beasts dehumanized the Dakota people, my people. When one dehumanizes a group it is then easy to say and do bad things to them. Lastly, General John Pope, who was stationed in St. Paul, said he would utterly exterminate the Dakota people, even if it took a year.

These statements advocate genocide and, as a result, many genocidal acts were perpetrated, which included but not limited to the forced marches, the two concentration camps at Fort Snelling and at Mankato, the mass executions, the forcible removals, the bounties placed on Dakota scalps, residential boarding schools, and dozens upon dozens of crimes against humanity advocated and perpetrated by the governor, the state of Minnesota and the Euro Minnesotan citizenry.

I would like to make a few comments on the Dakota presence in the Yellow Medicine area and about the state. First of all, the name of our ancient homelands, which includes the state of Minnesota, is Mni Sota Makoce, "land where the waters reflect the skies," translation by me, a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. The name Mni Sota Makoce is a reference to the thousands upon thousands of lakes which are located in the north central region of what is now called the United States of America. Hence, on the Minnesota car license plates we see written, "Land of 10,000 Lakes." The name of our state Minnesota is derived from our ancient Dakota name for this region.

Pioneer PBS, the Granite Falls Public Schools and the town of Granite Falls, Minnesota are all located on traditional Dakota homelands upon which the Dakota lived for millennia. These lands upon which we all now are located were involved in the two treaties of 1851; lands which basically have not been paid for. The ancient and traditional name for this area is Pezihuta Zizi K'api Makoce, "land where the yellow medicine as dug." Whoever was in the business of naming counties chose to use our ancient name for this place, Yellow Medicine County.

An incidental comment, the treaty of 1851 mentioned above reminds me of one of my favorite quotations from Roy W. Meyer, a white man, who wrote, "History of the Santee Sioux: United States Indian Policy on Trial": "Many observers have noted the moral obliquity that seemingly afflicted white men in their dealings with Indians. Men justly respected for integrity and fairness in their relations with other white men saw nothing reprehensible about resorting to all manner of chicanery and equivocation when dealing with the Dakota people." By the way, my great-great-grandfather was the first signatory on the Treaty of 1851 signed at Traverse de Sioux and his name was Eyangmani, or "Running Walker."

Back to place names containing the Dakota word for water, "mni." There is a lake near the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. We, the Dakota people, call it Mní iá Tháŋka, or literally big or large lake. In English, it is called Lake Minnetonka. Then there, then there's Minneapolis. It consists of the Dakota word for water "mni" and the Greek word "polis" which means city. So literally, Minneapolis means water city or city of water. However, in chamber of commerce style, Minneapolis is the City of Lakes.

Our site of origin is where the Minnesota river meets the Mississippi river, near the present day Twin Cities, St. Paul and Minneapolis. Most Indigenous peoples have their own origin stories. And their sites of origin are not in Europe or in Africa or the Middle East or in Asia, but here in the Indigenous hemisphere now known as the Americas. And of course we, the Dakota people, like to say: "We were not only the first peoples here, but we were always here, from the beginning, from the mists of time."

The river which flows through granite falls is Wakpa Mni Sota, or river of whitish water. The Dakota word "sota" means clear, but not perfectly so, or slightly clouded. Reverend Riggs, who compiled the Dakota-English Dictionary had a mission church here, the Pejuhatazizi Presbyterian Church or the Yellow Medicine Presbyterian Church.

Now I will say some things about my book, "The Great Evil: Genocide, the Bible, and Indigenous Peoples," which describes how Bible verses were used to justify not only exterminating the Dakota, but also to rationalize the stealing of Dakota homelands and to forcibly remove the Dakota from their ancient homelands. I have three research interests, Indigenous nations and Dakota studies, genocide studies and biblical studies. These three research interests converged and the idea for a book was conceived and developed. The book, "Great Evil," was the result.

There were three factors contributing to my book. One factor was the early missionaries especially the Presbyterians from the 1850s and the Episcopalians and the Assemblies of God which sent missionaries to our pezihutazizi oyate, "yellow medicine community." From the Assemblies of God, I learned many Bible verses and memorized dozens of Bible verses, which I still know today. The third denomination was the Episcopal church. My father was an authorized lay leader by the Episcopal diocese of Minnesota to conduct the morning offices and evening offices of prayer. I also attended Seabury Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, an Episcopal seminary.

