Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Deaths as a result of the order

While it may be fairly stated that no one was killed (i.e. by the militia, or others) as a direct result of the issuance of Boggs' Extermination order (as there is no proof that the militia at Haun's Mills knew of it; they never cited it as a reason for their actions, at any rate), it can't be stated that no one lost their lives as a result of it (which is how I've changed that part of the article to read). Boggs' order was the direct catalyst for the mass expulsion of the Mormons from Missouri; it gave it a "legal" (though actually it was very illegal) covering, and to say that not one Mormon died as a result (when the articles make clear that several died of exposure and other conditions related to the season and conditions surrounding the forced move) is going too far. This is why I reverted the recent edit, and changed the wording of that section accordingly. - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am rewording for clarity that no one was killed as a direct result of the order but that some lost their lives as a result of the mass expulsion. Tripleahg (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the introduction to its previous wording prior to a couple of revisions ago. I reiterate what I said above in 2013: there is no proof that any of the militia at Haun's Mill knew of this order; they never cited it as a reason for their actions, which we would expect them to have done as it would have given them a legal 'cover' for their savage deed. Furthermore, there is no need for the lengthy rehashing of what happened at Haun's Mill in that section at all, or anywhere else in this article, as this is an article about the Order, not the Haun's Mill Massacre, which has an article of its own. The fact that there is no proof that the militia didn't know of it (cited by the previous reviser) doesn't mean that they did. The wording here should reflect this. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems this is quite controversial. I'd like to remind Keepitreal2 (as well as any other new editors who would like to contribute to this portion of the article) that this area is the place where we discuss controversial changes so we can reach consensus about how this portion of the article should read. I am reverting the paragraph to something similar to what it was before this series of controversial edits started on Dec 5 2013.

1) No one explained the removal of "due to the phrasing used by Boggs" so I'm reverting it.

2) "Many" is a highly subjective word that differs wildly by context. Using the word to refer to the deaths resulting from the order is unencyclopedic because it could mean 3 or 3000. Two sentences later it is stated that the death toll from exposure is unknown, which is far more encyclopedic. If anyone has a source stating "many" died (or better, stating a number!) please add a quote, but the authors of an encyclopedia have no place using subjective terms themselves. I'm reverting it.

3) I'm re-addeding the statement that there is a lack of evidence that the militiamen involved in Haun's Mill knew of the order. That this statement will be in the article is presupposed by the editors of the Haun's Mill section on this talk page. The actual lack of evidence has not been disputed by editors, only the appropriateness of including a statement to that effect, and that dispute has been only recent, only by 1-2 editors, and not referenced on the talk page. Removing the statement had the effect of strongly implying via proximity to the prior sentence that the militiamen are known to have been acting in direct response to the order. There must be clarification to avoid this incorrect, strong implication.

4) There is no reason to include, particularly in the lede, so many details about Haun's Mill as were added December 5. The paragraph describing those details is longer than any of the other paragraphs in the lede, and that doesn't even include the sentence about Haun's Mill in the prior paragraph. The weight is completely off here. The article is about the order. Haun's Mill is a subtopic, and not even the main subtopic, so let's keep the raw number of characters a little more balanced. I'm removing the details of who exactly was killed and how they were killed.

5) The Haun's Mill section on the talk page suggests two points be made in the article: that as a result of the order the militamen involved were not prosecuted, and that the massacre is an example of anti-Mormon persecution. I've highlighted the first point and added the second. Tripleahg (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said. No objections, here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've created a revision of this article in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ecjmartin/sandbox), which I think might address the pertinent issues here to (hopefully!) everyone's satisfaction. I especially invite consideration of the following:

The second paragraph of the opener has been substantially revised to indicate that the question of the exact role of this order in murders of Mormons is debated by historians, while not giving undue weight to either 'side' in this dispute. Check the wording, and see if you concur. I furthermore state that it was cited by General John Clark as a pretext for expelling the Mormons--the only time I know of when any Missouri militiaman or official ever cited this order as a direct reason for action against the Mormons.

The first paragraph in the opener received some general cleanup; the first paragraph in "background" received some cleanup and removal of redundant material.

"Aftermath and recession" has been broken up into two sections: "Aftermath" and "recession."

