Sally Denton's American Massacre: Authentic Mormon Past versus the Danite Interpretation of History
Reviewed by Robert H. Briggs
In 1950 Juanita Brooks authored her now-classic history, The Mountain Meadows Massacre.1 In 1962 she published a revised edition and in 1970 added a new introduction, correcting minor errors and offering refinements in her views. Then in 1976 William Wise wrote Massacre at Mountain Meadows.2 But Wise was not up to the challenge of this daunting historiographical problem. Based largely on secondary sources and full of stock heroes and villains from the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century anti-Mormon Danite genre, Massacre at Mountain Meadows could not boast of nuance, rigor, or sophistication in its treatment of sources. It is among the worst of the twentieth-century treatments of the massacre.
In 2002 Will Bagley published Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows.3 Although Bagley's work was flawed by his jaundiced view of Brigham Young and an inconsistent interpretive framework, it at least had the advantage of his familiarity with the primary sources of the massacre and with Utah and Western history generally. Now Sally Denton offers us American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857. Just as Wise borrowed heavily from Brooks, so, too, does Denton borrow from Bagley, R. Kent Fielding, and others who have written recent treatments of frontier Utah. Mostly, however, she relies on the old counter-Mormon literature. Unfortunately, Sally Denton's American Massacre has done little to advance our understanding of the massacre or its many challenging historiographical problems.
American Massacre is divided into a prologue, three parts, and an epilogue. The first part deals with the founding and growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The second traces the 1857 passage of the Fancher train through frontier Utah at the outbreak of the Utah War to the bloody massacre at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah Territory. The third treats events after the massacre: the settlement of the Utah War, the government investigations in the late 1850s, and the trial, conviction, and execution of John D. Lee in the 1870s. The brief epilogue sketches the impact of the massacre on such figures as Mormon leader Brigham Young, perpetrator John D. Lee, mediator Thomas Kane, Judge John Cradlebaugh, and survivor Sarah Dunlap. It concludes with the discovery of human bones during repairs to the cairn monument in 1999, with some observations on contemporary issues concerning the massacre site.
In part 1, "The Gathering," Denton describes Joseph Smith and the religious movement he founded. She traces the progress of the church from New York to Kirtland, Ohio, and then to Jackson County, Missouri. Denton follows the well-trod history of the growth of the church, the gathering of the faithful into centralized locations, the clashes with old settlers and detractors, the death of the prophet-leader Joseph Smith, and the beginning of the western exodus under Brigham Young to the Great Basin of the American West. She leaves off with the Gunnison massacre of 1853 on the Sevier River in central Utah.
Denton's discussion of Joseph Smith is influenced by the controversial psychoanalytical methods of Fawn M. Brodie and Robert D. Anderson.4 She seems unaware of the weakness in these psychoanalytical approaches or in psychiatry's efforts to regain its scientific footing by distancing itself from the excessive claims of Freudian analysis in its early history.5
Denton also relies heavily on the work of R. Kent Fielding, whose 1993 study, The Unsolicited Chronicler,6 argues for Mormon involvement in the deaths of John W. Gunnison, his Mormon guide, and six members of Gunnison's survey party in central Utah. In her acknowledgments, Denton lists Fielding first and acknowledges her special debt to him. She cites the Fieldings' works, The Unsolicited Chronicler and The Tribune Reports of the Trials of John D. Lee,7 some seventy times, more than David Bigler and Will Bagley combined. Again, Denton seems unaware of the controversial nature of Fielding's Gunnison massacre thesis or that it represents a minority view among Western historians.8 She relies heavily on Fielding for her interpretation of both the Gunnison and Mountain Meadows massacres.