Another factor was my association with the International Association of Genocide Scholars, IAGS. I was associated with the IAGS for about seven years. I lectured in different parts of the world: Kaigali, Rwanda; Galway, Ireland; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Mumbai, India; Sydney, Australia; etc., about the genocide of the Dakota people of Minnesota and the genocide of the Indigenous peoples in the United States. I learned many important aspects of genocide and what constitutes genocide. I learned that the actions taken by the United States against Native peoples and the actions taken by the state of Minnesota against the Dakota people were indeed acts of genocide.

Now, in the time and space I have remaining, I will provide an example of how Bible verses were used to justify killing Dakota people and to steal Dakota lands. I will use the state of Minnesota as my primary example for this presentation. One of the Bible verses used to justify vengeance upon and killing the Dakota people in Minnesota was Genesis 4:10: "... And God said, 'What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.'" From the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, we read: "Then he said, 'What have you done? Hark, your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.'" The Bible verse Genesis 4:10, a reference to the incident of Cain killing Abel was used to justify the killing of Dakota people. Governor Alexander Ramsey used this phrase before the Minnesota State Legislature on September 9, 1862: "The blood of the murdered cries out to heaven for vengeance."

Apparently Governor Ramsey was using the phrase, "the blood of the murder," to refer to the Euro Minnesotans who were killed by the Dakota because these whites were stealing Dakota lands. The Dakota resisted this theft as any other human beings would, including white people. However, to Ramsey, the Dakota had no rights through their own land, lands that they had been living on for thousands upon thousands of years. Furthermore, Ramsey and other Euro Minnesotans, the Swedes, Norwegians, the Germans and others who thought of themselves as God's chosen people, believed they had a right to the promised land. So, Ramsey said to the Minnesota State Legislature that the blood of the Euro Minnesotans, the innocent, were calling out to God in heaven to reek vengeance upon the wild beast, "the savage Dakota," and Governor Ramsey and the Euro Minnesotans were going to be the Lord's instruments of vengeance.

Another Euro Minnesotan, who referred to the same verse which contained "blood crieth out" that Ramsey used in addressing the state legislature was the newspaper editor, Jane Swisshelm of St. Cloud, Minnesota, who despite being an abolitionist and an early feminist, thought the Dakota had no right to defend their own lands. Swisshelm, like Ramsey, thought that the Euro Minnesotan land steelers were innocent and that their blood was now calling for vengeance. She wrote, "Exterminate the wild beasts, ... these red-jawed tigers, whose fangs are dripping with the blood of the innocents! Get ready, ... shoot them and be sure they are shot dead, dead, dead, dead. If they have any souls, the Lord can have mercy on them if he pleases, but that is His business. Ours is to kill the lazy vermin and make sure of killing them."

Another Bible verse that was used to justify stealing Dakota homelands was Genesis 1:28: "... And God blessed them and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.'" The "subdue the earth" notion help provide the rationale for stealing Dakota lands, for removing Dakota people from their ancient homelands. This idea was expounded on by white supremacist Charles Bryant who said of the Dakota-U.S. War of 1862 that it was "a conflict of knowledge with ignorance of right with wrong." Since the Dakota did not obey the injunction to subdue the earth, they were in the wrongful possession of a continent required by the superior right of the white man.

In a similar vein to that of Bryant, Senator Thomas Hart Benton said in 1846, "It would seem that the white race had alone received the divine commandment to subdue and replenish the earth and the indigenous peoples had no right to the land of the Americas because the land had been created for use by the white races according to the intentions of the creator for it is the only race that has obeyed it to subdue and replenish."

People like Charles Bryant and Senator Benton seemed to forget or were just plain ignorant of the fact that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, including North America, had been farming for millennia before the white man ever came to the Indigenous hemisphere. And that the Native peoples of the Americas gave the world 3/5 of the crops now in cultivation, like corn and the potato, etc., as well as medicinal plants — 200 of them — listed in the United States Pharmacopeia in 1820. They were also ignorant, or forgot, that the early towns and colonies would not have survived if they had not received agricultural technical assistance from the Native peoples living along the east coast.