In "aftermath," I have inserted a pertinent quote from General Clark, in which the order is directly referenced as a reason for expelling the Mormons, and further threats of death and destruction made in case of their failure to leave the state by the following spring. I also added sourced information regarding the Mormon decision not to avail themselves of Clark's offer of 'clemency' -- an offer which, as I have said before, *I* would never have believed in, either...

I think that there are all good changes, but tell me what you guys think. I especially think the stuff on Clark should go in, since that is directly pertinent to the order and hasn't been inserted, before. I also think the second paragraph changes (in the opener) might address everyone's concerns about equity and accuracy. I didn't want to post all the changes here because they're too lengthy--please stop by my sandbox, then let me know what you think (and any changes you suggest), here. I won't post anything to the article itself until I get some feedback from you guys. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am happy ether to leave it as is or with your changes. I think its a very good attempt at a compromise, without effecting the WP:NPOV of the article. However, I don't necessarily think the page needs to be changed as I will address the sources that Keepitreal2 used. After reading them last night they do not pass verification anyway. Therefore the inclusion that unsources POV statements is inappropriate.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 12:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and insert the changes, because I believe first of all that the info on John Clark definitely needs to be here. This is extremely pertinent information on this subject, considering that this is the one contemporary Missouri official other than Boggs himself who directly cites this order as legal justification for actions against the Mormons. I also believe the rewording of Paragraph two of the opener will improve that portion of the article and make it even more NPOV than before. That said, I still leave this open for discussion and/or changes, as the common concensus may decide. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the added information about General Clark. I have some other concerns, mostly minor.

1) As mentioned elsewhere on this page, "The academic consensus is that at no time did the militiamen use Order 44 to kill someone." But in the most recent edit of the article, "Historians debate whether anyone was killed as a direct result of it between October 27 (the date of its issuance) and November 1, 1838 (the date of the Mormon surrender)." If the academic consensus is that this NEVER happened, I don't think the statement in the article should be limited to a five day period. Also, if there is academic consensus, I think the article should not state "historians debate" unless specific sources/historians can be identified. As it currently reads, a reader would think there is active disagreement in the academic community.

 Done Rewrote this sentence to reflect your excellent point, while adding also that some Latter Day Saints disagree with this conclusion (and this should be WITHOUT the hyphen, since there are more Latter Day Saints than just those in the Utah Church. Disagreement with the academic conclusion is found among Temple Lot Mormons, Strangites, Cutlerites, etc.).

2) As mentioned elsewhere on this page, "While some argument can be made that since the Mormons face the wintry conditions due to Order 44, they died from Order 44. I don't see any reliable sources making that claim. I also feel it falls under Post hoc ergo propter hoc..." The article currently reads "This forced exodus in difficult, wintry conditions posed a substantial threat to the health and safety of the affected Mormons, and an unknown number died from hardship and exposure." Also, as you have just added information to the article about how enforcement supposedly was going to be stayed until Spring, I don't think we can call this a "forced exodus" in the strict sense of the term. So I think the article should read something like "While state officials said that enforcement of the order would be delayed until Spring, the Mormons had obvious reason to be distrustful of this promise. They determined to leave for Illinois immediately, despite the harsh winter conditions. An unknown number died from hardship and exposure during that exodus." This avoids saying the deaths were due to EO44 in the strict sense, but still is clear that the state set up conditions where the best option available to the Saints was to semi-voluntarily travel in wintertime. A terrible choice to have to make, to be sure, and given that it was due to the political climate surrounding EO44 I think it belongs in the article.

 Done Added your proposed sentence, verbatim, as I think it is superbly-written. Also added a clause stating that recent actions, including those committed by members of the Militia (such as at Haun's Mill) gave them reason to distrust the state officials. If you think that should come out, please remove it.

2a)Additionally, in "Aftermath" first paragraph, there is more mention of forced real-time expulsion. If that is inaccurate it needs to be removed- the entire paragraph could be erased without losing anything from the article if that information is inaccurate.

 Done Not done I moved this into its own subsection; here I didn't remove the entire paragraph, but I did rewrite it to reflect (a) that some Mormons, especially in outlying areas, WERE harassed and even forced to leave their homesteads at gunpoint (a fact LeSueur and others affirm--I'll see if I can find my copy of his book after work today, and add a specific reference), and (b) that it quickly became clear to all of them that state officials were going to leave them with no choice but to leave. This in turn serves as a good lead-in for Clark's comment. Take a gander, and tell me what you think.

