The Herero and Nama genocide or Namibian genocide, formerly known also as the Herero and Namaqua genocide, was a campaign of ethnic extermination and collective punishment which was waged against the Herero (Ovaherero) and the Nama in German South West Africa (now Namibia) by the German Empire. It was the first genocide to begin in the 20th century, occurring between 1904 and 1908. In January 1904, the Herero people, who were led by Samuel Maharero, and the Nama people, who were led by Captain Hendrik Witbooi, rebelled against German colonial rule. On 12 January 1904, they killed more than 100 German settlers in the area of Okahandja.

In August 1904, German General Lothar von Trotha defeated the Ovaherero in the Battle of Waterberg and drove them into the desert of Omaheke, where most of them died of dehydration. In October, the Nama people also rebelled against the Germans, only to suffer a similar fate. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Hereros and 10,000 Nama were killed in the genocide. The first phase of the genocide was characterized by widespread death from starvation and dehydration, due to the prevention of the Herero from leaving the Namib desert by German forces. Once defeated, thousands of Hereros and Namas were imprisoned in concentration camps, where the majority died of diseases, abuse, and exhaustion.

In 1985, the United Nations' Whitaker Report classified the aftermath as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South West Africa, and therefore one of the earliest attempts at genocide in the 20th century. In 2004, the German government recognised the events in what a German minister qualified as an "apology" but ruled out financial compensation for the victims' descendants.

 In July 2015, the German government and the speaker of the Bundestag officially called the events a "genocide"; however, it refused to consider reparations at that time. Despite this, the last batch of skulls and other remains of slaughtered tribesmen which were taken to Germany to promote racial superiority were taken back to Namibia in 2018, with Petra Bosse-Huber [de], a German Protestant bishop, describing the event as "the first genocide of the 20th century".

In May 2021, the German government issued an official statement in which it said that Germany

"apologizes and bows before the descendants of the victims. Today, more than 100 years later, Germany asks for forgiveness for the sins of their forefathers. It is not possible to undo what has been done. But the suffering, inhumanity and pain inflicted on the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children by Germany during the war in what is today Namibia must not be forgotten. It must serve as a warning against racism and genocide."

The same year, the German government agreed to pay €1.1 billion over 30 years to fund projects in communities that were impacted by the genocide.

The original inhabitants of what is now Namibia were the San and the Khoekhoe.

Herero, who speak a Bantu language, were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th century. The Herero seized vast swathes of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing. Agricultural duties, which were minimal, were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east.

The Hereros were a pastoral people whose entire way of life centred on their cattle. The Herero language, while limited in its vocabulary for most areas, contains more than a thousand words for the colours and markings of cattle. The Hereros were content to live in peace as long as their cattle were safe and well-pastured, but became formidable warriors when their cattle were threatened.

According to Robert Gaudi, "The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed of the fierceness that comes from basing one's way of life on a single source: everything they valued, all wealth and personal happiness, had to do with cattle. Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been. Because of their dominant ways and elegant bearing, the few Europeans who encountered Herero tribesmen in the early days regarded them as the region's 'natural aristocrats.'"

By the time of the Scramble for Africa, the area which was occupied by the Herero was known as Damaraland. The Nama were pastorals and traders and lived to the south of the Herero.

In 1883, Adolf Lüderitz, a German merchant, purchased a stretch of coast near Lüderitz Bay (Angra Pequena) from the reigning chief. The terms of the purchase were fraudulent, but the German government nonetheless established a protectorate over it. At that time, it was the only overseas German territory deemed suitable for European settlement.

Chief of the neighbouring Herero, Maharero rose to power by uniting all the Herero.  61  Faced with repeated attacks by the Khowesin, a clan of the Khoekhoe under Hendrik Witbooi, he signed a protection treaty on 21 October 1885 with Imperial Germany's colonial governor Heinrich Ernst Göring (father of Hermann Göring) but did not cede the land of the Herero. This treaty was renounced in 1888 due to lack of German support against Witbooi but it was reinstated in 1890.

The Herero leaders repeatedly complained about violation of this treaty, as Herero women and girls were raped by Germans, a crime that the German judges and prosecutors were reluctant to punish.

In 1890 Maharero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Ovaherero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.  29  German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894. 48  In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region

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.