Another verse from the King James Version, Genesis 12: 6, 7, that was used involves the notions of the promised land, chosen people and Canaan. Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in the land and the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, "Unto thy seed will I give this land." Probably the most powerful and influential Bible verses in teaching affecting both U.S. Euro Americans and Euro Minnesotans were and are those regarding the promised land, Canaan and chosen people. These notions, along with the genocidal commands of Yahweh, the Old Testament God, justified not only the massive land theft from Dakota Native peoples but also the mass murdering of them.

The promised land idea is found in a number of Old Testament verses, including Genesis 12: 6, 7. The New American Bible of Catholic translation also says, "The Canaanites were then in the land." Note, that these translations say that the Old Testament God was giving the land to Abram and the Israelites, or the Jews, while the Canaanites were still living in the land and had been there first. However, this fact did not stop Yahweh from giving the Canaanite homelands to the Israelites. This example from the Old Testament parallels the U.S. example where God is supposedly giving Indigenous lands to new chosen people: the Western Europeans, the U.S. Euro Americans and to the Euro Minnesotans, at least in their own arrogant thinking.

Now, let us look at how the notion of the promised land in Canaan, "Land of Milk and Honey," played out in Minnesota and other states in the north central United States and in the nation. To start, let's consider a paper written by George M. Stephenson from the University of Minnesota which was titled, "When America Was the Land of Canaan." It was read at the first Hutchinson session of the eighth state historical convention on June 14, 1929. In the paper, Stephenson talks of the thousands of letters that found their way from the USA back "to the small red cottages hidden among the pine clad rocky hills of Sweden." These letters talked about a new and ideal land, the wonderful country across the Atlantic, a land of milk and honey. A letter in November 1849 says, "I sincerely hope that nobody in Sweden will foolishly dissuade anyone from coming to this land of Canaan." A letter written on October 9, 1849 says, "My words are inadequate to describe with what joy we are permitted daily to draw water from the well of life and how we have come to the land of Canaan flowing with milk and honey which the scriptures tell us the Lord has prepared for his people."

There are many more such letters talking about the promised land, land of Canaan, land of milk and honey. These Swedish immigrants truly believed that Yahweh, the Jewish God of the Old Testament, promised and prepared Minnesota, Mni Sota Makoce, the ancient homelands of the Dakota people of Minnesota, for them! They further believed that they were the chosen people and they were symbolic Israelites, as did the Germans, the Norwegians, and English, the Belgians, and the other criminal Western European immigrants who were to become the Euro Americans, since the white settlers or land Steelers identified themselves as God's chosen people and Dakota lands were the promised land given to them by Yahweh, the Old Testament God.

What was the Indigenous perspective? Let me quote Robert Warrior, an Osage man and an academic, who wrote this classic statement with whom the Native people's identify: "The obvious characters in the story for native peoples to identify with are the Canaanites, the people who already lived in the promised land. As a member of the Osage nation, who stands in solidarity with other Indigenous peoples around the world, I read the Exodus stories with Canaanite eyes and it is the Canaanite side of the story that has been overlooked. Especially ignored are those parts of the story that describe Yahweh's command to mercilessly annihilate the Indigenous populations."

In conclusion, it is as easy to see how powerful and persuasive the biblical notions of the chosen people, the promised land, Canaan and the genocidal commands of the Jewish God of the Old Testament were upon not only the Swedish immigrants to Minnesota but also upon other Western European immigrants. These biblical notions were also the basis for the racist white supremacists and evil doctrine of Manifest Destiny. Like the Israelites who exterminated, removed and stole from the Canaanites, the U.S. and its white citizenry exterminated, removed and stole from the Dakota people of Minnesota and from the Indigenous peoples of what is now known as the United States of America.

I would like to think that you have caught a small glimpse of how significant the Bible and some of its evil teachings were and were so instrumental in what was done to the Dakota people of Minnesota and to other Indigenous peoples of the US. Hopefully you have also gotten an idea of what my book, "The Great Evil," is about.