3) The article reads "No militiaman or other participant in anti-Mormon killings is known to have used it as a justification for any actions prior to 1 November 1838, though General John B. Clark did cite it after that date." Why limit the sentence to the militia and to murderers if the middle of the sentence now references "any actions" and not just murders? How about either "No miliaman or participant in anti-Mormon actions is known to have used it as a justification for any murder. General John..." or "No one is known to have used it to justify anti-Mormon behavior prior to 1 November 1838, though General John..."

 Done Used your option two.

4) That sentence is also quite unclear about how exactly Clark was using EO44. It seems to say that he cited it to justify his personal involvement in murders after that date, which is inaccurate according to the information provided throughout the rest of the article. From the excellent information you added to "Aftermath" it seems he said that had the Mormons not surrendered, EO44 would have been enforced, but because of the surrender he would not enforce it until Spring so as to not make them travel in dangerous wintry conditions. So back in the lead, maybe it should read something like "General John B. Clark did cite the Order soon after the Mormon surrender in November 1838, saying that violence would have been used had the Mormons chosen not to surrender, and that they could stay the Winter, but if they did not leave in the Spring then violence would be used to compel them to leave."

 Done Another excellent point. Incorporated your proposed sentence, but broke it up into two sentences and made a couple of other minor changes. Take a look, and tell me if this wording meets your concerns.

5) Given the way the lead currently reads, and also the way it would read with the above edits, I recommend moving the last line break in the lead upward a couple of sentences so the Haun's Mill section begins a new paragraph.

 Done Made this into its own paragraph, and added wording to emphasize the particularly unprovoked and savage nature of this attack, while retaining the fact that no participant is known to have cited this order as justification (rather, they justified it as indicated in this paragraph), and there is no evidence that they knew of it at the time. To say when Reynolds or someone else might have known is not proof, and PROOF is what is required here. Reynolds never cited the order to justify what he did, nor did anyone else--hence, we can't say that the massacre was a direct result of the order, though I have inserted that some Latter Day Saints certainly believe that it was.

6) The sentence "There is no evidence that the militiamen knew of Boggs' decree, nor did they ever use it to justify their actions, instead saying that they had word from Mormon dissenters that the Mormons at Haun's Mill were planning to "invade" their county." seems awkward to me. Maybe "...justify their actions. Rather, they claimed to have committed the massacre because of rumors that the Mormons at Haun's Mill in XYZZZ County were planning to invade ABCDDD County (where the militiamen were stationed)."

 Done Reworded, per your suggestion, though not exactly as you put it here. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

7) In "Background" paragraph two, the word "further" would make any reader without prior knowledge of this topic confused as to whether violence had already started again when Rigdon made the speech. I recommend dropping "further". Then I'd change "had happened" to "had already happened" to maintain the tone in the sentence and not make it seem like the persecution of Mormons is being downplayed at all. (Ordinarily I wouldn't worry about something that minor in an article that is far more sympathetic to Mormons than to their attackers, but I want to be sensitive to Keepitreal2.)

 Done Rewrote, per your suggestions. Also inserted wording indicating their previous expulsion from that area.

8) Last paragraph in "Background" reads "Boggs issued Executive Order #44 to General John Clark, whom he had appointed to head up the state militia forces being assembled to reinstate citizens of Daviess County (north of Caldwell) who had been allegedly driven from their homes by renegade Mormons. Having heard lurid reports of alleged Mormon depredations on the Crooked River, Boggs directed Clark to change his mission to one of direct military operations against the Mormons themselves." This feels like a run-on sentence and it's confusing. How about something like "Boggs had previously appointed General John Clark to lead the state militia in assisting citizens of Daviess County (north of Caldwell) to return to their homes. (They had allegedly been driven out by renegade Mormons.) After hearing lurid reports of alleged Mormon depredations on the Crooked River, Boggs issued EO44 to Clark, changing his mission to one of direct military operations against the Mormons themselves.