Continuing her synthesis of questionable or controversial secondary sources, Denton argues in part 2, "The Passage," that the "heart" of the Mormon reformation was "the revival of blood atonement" (p. 106). However, there is stronger evidence that the heart of the reformation was instead personal reformation, communal economic innovations, and a dramatic increase in the number of those entering plural marriage. Having introduced her readers to "Danite chief Bill Hickman" (p. 81), Denton henceforth conflates every other Mormon marshal, militiaman, or church official into a "Danite." Thus she identifies Anson Call as a Danite (p. 85), she cites the alleged work of Brigham Young's "Avenging Angels" (p. 106), and she claims that federal officials could not challenge the "vigilante tactics of the Danites" (p. 108). She describes John D. Lee's "status with the Danites" in southern Utah (p. 154) and presents the Nauvoo Legion's tactical repulse of Colonel Johnston's Utah expeditionary force in eastern Utah as "the Danites [burning] Fort Bridger" and "forty-four Danites [raiding] an army supply train" (p. 168). When in summer 1858 the Latter-day Saints returned to Great Salt Lake City from the "Move South," Denton maintains that Brigham Young "surrounded his properties with Danites" (p. 184). Describing Amasa Lyman as "devout and kindhearted," Denton says further that Lyman was "a high priest, apostle, and Danite since the early days at Kirtland" (p. 212). She notes that Lyman urged participants in the massacre to make "'full confession and take the consequences.'" Then, dramatically, she concludes: "[Lyman] would be excommunicated" (p. 212). This juxtaposition insinuates that Lyman's observations about the massacre may have cost him his church membership. Of course, it was his dalliance in spiritualism and other matters, not Mountain Meadows, that led to Lyman's excommunication.9 Seeing Danites everywhere, it is only a small step for Denton to conclude that the Mountain Meadows massacre was the work of Mormon Danites under orders of the Mormon prophet Brigham Young.
In part 3, "The Legacy," Denton narrates the two-decade period from the massacre through the conviction and execution of John D. Lee. Borrowing again from Fielding and Bagley, she analyzes the massacre. Then returning to surer ground, Denton describes the events of 1858, including the work of Thomas L. Kane as mediator of the Washington-Mormon disputes, the appointment of peace commissioners, and the presidential pardon and resolution of the Utah War. By 1859, the influx of government officials and soldiers temporarily energized the massacre investigation. Denton describes the work of Judge John Cradlebaugh, Utah Indian Superintendent Jacob Forney, U.S. Army Captains James Lynch and Reuben P. Campbell, Army surgeon Dr. Charles Brewer, and U.S. Marshal William Rogers, who in the course of their duties acquired information concerning the massacre and left reports or correspondence later collected in important government documents. During most of the 1860s the overriding governmental preoccupation was, of course, the Civil War and its aftermath. Meanwhile, in 1861 Mark Twain described the massacre in Roughing It. In the mid-1860s, disaffected Mormon Charles Wandell, using the pseudonym Argus, published an exposé of the massacre in the Utah Reporter and loudly queried why the perpetrators had not been prosecuted. As the 1860s gave way to the 1870s, wealthy Mormon William Godbe formed the Godbeite group. After his excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ, Godbe started the Mormon Tribune, which later became the Salt Lake Daily Tribune. Eventually sold to gentile interests in Salt Lake City, the Daily Tribune became the mouthpiece for the most vocal and strident of the anti-Mormons in Utah.
Meanwhile, in 1870 Brigham Young excommunicated John D. Lee, who moved with his remaining families to Lonely Dell at the confluence of the Paria and Colorado rivers in northern Arizona. Hoping to escape notice, Lee plied his ferry trade on the Colorado. But in 1871 Philip Klingensmith, the former Mormon bishop in Cedar City and a massacre participant, provided an affidavit to court officials in Pioche, Nevada, that was leaked to the press and widely circulated in 1872. This and other events rekindled interest in prosecuting massacre perpetrators. Passage of the Poland Act in 1874 strengthened the jurisdiction of federal courts in Utah. Sitting in the second district court in Beaver, Judge Jacob Boreman's grand jury issued an indictment for murder against nine alleged perpetrators. The leading defendants were William H. Dame, Isaac C. Haight, John M. Higbee, Philip Klingensmith, John D. Lee, and William Stewart.