President Ronald Reagan was Racist. 

The only thing shocking about the news that Reagan, the Republicans’ beloved secular god, made a racist comment is that there are people who are somehow surprised by this revelation. In the October 1971 audio clip, Reagan, then California’s governor, calls President Nixon to denounce a United Nations vote recognizing the People’s Republic of China, one celebrated by members of the Tanzanian delegation.

“Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did . . . to see those, those monkeys from those African countries,” Reagan said. “Damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

Nixon, who taped the conversation, responded with a hearty laugh. (Always with the taping, that Tricky Dick.)

I hope I’m not breaking any news here when I say Nixon, too, was a racist.

“This October 1971 exchange between current and future presidents is a reminder that other presidents have subscribed to the racist belief that Africans or African Americans are somehow inferior,” Naftali, now a New York University history professor, wrote in an essay for The Atlantic. “The most novel aspect of President Donald Trump’s racist gibes isn’t that he said them, but that he said them in public.”

In a statement, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation said, “If he said that 50 years ago, he shouldn’t have. And he would be the first person to apologize.”

There’s no “if.” That’s clearly Reagan’s voice. And Reagan’s list of apologies to black people would be far longer than contrition over a recorded slur. He bent one woman’s story, dubbing her a “welfare queen,” into a vile stereotype of black women hustling taxpayer dollars to support lavish lifestyles. Reagan then used it to attack housing benefits, aid to children in poverty, and food stamp programs. His disdain for the gay community made him ignore the ravages of AIDS, which also disproportionately affected straight black women and Haitians, for most of his presidency. Many were killed by presidential neglect, as well as the virus.

Black worshippers are now embraced as equals among Jehovah's Witnesses, but it hasn't always been this way.

Most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Watch Tower Society is completely beyond reproach when it comes to issues surrounding racism and racial equality. When attending a meeting, convention, or assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses, one is instantly impressed at the intermingling and harmony between people of all ethnic backgrounds. Watchtower publications speak of all races being equal before a God who is “not partial.” Generally speaking, this philosophy filters down as a positive influence on the way members of different races treat one another within our organization. We even have a black brother, Samuel Herd, now sitting on the Governing Body!

However, things haven’t always been this way. In fact, the road to racial harmony has been just as “bumpy” for our organization as it has for many others. If you were to read some early Watchtower publications, you would doubtless be shocked and appalled by some of the offensive rhetoric employed by the writers of the Society’s literature back then. Indeed, if such literature was reprinted or otherwise circulated today as representing the Society’s current attitudes towards race, the organization would likely end up facing yet more serious legal entanglements, not to mention an outcry from their many non-white members spread across the globe.

Sadly, there are numerous examples of racial bigotry in the Society’s early literature, and few non-white races escape unscathed. I will attempt to catalogue some of the more offensive quotes in this article. For brevity, I will present a “timeline” of racist expressions as published by the Society, followed by a more thorough analysis of each quoted text in date order.

The above excerpt is taken from Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15th 1900, page 122.

Russell’s magazine freely acknowledged that its discriminatory advertisement for volunteers was founded on a stereotype of blacks having “less education than whites.” Then it expressed his outrageous opinion that “reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted.” It seems difficult to fathom how Russell, who blushed at suggestions that he was God’s “Faithful and Wise Servant,” could harbor and promulgate such a deplorable and misconceived attitude towards black men and women. This bizarre outlook presented itself in his other writings, most notably when he touched on his strange obsession with “the Ethiopian’s skin.”

In the above article entitled “Can Restitution Change The Ethiopian’s Skin?” Russell leaps upon an incident whereby a black preacher claimed to have developed white skin after having prayed for it. Reverend Draper, who apparently told others that “if he could only be white like his employer, he would be happy,” started praying thirty years prior to the article and experienced a transformation over the period leading up to its publication. Once his skin was completely white, he returned to his former church, and had a hard time convincing the members of his identity. We now know that this “miraculous” transformation was the result of Vitiligo, a medical condition resulting in depigmentation of areas of skin. It isn’t that rare, and I’ve met people who have this condition. Perhaps you have too.