 Done Rewrote this per your suggestion, though I used slightly different wording. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

Let me know what you all think. If any these edits seem ok to you, feel free to enact them, or I can take care of them the next time I log on (usually about once every few weeks). Tripleahg (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellently, excellently done. These are all good suggestions, and I think they'll improve the article immensely. Thanks so much for taking the time! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This drama is the most exciting thing that's happened to me all week so I decided to check in again this morning. Ecjmartin, you updated everything so quickly! I love all the changes the way you did them. One question- last paragraph of "Background"- does "new orders" refer specifically to EO44? It wasn't clear to me from that sentence whether it was referring to that or to other orders. Tripleahg (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Triple, it makes me think of Simon Cowell on American Idol, for some reason!! Your question is a good one; my wording referred to EO44, but I'll clarify that better in the rewrite that I'm just starting to work on. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is so comical I don't even know where to start. Glad you KNOW when Reynolds heard of 44 Artest4echo I just can't with this ish right now... lemme go pray for the patience of job first... ughhhhh Keepitreal2 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Per an above comment, academic consensus is that Reynolds did not know of EO44 at the time of the massacre. Personally I am not opposed to the brief mention of Haun's Mill in this article as long as it either states that academic consensus is that he didn't know, OR it clearly states that there is no evidence that he knew. I'd also be 110% behind a longer discussion of Haun's Mill if we can find a wikipedia-appropriate source suggesting the possibility that Reynolds knew about EO44 in advance of the masacre. If you can locate such a source please bring it up because I think that would return Haun's Mill to the scope of this article and we could probably even give it its' own section. Tripleahg (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tripleh, while acknowledging your concerns. Since none of us KNOW when Reynolds learned of the order, we can't say here that he did. If you can find an independent source that shows him citing this order as an excuse for his actions and indicating that he knew of it at the time he committed these Nazi-style atrocities, I would be more than glad to see it and include that here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Blanketly claiming academic consensus without citation has already been rejected not just by me but others on this page as well. Stating or suggesting they didn't know ALSO requires citation. If we follow your standards. The only fact in this matter is they were murdered AFTER the order was in place. Subjecture or speculation is irrelevant. Keepitreal2 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added your requested citation. Verifiable. He threatened to do exactly what he did BEFORE he did it AND explicitly cited Boggs order in his threats. Ecjmartin, Tripleahg, ARTEST4ECHO

Now go ahead and remove your slanderous contributions as promised please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Keepitreal2, has the libelous comment been removed? If not, I'd be happy to look at it and assist in reporting it. I don't see such a comment here so I assume it was removed, but I'm not seeing it on the history page either. It's possible it was purged from there if it was so far beyond the pale that it wasn't even acceptable to have on record, but I think I must just be missing it since such purges are exceptionally rare. Please let me know. Also, thank you for providing that excellent source. I'm very excited for the article to be rewritten to highlight the role of EO44 in the massacre. Please feel free to contribute to the rewrite which I assume will be well underway by the end of the day.Tripleahg (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested Citation

Since there has been a complaint of "dead links", lets go ahead and document this here.

Below is an accont of the Haun's Mill massacre. It is quoted exactly, complete, and unedited with it's nineteenth century sentiments, spelling, and language:

Women of Mormondom, Edward W. Tullidge, 576 pages Published November 9th 2010 by Deseret Book pages 116 - 132.