Denton closes with the two trials of John D. Lee. The first, which took place in summer 1875, concluded in a hung jury, nine to three for acquittal. For the second trial in 1876, Sumner Howard had replaced William Carey as U.S. attorney in Utah Territory. In a controversial move, Howard sought Mormon cooperation in obtaining new witnesses to overcome the weaknesses of the prosecution's case in the first trial. With introductions from Mormon leadership, Howard interviewed Mormon wagon drivers Samuel Knight and Samuel McMurdy and Indian interpreter Nephi Johnson, all of whom had been at the massacre and near Lee. At the second trial in September 1876, Howard presented a lean but focused case, calling these witnesses as well as Jacob Hamblin who, while not at the massacre, had an interview with Lee some days after it. Lee's defense lawyers were not able to shake the prosecution witnesses nor did they call any witnesses of their own in rebuttal. The jury convicted Lee of first-degree murder, and Judge Boreman sentenced Lee to death. Lee chose the option of dying by firing squad. After his legal appeals and request for clemency were denied, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows on 23 March 1877.
Denton, like Bagley, argues that there was a corrupt "deal" between the U.S. attorney for Utah and the Mormon prophet. According to this argument, the quid pro quo in the corrupt bargain was Mormon guarantees of a conviction of John D. Lee in exchange for federal prosecutor guarantees that further Mountain Meadows prosecutions would be dropped. This argument is entirely circumstantial, while the countervailing evidence is the little-known, behind-the-scenes efforts of Howard, Judge Boreman, and others to pursue prosecution of massacre defendants and fugitives from justice—Isaac Haight, John Higbee, and William Stewart.10 But as Congress never approved the funding requests from Utah officials, the fugitives were never captured. Besides, the nation was pursuing an impassioned antipolygamy crusade against the Mormon leadership. In 1877, after the deaths of Brigham Young and George A. Smith, there was more bang for the congressional buck in antipolygamy measures than in Mountain Meadows prosecutions. Thus, as federal antipolygamy efforts and funding increased, Mountain Meadows prosecutions declined correspondingly. The public soon lost interest.
This third part is not without its shortcomings—examples include Denton's faulty massacre analysis in chapter 11 and her theory of a corrupt "deal" between Howard and Young in chapter 15. Yet this section is better than either of the first two since the errors of fact and interpretation are less frequent and less glaring. Additionally, while still demonstrating her considerable skills at synthesis and prose style, Denton shows that she can approach balance and evenhandedness in treating the Mormon past, if not actually achieving it. Here at least, the Danite interpretation of Latter-day Saint history is less apparent.
Denton tells a rip-roaring tale with both economy and color. She also shows skill in synthesizing secondary sources. With better knowledge of her sources and more care in interpreting them, she could be a skillful popularizer. Although she interjects the opinions of past writers on the massacre far too often—quoting, for example, Stenhouse, Gibbs, Brooks, Wise, Fielding, Quinn, Bigler, and Bagley at excessive length—she organizes her sources and maintains a coherent narrative thread. How, then, did her project miscarry so badly?
Denton's book is marred by errors of fact and interpretation too numerous to list. These difficulties mostly stem from Denton's uncritical use of sources. The book's shortcomings can be thus summarized:
Denton cites sources by or about John D. Lee more than one hundred thirty times.11 Besides Lee, the only other perpetrator accounts she mentions are those of former Mormon bishop Philip Klingensmith, whom she cites seven times. Are these sources sufficient? Since the human enterprise we call "writing history" condenses the complexity of the past, is the "history" (the narrative account) representative of the "past" (the actual complex of events and actors) under consideration? Specifically, is Denton's narrative synthesis representative of the authentic source material?
I have provided an appendix listing key primary sources. Before the reader forms his or her opinion, consider the extent of the sources listed there. These were witnesses to events surrounding the massacre or to important episodes in its aftermath. Most are militiamen of the Iron Military District in southern Utah. What the appendix shows is that, besides John D. Lee, more than sixty additional witnesses provide approximately eighty-five additional primary documents, very few of which Sally Denton considers in her study. On this ground alone, Denton's treatment of the massacre is inadequate.
Reliable Methods of Interpretation
To be sure, John D. Lee is an important source, and his statements should be considered in reconstructing the massacre. By Lee's own account, he played a central role in the deadly affair. But Denton does not address the obvious question about the reliability of Lee's accounts: After Lee's 1876 murder conviction branded him the most notorious mass murderer in the nineteenth-century American West, wouldn't he logically be tempted to shade his account to justify his own conduct or deflect blame to others? Put another way, how reliable are the accounts of John D. Lee?