However, Russell was apparently so obsessed by the idea of black people becoming white that he would leap on any related report as evidence that this might happen on a grander scale in the future. The February 15, 1904 Watchtower reported a similar incident involving a nine-year-old boy named Julius Jackson under the heading “Can The Ethiopian Change His Skin?” which I reproduce below:

The above excerpt is taken from

Zion’s Watch Tower, February 15th 1904, pages 52-53.

Again, it’s difficult to fathom why Russell was so preoccupied with the concept of blacks becoming whites. What was so wrong for him about their original color? Why would the color of a person’s skin make any difference to a God who is “not partial”? I suppose only Russell knew that answer.

A telling insight into Russell’s attitudes towards race came in another Watchtower article in 1902. That article, entitled “The Negro Not A Beast,” attempted to banish the extremely offensive idea being promulgated in a book of the period that black men and women were somehow on a par with animals. Despite its tacit opposition to this outrageous concept, the Watchtower’s riposte was tainted by more than a hint of racist ideology.

The above excerpt is taken from Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15th 1902, pages 215-216.

To paint Africa’s “various tribes or nations of negroes” as being “degraded” is a highly offensive racial slur by anyone’s standards. By comparison, it claims that the white race “exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other,” and enjoys “preeminence in the world.” Further down, that same article states that the Caucasian has “greater intelligence and aptitude” as a result of a “commingling of blood” under “divine control.” The article, which ironically sets out to counter racist arguments, ends up making more than a few of its own. We are left with an ideology that wouldn’t look out-of-place in a Nazi propaganda leaflet. Black people aren’t the only ones humiliated by this article; it also suggests that Indians and Chinese have some catching up to do genetically before they are to “equally brighten their intellects.”

At this point, it’s worth reminding ourselves that Charles Taze Russell didn’t necessarily pen these articles himself. Zion’s Watch Tower had at least five regular contributors. However, Russell was the chief editor and would have checked each article personally before approving it for print. Even if he hadn’t written a certain article himself, he would have signed off on it before publication in a magazine for which he was legally accountable. Therefore, readers may consider any racially offensive article published under his editorship as representing his views. I’m sure he would have scrapped any article without the slightest hesitation if it conflicted with his own opinions.

It wasn’t long before Russell’s dim view of the “colored brethren” generated yet more offense and outrage among his black readership. In January 1914, during a screening of the Photodrama of Creation at The Temple, West 63rd Street, a number of negro audience members were segregated from their white counterparts and made to sit separately on the balcony of the auditorium. This caused understandable outrage, and several wrote angry letters – furious that they had suffered such discrimination at the hands of their “brothers.” The Society printed a response under the heading “The Color Line Found Necessary” in the April 1 Watchtower, reproduced below:2

The above excerpt is taken from Zion’s Watch Tower, April 1st 1914, pages 105-106.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre (September 7–11, 1857) was a series of attacks during the Utah War that resulted in the mass murder of at least 120 members of the Baker–Fancher wagon train.

The massacre occurred in the southern Utah Territory at Mountain Meadows, and was perpetrated by settlers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) involved with the Utah Territorial Militia (officially called the Nauvoo Legion) who recruited and were aided by some Southern Paiute Native Americans.

The wagon train, made up mostly of immigrant families from Arkansas, was bound for California, traveling on the Old Spanish Trail that passed through the Territory.

After arriving in Salt Lake City, the Baker–Fancher party made their way south along the Mormon Road, eventually stopping to rest at Mountain Meadows. The party's journey occurred amidst hostilities between Mormon settlers and the U.S. government, with war hysteria rampant amongst the Mormons.

Acting on rumors of hostile behavior on the part of the travelers, local Mormon militia leaders, including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, made plans to attack them as they camped at the meadow. The leaders of the militia, wanting to give the impression of tribal hostilities, persuaded Southern Paiutes to join with a larger party of militiamen disguised as Native Americans in an attack on the wagon train.

During the militia's first assault, the travelers fought back, and a five-day siege ensued. Eventually, fear spread among the militia's leaders that some immigrants had caught sight of the white men, likely discerning the actual identity of a majority of the attackers.