In evaluating John D. Lee and every other witness or alleged perpetrator at Mountain Meadows, one should require verification of details from other reliable sources. Next, as I have argued elsewhere,12 close analysis of the text of the perpetrator or witness narratives shows that they are composed of different elements, some of which are more reliable than others. Among the perpetrators of the massacre, their narrative accounts are a form of apologia—verbal accounts structured as a defense or justification. Many of the accounts have one or more main thematic points whose function is to excuse or justify the narrator. These are sustained by subsidiary themes supporting the main themes.
To a surprising degree, however, many of the accounts contain a second component, elements that admit or confess to participation in crime. Both common sense and the common and statutory law of many jurisdictions interpret such statements in this light: individuals would not make such admissions against their personal interests unless they were true. Thus, given the improbability that a militiaman would make such a confession unless it was true, these statements are reliable, especially when independently verified.
The militia statements also contain a third element, "incidental detail." These are elements in the narrative that are neither part of the defense nor of the (possibly unintended) confessions, about which each narrator would have "no reason to lie." When independently verified from other sources, these elements are likely reliable. Thus within each militia statement we may find elements of varying degrees of veracity. The most reliable element is a confession or admission of criminal involvement. The next most reliable element is incidental details, particularly when independently verified. The least reliable is the apologia itself with its evasions, denials, and excuses.
If we impose the requirement of verification or corroboration on these categories, it yields a useful hierarchy of reliability that we can apply to perpetrator and witness accounts alike. Elements of a statement can be ranked from lesser to greater reliability as follows:
Consider the example of John D. Lee's account as contained in Mormonism Unveiled, the posthumous work edited and published by his lead defense lawyer, William W. Bishop, upon which Denton relies so heavily. For this discussion I will operate under the assumption that John D. Lee authored the manuscript on which the first edition of Mormonism Unveiled13 was based and that it substantially conforms to Lee's (now lost) manuscript. However, readers should be aware that even with the original 1877 Mormonism Unveiled, there are lingering concerns about the reliability of the text because of possible editorial changes made to Lee's manuscript by Bishop or possibly other editorial hands. Thus Samuel Nyal Henrie argues that after Lee's death, "his manuscripts were sent to a St. Louis publisher who padded them with anti-Mormon introductions, commentaries, interpolations and appendices. His last writings, which were intended only to recover some of his reputation by telling the true story, were instead propagated in the Midwest and East under an unauthorized title, MORMONISM UNVEILED."14 Concerns about later editions, including the 1891 edition upon which Denton relies, are magnified because of interpolations in these later editions.
With this caveat in mind, we turn to Mormonism Unveiled.15 The John D. Lee of Mormonism Unveiled presents an apologia consisting of defenses, self-justifications, and accusations against others. But the book also contains confessions and intriguing incidental details. Mormonism Unveiled and the 1877 Lee-Howard statement contain admissions of John D. Lee that focus on his own role before, during, and after the massacre, among which are these:
At the opposite end of the reliability scale are the elements of Mormonism Unveiled containing Lee's self-justifications or accusations against others. They include:
Where Denton goes awry, then, is in her nearly exclusive use of Mormonism Unveiled for eyewitness observations and her failure to use any discernible critical method in interpreting it. Before relying on the unsubstantiated portions of Mormonism Unveiled, serious students of the massacre must grapple with the reliability issue. This Denton fails to do.
The Larger Issue—Bias in the Nineteenth-Century Counter-Mormon Canon
Besides John D. Lee, Sally Denton cites the nineteenth-century works of the Stenhouses, Rocky Mountain Saints and "Tell It All," some sixty times.17 Next, she cites the most virulent anti-Mormon nineteenth-century Utah newspaper, the Salt Lake Daily Tribune some thirty-six times.18 Denton cites other works in the same mold: C. V. Waite, The Mormon Prophet; C. P. Lyford, The Mormon Problem; Ann Eliza Young, Wife No. 19; Bill Hickman, Brigham's Destroying Angel; Nelson Winch Green, Fifteen Years among the Mormons; B. G. Parker, Recollections of the Mountain Meadow Massacre; Josiah F. Gibbs, The Mountain Meadows Massacre; and Frank J. Cannon, Brigham Young.19
These works are representative of a larger body of literature that we may term the nineteenth-century counter-Mormon canon. It is not that these works are wholly unreliable. If nothing else, singly and collectively, they remind us of the virulence of the period. In addition, they contain perceptions and interpretations of past events useful to the historian. But to illustrate the problem of both patent and latent bias in these early sources, let's briefly examine a similar problem in another context: the problem of bias in Euro-American sources of Native American peoples.
Beginning five hundred years ago, the Indians of North America were uprooted, first by Europeans and then by Euro-Americans. Not surprisingly, the history of these successive eras has largely been written by Euro-Americans. By and large, what survives from that long period of colonization is European and Euro-American source materials. These sources contain the unconscious biases, prejudices, and assumptions of the Euro-American colonizers. Similarly, the majority of the Euro-American histories of Indian peoples have unconsciously received and reflected the biases and presuppositions in the sources.
Now, however, new historical aims and methods have changed the field. Part of these new approaches involves a self-conscious effort to shed past prejudices against native peoples. Of course the old, biased sources are still used. But now the historian or ethnohistorian makes conscious efforts to shear away the blatant prejudices and even the hidden biases of the past. Used consistently, this interpretative method is a means to achieving a sympathetic treatment of Indian peoples and cultures, one that reflects their own self-understanding rather than a Euro-American one.20
Robert M. Utley's 1984 study, The Indian Frontier of the American West, 1846-1890, illustrates this approach and makes an additional point. In the foreword, distinguished Western historians Howard R. Lamar, Martin Ridge, and David J. Weber comment on one of the "arresting themes" in Utley's study: "that two thought worlds existed neither of which ever understood the other."21
This observation is equally true of Protestants and Latter-day Saints in nineteenth-century America. Both strove to be the Christian light on a hill to the world. Both made exclusive claims to be God's chosen. This made their positions irreconcilable. Further, more than is generally recognized, many Protestant reformers pursued the moral and political crusades of the nineteenth century in the hope that America would be established as a Protestant nation. Abolitionism, Southern reconstruction, antipolygamy, prohibition, and Sunday closing laws were among the most prominent of these crusades.
Focusing on the antipolygamy crusade, we are shocked even today by its energy, zeal, and excesses. We need only recall that the antipolygamy legislation, from Morrill (1862) to Edmunds-Tucker (1887), eventually criminalized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members, including law-abiding monogamists. Thus, to vote in Idaho, each male of legal age had to deny affiliation with the church, even if, like most of the Saints, he was monogamous. The effect was to disenfranchise all Mormon males. In Davis v. Beason (1890),22 the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the government position, noting that the free-exercise clause was bounded by the concept of "general Christianity" and the recognition that legislatures could criminalize those acts "recognized by the general consent of the Christian [i.e., Protestant] world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation."23
American courts began the nineteenth century by reading the common law as protecting or privileging general Protestantism. They concluded the century by reading constitutional law in a similar light: they viewed the United States Constitution as incorporating and protecting general Protestantism. The Latter-day Saint position was swept aside by the assumption that the Constitution protected general Protestantism, which in turn could define those acts to criminalize under the law. In keeping with Protestant assumptions, the penal law criminalized bigamy and, by extension, polygamy. Thus it was impossible that there could be a valid constitutional basis for the plural marriage system under the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause. Why? Because general Protestantism, not the upstart Church of Jesus Christ, defined and dictated the limits of the free exercise of religion.24 Ipso facto, the Latter-day Saint position was beyond consideration.25
What does this have to do with the Mountain Meadows massacre and its sources? Everything. It means that, like whites and Indians, Protestants and Latter-day Saints constituted "two thought worlds . . . neither of which ever understood the other." It means that whatever the theological differences over the Godhead, the Christian canon, or religious authority, it was polygamy that antagonized the Protestant majority. It was polygamy that made the Saints seem more "Asiatic" than American to most Protestants. It was the direct challenge that Mormon polygamy hurled at Protestant public morality that caused late nineteenth-century Protestants to view the Church of Jesus Christ as a counter-Protestant, if not anti-Protestant, religion. And it was polygamy that galvanized widely divergent Protestant denominations into a united politico-moral crusade against the church. The resulting clash produced bitter hostility among the antagonists. That virulence of feeling is reflected as a blatant anti-Mormonism in most late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century literature on the Saints, including the sources and literature dealing with the Mountain Meadows massacre. Of course, the Saints had both patent and latent biases, too. But in the historiography of the massacre, historians have been aware of an LDS bias in the LDS sources, yet not always fully aware of anti-Mormon bias in the non-Mormon sources.