As a result, militia commander William H. Dame ordered his forces to kill the travelers. By this time, the travelers were running low on water and provisions, and allowed some members of the militia – who approached under a white flag – to enter their camp. The militia members assured the immigrants they were protected, and after handing over their weapons, the immigrants were escorted away from their defensive position. 

After walking a distance from the camp, the militiamen, with the help of auxiliary forces hiding nearby, attacked the travelers. The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children in the group, in the end sparing only seventeen young children ages six and under.

Following the massacre, the perpetrators buried some of the remains but ultimately left most of the bodies exposed to wild animals and the climate. Local families took in the surviving children, with many of the victims' possessions and remaining livestock being auctioned off.

 Investigations, which were interrupted by the American Civil War, resulted in nine indictments in 1874. Of the men who were indicted, only Lee was tried in a court of law. After two trials in the Utah Territory, Lee was convicted by a jury, sentenced to death and executed by firing squad on March 23, 1877.

Historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors, including war hysteria about a possible invasion of Mormon territory and Mormon teachings against outsiders during the Mormon Reformation. Scholars debate whether senior leadership in the LDS Church, including Brigham Young, directly instigated the massacre or if responsibility for it lay only with the leaders of the militia.

Baker–Fancher party

In early 1857, the Baker–Fancher party was formed from several groups mainly from Marion, Crawford, Carroll and Johnson counties in northwestern Arkansas. They assembled into a wagon train at Beller's Stand, south of Harrison, to emigrate to southern California. The group was initially referred to as both the Baker train and the Perkins train, but later referred to as the Baker–Fancher train (or party). 

It was named after "Colonel" Alexander Fancher who, having already made the journey to California twice before, had become its main leader. By contemporary standards the Baker–Fancher party was prosperous, carefully organized and well-equipped for the journey. They were joined along the way by families and individuals from other states, including Missouri. The group was relatively wealthy, and planned to restock its supplies in Salt Lake City, as did most wagon trains at the time.

Interactions with Mormon settlers

At the time of the Fanchers' arrival, the Utah Territory, though legally a democracy, was effectively a theocracy under the leadership of Brigham Young, the second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), who had established colonies along the California Trail and the Old Spanish Trail. U.S. President James Buchanan had recently issued an order to send federal troops to Utah, which led to rumors being spread in the territory about its motives. Young issued various orders that urged the local population to prepare for the arrival of the troops. Eventually Young issued a declaration of martial law.

The Baker–Fancher party was refused provisions in Salt Lake City and chose to leave there and take the Old Spanish Trail, which passed through southern Utah. In August 1857, the Mormon apostle George A. Smith traveled throughout the southern part of the territory instructing Mormon settlers to stockpile grain. 

While on his return trip to Salt Lake City, Smith camped near the Baker–Fancher party on August 25, 1857, at Corn Creek. They had traveled the 165 miles (266 km) south from Salt Lake City, and Jacob Hamblin suggested that the wagon train continue on the trail and rest their cattle at Mountain Meadows, which had good pasture and was adjacent to his homestead.

While most witnesses said that the Fanchers were in general a peaceful party whose members behaved well along the trail, rumors spread about their supposed misdeeds. United States Army Brevet Major James Henry Carleton led the first federal investigation of the murders, and the findings were published in 1859. He recorded Hamblin's account that the train was alleged to have poisoned a spring near Corn Creek, resulting in the deaths of eighteen cows and two or three people who ate the contaminated meat.

 Carleton interviewed the father of a child who allegedly died from this poisoned spring and accepted the sincerity of the grieving father. He also included a statement from an investigator who did not believe the Fancher party was capable of poisoning the spring, given its size. Carleton invited readers to consider a potential explanation for the rumors of misdeeds, noting the general atmosphere of distrust among Mormons for strangers at the time, and that some locals appeared jealous of the Fancher party's wealth.

Killings and aftermath

On Friday, September 11, 1857, two militiamen approached the Baker–Fancher party wagons with a white flag and were soon followed by Indian Agent and militia officer John D. Lee. Lee told the battle-weary emigrants that he had negotiated a truce with the Paiutes. Under Mormon protection, the wagon-train members would be escorted safely back to Cedar City, 36 miles (58 km) away, in exchange for turning all of their livestock and supplies over to the Native Americans.

Accepting this offer, the emigrants were led out of their fortification, with the adult men being separated from the women and children. The men were paired with a militia escort and when the signal was given, the militiamen turned and shot the male members of the Baker–Fancher party standing by their side. 

The women and children were then ambushed and killed by more militia that were hiding in nearby bushes and ravines. Members of the militia were sworn to secrecy. A plan was set to blame the massacre on the Native Americans.

Survivor Nancy Saphrona Huff was taken away along with her family's possessions by John Willis to reside at his house until she was returned to relatives in Arkansas two years later. 

The militia did not kill small children who were deemed too young to relate what had happened. Nancy Huff, one of the seventeen survivors and just over four years old at the time of the massacre, recalled in an 1875 statement that an eighteenth survivor was killed directly in front of the other children. "At the close of the massacre there was eighteen children still alive, one girl, some ten or twelve years old, they said was too big and could tell, so they killed her, leaving seventeen."

 The survivors were taken in by local Mormon families. Seventeen of the children were later reclaimed by the U.S. Army and returned to relatives in Arkansas. 

The treatment of these children while they were held by the Mormons is uncertain, but Captain James Lynch's statement in May 1859 said the surviving children were "in a most wretched condition, half starved, half naked, filthy, infested with vermin, and their eyes diseased from the cruel neglect to which they had been exposed."  Lynch's July 1859 affidavit added that they when they first saw the children they had "little or no clothing" and were "covered with filth and dirt".

Survivor Christopher "Kit" Fancher as an adult.

Leonard J. Arrington, founder of the Mormon History Association, reports that Brigham Young received the rider, James Haslam, at his office on the same day. When he learned what was contemplated by the militia leaders in Parowan and Cedar City, he sent back a letter stating the Baker–Fancher party was not to be meddled with, and should be allowed to go in peace (although he acknowledged the Native Americans would likely "do as they pleased"). Young's letter arrived two days too late, on September 13, 1857.

The livestock and personal property of the Baker–Fancher party, including women's jewelry, clothing and bedstuffs were distributed or auctioned off to Mormons. Some of the surviving children saw clothing and jewelry that had belonged to their dead mothers and sisters subsequently being worn by Mormon women and the journalist J.H. Beadle said that jewelry taken from Mountain Meadows was seen in Salt Lake City.

Investigations and prosecutions

An early investigation was conducted by Brigham Young, who interviewed John D. Lee on September 29, 1857. In 1858, Young sent a report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs stating that the massacre was the work of Native Americans. The Utah War delayed any investigation by the U.S. federal government until 1859, when Jacob Forney and U.S. Army Brevet Major James Henry Carleton conducted investigations.

In Carleton's investigation, at Mountain Meadows he found women's hair tangled in sage brush and the bones of children still in their mothers' arms. Carleton later said it was "a sight which can never be forgotten." After gathering up the skulls and bones of those who had died, Carleton's troops buried them and erected a cairn and cross.

Carleton interviewed a few local Mormon settlers and Paiute Native American chiefs and concluded that there was Mormon involvement in the massacre. He issued a report in May 1859, addressed to the U.S. Assistant Adjutant-General, setting forth his findings. Jacob Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah, also conducted an investigation that included visiting the region in the summer of 1859. 

Forney retrieved many of the surviving children of massacre victims who had been housed with Mormon families and gathered them up for transportation to their relatives in Arkansas. Forney concluded that the Paiutes did not act alone and the massacre would not have occurred without the white settlers, and Carleton report to the U.S. Congress called the mass killings a "heinous crime", blaming both local and senior church leaders for the massacre.

In March 1859, Judge John Cradlebaugh, a federal judge brought into the territory after the Utah War, convened a grand jury in Provo concerning the massacre, but the jury declined any indictments. Nevertheless, Cradlebaugh conducted a tour of the Mountain Meadows area with a military escort. He attempted to arrest John D. Lee, Isaac Haight, and John Higbee, who fled before they could be found. 