An interesting example is the Fieldings' Tribune Reports on the trials of John D. Lee. In their commentary, the Fieldings do not consider whether the Salt Lake Daily Tribune might have been slanted toward the anti-Mormon political propaganda objectives of the Liberals. Unconsciously they accept the Liberal party line and are oblivious to bias in the Daily Tribune's reporting. Thus, the Salt Lake Daily Tribune's series on the Lee trials reflects nineteenth-century anti-Mormon prejudice while the Fieldings' commentary reflects how that prejudice is perpetuated in the twenty-first century. The Salt Lake Daily Tribune was known for its bitter hostility and antagonism toward the "Mormon priesthood." Even among other anti-Mormons of Utah, the Daily Tribune distinguished itself as "ultra" anti-Mormon. It was the political organ of the Liberal Party in Utah, whose platform was the expansion of gentile interests and influence in Utah's political and economic spheres and the diminishment of Latter-day Saint influence. Considering the political balance of power in Utah, they recognized that statehood would further entrench LDS influence. Thus, they aggressively opposed LDS initiatives for statehood. Their main lobbying tools against the Mormon priesthood were polygamy, Mormon "meddling" in political and economic matters, and Mormon "lawlessness." Mormon violations of the antipolygamy laws and the Mountain Meadows massacre were for them prime examples of this lawlessness. In reporting on the Lee trials and casting light on the massacre nearly two decades before, the Liberals and the Daily Tribune had a political ax to grind.
That prejudice, in short, is what makes the Mountain Meadows massacre such a vexing historiographical problem. That is what requires the interpreter of this awful event to develop a sophisticated method for shifting the sometimes maddeningly contradictory source material. That is what demands that the historian consistently and rigorously apply his or her interpretative method to all source material.
What Sally Denton has done is interpret the Mountain Meadows massacre from Mormonism Unveiled and similar works from the nineteenth-century counter-Mormon secondary sources. Shunted aside are many dozens of other eyewitness accounts, the majority of them not known to Juanita Brooks a half century ago (see appendix below). In them lies the genuine history of the great calamity at Mountains Meadows.26 Even for a journalistic treatment like American Massacre, Denton's decision to jettison the new source material in favor of antiquated nineteenth-century anti-Mormon secondary sources was an unfortunate choice. It's a shame, too, because she has obvious talent as both a synthesizer of complex material and a prose stylist. In the final analysis, the deepest disappointment is this: In finding a Danite under every cedar and sage in frontier Utah, Denton unwittingly robbed American Massacre of the fascinating complexity of authentic history.
This bibliography lists eyewitnesses to the massacre or to important events in its aftermath. Where a position in a militia unit is identified, these are from the 1857 muster rolls of the Tenth Regiment or Iron Military District.27 This district covered the Mormon villages of Beaver, Parowan, Paragoonah, Cedar City, Washington, Pinto, and Gunlock and the small "fort" villages of Fort Johnson, Hamilton Fort, Fort Harmony, and Fort Clara. The regiment consisted of nine companies in four battalions. Each company had four to five platoons, but for simplicity's sake the platoons are omitted.