Cradlebaugh publicly charged Brigham Young as an instigator to the massacre and therefore an "accessory before the fact". Possibly as a protective measure against the mistrusted federal court system, Mormon territorial probate court judge Elias Smith arrested Young under a territorial warrant, perhaps hoping to divert any trial of Young into a friendly Mormon territorial court. Apparently because no federal charges ensued, Young was released.

Further investigations were cut short by the American Civil War in 1861, but proceeded in 1871 when prosecutors obtained the affidavit of militia member Philip Klingensmith. Klingensmith had been a bishop and blacksmith from Cedar City; by the 1870s, however, he had left the church and moved to Nevada.

Lee was arrested on November 7, 1874. Dame, Philip Klingensmith, Ellott Willden, and George Adair Jr. were indicted and arrested while warrants to pursue the arrests of four others who had gone into hiding (Haight, Higbee, William C. Stewart, and Samuel Jukes) were being obtained. Klingensmith escaped prosecution by agreeing to testify. Brigham Young excommunicated some participants, including Haight and Lee, from the LDS Church in 1870. The U.S. posted bounties of $5000 USD (equivalent to $120,500 in 2023) each for the capture of Haight, Higbee, Stewart, and Klingensmith.

Lee's first trial began on July 23, 1875, in Beaver, before a jury of eight Mormons and four non-Mormons. One of Lee's defense attorneys was Enos D. Hoge, a former territorial supreme court justice. The trial led to a hung jury on August 5, 1875. Lee's second trial began September 13, 1876, before an all-Mormon jury. The prosecution called Daniel Wells, Laban Morrill, Joel White, Samuel Knight, Samuel McMurdy, Nephi Johnson, and Jacob Hamblin.

Lee also stipulated, against advice of counsel, that the prosecution be allowed to re-use the depositions of Young and Smith from the previous trial. Lee called no witnesses in his defense, and was convicted.

Lee was entitled under Utah Territorial statute to choose the method of his execution from three possible options: hanging, firing squad, or decapitation. At sentencing, Lee chose to be executed by firing squad. In his final words before his sentence was carried out at Mountain Meadows on March 23, 1877, Lee said that he was a scapegoat for others involved. Brigham Young stated that Lee's fate was just, but it was not a sufficient blood atonement, given the enormity of the crime.

Further investigations were cut short by the American Civil War in 1861, but proceeded in 1871 when prosecutors obtained the affidavit of militia member Philip Klingensmith. Klingensmith had been a bishop and blacksmith from Cedar City; by the 1870s, however, he had left the church and moved to Nevada.

Lee was arrested on November 7, 1874. Dame, Philip Klingensmith, Ellott Willden, and George Adair Jr. were indicted and arrested while warrants to pursue the arrests of four others who had gone into hiding (Haight, Higbee, William C. Stewart, and Samuel Jukes) were being obtained. Klingensmith escaped prosecution by agreeing to testify. Brigham Young excommunicated some participants, including Haight and Lee, from the LDS Church in 1870. The U.S. posted bounties of $5000 USD (equivalent to $120,500 in 2023) each for the capture of Haight, Higbee, Stewart, and Klingensmith.

Lee's first trial began on July 23, 1875, in Beaver, before a jury of eight Mormons and four non-Mormons. One of Lee's defense attorneys was Enos D. Hoge, a former territorial supreme court justice. The trial led to a hung jury on August 5, 1875. Lee's second trial began September 13, 1876, before an all-Mormon jury. The prosecution called Daniel Wells, Laban Morrill, Joel White, Samuel Knight, Samuel McMurdy, Nephi Johnson, and Jacob Hamblin.

Lee also stipulated, against advice of counsel, that the prosecution be allowed to re-use the depositions of Young and Smith from the previous trial. Lee called no witnesses in his defense, and was convicted.

Lee was entitled under Utah Territorial statute to choose the method of his execution from three possible options: hanging, firing squad, or decapitation. At sentencing, Lee chose to be executed by firing squad. In his final words before his sentence was carried out at Mountain Meadows on March 23, 1877, Lee said that he was a scapegoat for others involved. Brigham Young stated that Lee's fate was just, but it was not a sufficient blood atonement, given the enormity of the crime.