Anonymous militiaman, witness, or participant at Mountain Meadows--interview, 1859
Anonymous Ute Indian, witness, central Utah—interview, 1857
Arthur, Christopher J., adjutant to Captain Edwards, Co. G, 3rd Bat.—interview, 1892
Ashworth, William B., witness—autobiography, undated
Barton, William, 2nd lieutenant, Co. C, 1st Bat.—interview, 1892
Bradshaw, John, private, Co. F, 3rd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Bringhurst, John B., witness, Toquerville, 1873–74 (observations of Isaac Haight)—statement, 1928
Call, Anson, witness, Bountiful, 1857 (observations of J. D. Lee)—affidavit, 1877
Chatterley, John, private, Co. F, 3rd Bat.—statement, 1919
Farnsworth, Philo T., captain, Co. A, 1st Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Campbell, Mary Steele, witness, Cedar City—interview, 1892
Clews, Joseph, private, Co. F, 2nd Bat.—statement, 1876
Edwards, William, private, probably attached to Parowan unit—affidavit, 1924
Fish, Joseph, private, Co. C, 1st Bat.—autobiography, undated
Hakes, Collin R., witness, Beaver and Mountain Meadows (Lee execution)—affidavit, 1907; statement, 1914; affidavit, 1916
Hamblin, Jacob, 2nd lieutenant, Co. H, 4th Bat.—journal, 1857; interviews, 1859; affidavits, 1859; statement, 1871; Lee trial testimony, 1876
Hamblin, Rachel, witness, Mountain Meadows—interviews, 1859
Hamblin, Albert, witness, Mountain Meadows—interview, 1859
Hamilton, John, Sr., private, Co. F, 3rd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Hamilton, John, Jr., 2nd lieutenant, Co. F, 3rd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Hancock, George W., witness, Payson—interview, 1857
Haslam, James H., regimental fifer—Lee trial testimony, 1876; affidavit, 1885
Henderson, John H., private, Co. C, 1st Bat.—interview, 1892
Higbee, John M., major, 3rd Bat.—statement, 1894; statement, 1896
Higgins, Henry, sergeant, Co. G, 3rd Bat.—affidavit, 1859
Hoag, Annie Elizabeth, witness, Fort Harmony—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Hoops, Elisha, private, Co. A, 1st Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Jackson, Samuel, private, Co. F, 3rd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Johnson, Nephi, 2nd lieutenant, Co. D, 2nd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1876; interview, 1895; affidavit, 1909; statement, 1910
Kershaw, Robert, private, Co. A, 1st Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Klingensmith, Philip, private, Co. D, 2nd Bat.—affidavit, 1871; Lee trial testimony, 1875
Knight, Samuel, private, Co. H, 4th Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1876; interview, 1892; interview, 1895; affidavit, 1896
Macfarlane, John M., adjutant to Major Isaac C. Haight, 2nd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Macfarlane, Daniel, adjutant to Captain Joel White, Co. D, 2nd Bat.—affidavit, 1896
McMurdy, Samuel, sergeant, Co. E, 2nd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1876
Martineau, James H., regimental adjutant to Col. William H. Dame—statement, 1890; statement, 1907
Morrill, Laban, private, Co. D, 2nd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875; autobiography, undated
Morris, Elias, captain, Co. E, 2nd Bat.—interview, 1892
Nowers, Willson Gates, sergeant or private, Co. A, 1st Bat.—interview and statement, 1892
Pearce (Pierce), James, private, Co. I, 4th Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Pete, Indian boy, witness, Pahvant camp near Beaver—interview, 1857
Pitchforth, Samuel, witness, Nephi—diary, 1857
Platt, Benjamin, private, Co. H, 4th Bat.—autobiography, undated
Pollack, Samuel, sergeant, Co. E, 2nd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Riddle, Isaac, private, Co. H, 4th Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Roberts, William, private, Co. B, 1st Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Robinson, Richard, 2nd lieutenant, Co. H, 4th Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875; interview, 1892
Rogerson, Josiah, court reporter, Beaver and Mountain Meadows (Lee trials and execution)—stenographic record, 1875, 1876, 1877
Shelton, Marion Jackson, witness, Fort Harmony—diary, 1858-59
Shirts, Don Carlos (Carl), 2nd lieutenant, Co. H, 4th Bat.—interview, 1859
Smith, Silas S., captain, Co. B, 1st Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Smith, Jesse N., captain, Co. C, 1st Bat.—journal, 1857; Lee trial testimony, 1875
Spoods, Ute Indian, witness, southern Utah—interview, 1857
Thompson, Edward W., 2nd lieutenant, Co. A, 1st Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Tullis, David W., private, Co. H, 4th Bat.—interview, 1859; interview, 1892
White, Joel W., captain, Co. D, 2nd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875 and 1876
White, Mary Hannah Burton, witness, Hamilton Fort—interview, 1892
Willden, Elliott, private, Co. F, 3rd Bat.—interview, 1892
Willis, John Henry, 2nd lieutenant, Co. G, 4th Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Willis, Thomas T., private, Co. G, 3rd Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875
Young, William, private, Co. I, 4th Bat.—Lee trial testimony, 1875