Extended quote from copyrighted source

"Towards the close of October, 1838, several small detachments of migrants from Ohio entered the state of Missouri. They were of the refugees from Kirtland Ohio. Their destinations were the counties of Caldwell and Davies, where the Saints had located in that State. Haun's Mill, in Caldwell county, was soon to become the scene of one of the darkest tragedies on record. The mill was owned by a Mormon brother whose name it bore, and in the neighborhood some Mormon families had settled. To Haun's Mill came the doomed refugees. They had been met on their entrance into the state of Missouri by armed mobs. Governor Boggs had just issued his order to exterminate the entire Mormon community. The coming of the refugees into the inhospitable State could not have been more ill-timed, though when they left Kirtland they expected to find a brotherhood in Far West. "Halt!" commanded the leader of a band of well-mounted and well-armed mobocrats, who charged down upon them as they journeyed on their way. "If you proceed any farther west," said the captain, "you will be instantly shot." "Wherefore?" inquired the pilgrims. "You are d__d Mormons!" "We are law-abiding Americans, and have given no cause of offence." "You are d__d Mormons. That's offence enough. Within ten days every Mormon must be out of Missouri, or men, women, and children will be shot down indiscriminately. No mercy will be shown. It is the order of the Governor that you should all be exterminated; and by G_d you will be." In consternation the refugees retreated, and gathered at Haun's Mill.... To sister Amanda Smith must be given the pinciple thread of this tragedy, for around her centres the terrible interest of the Haun's Mill massacre, which even to-day rises before her in all the horrors of an occurring scene. She says: "We sold our beautiful home in Kirtland for a song, and traveled all summer to Missouri -- our teams poor, and with hardly enough to keep body and soul together. "We arrived in Caldwell county, near Haun's Mill, nine wagons of us in company. Two days before we arrived we were taken prisoners by an armed mob that had demanded every bit of ammunition and every weapon we had. We surrendered all. They knew it, for they searched our wagons. "A few miles more brought us to Haun's Mill, where that awful scene of murder was enacted. My husband pitched his tent by a blacksmith's shop. "Brother David Evans made a treaty with the mob that they would not molest us. He came just before the massacre and called the company together and they knelt in prayer. "I sat in my tent. Looking up I suddenly saw the mob coming -- the same that took away our weapons. They came like demons or wild Indians. "Before I could get to the blacksmith's shop door to alarm the brethren, who were at prayers, the bullets were whistling amongst them. "I seized my two little girls and escaped across the mill-pond on a slab-walk. Another sister fled with me. Yet though we were women, with tender children, in flight for our lives, the demons poured volley after volley to kill us. "A number of bullets entered my clothes, but I was not wounded. The sister however, who was with me, cried out that she was hit. We had just reached the trunk of a fallen tree, over which I urged her, bidding her to shelter there where the bullets could not reach her, while I continued my flight to some bottom land. "When the firing had ceased I went back to the scene of the massacre, for there were my husband and three sons, of whose fate I as yet knew nothing. "As I returned I found the sister in a pool of blood where she had fainted, but she was only shot through the hand. Farther on was lying dead Brother McBride, an aged white-haired revolutionary soldier. His murderer had literally cut him to pieces with an old corn cutter. His hands had been split down when he raised them in supplication for mercy. Then the monster cleft open his head with the same weapon, and the veteran who had fought for his country, in the glorious days of the past, was numbered with the martyrs. "Passing on I came to a scene more terrible still to mother and wife. Emerging from the blacksmith shop was my eldest son, bearing on his shoulders his little brother Alma. "Oh! my Alma is dead!" I cried in anguish. "No, mother; I think Alma is not dead. But father and brother Sardius are killed!" "What an answer was this to appal me! My husband and son murdered; another little son seemingly mortally wounded; and perhaps before the dreadful night should pass the murderers would return and complete their work! "But I could not weep then. The fountain of tears was dry; and the heart overburdened with its calamity, and all the mother's sense absorbed in it's anxiety for the precious boy which God alone could save by his miraculous aid. "The entire hip joint of my wounded boy had been shot away. Flesh, hip bone, joint and all had been ploughed out from the muzzle of the gun which the ruffian placed to the child's hip through the logs of the shop and deliberately fired. "We laid little Alma on a bed in our tent and I examined the wound. It was a ghastly sight. I knew not what to do. It was night now. "There was none left from that terrible scene, throughout that long, dark night, but about half a dozen bereaved and lamenting women, and the children. Eighteen or nineteen, all grown men excepting my murdered boy and another about the same age, were dead or dying; several more of the men were wounded, hiding away, whose groans through the night too well disclosed their hiding places, while the rest of the men had fled, at the moment of the massacre, to save their lives. "The women were sobbing, in the greatest anguish of spirit; the children were crying loudly with fear and grief at the loss of fathers and brothers; the dogs howled over their dead masters and the cattle were terrified with the scent of the blood of the murdered. "Yet was I there, all that long, dreadful night, with my dead and my wounded, and none but God as our physician and help. "Oh my Heavenly Father, I cried, what shall I do? Thou seest my poor wounded boy and knowest my inexperience. Oh Heavenly Father direct me what to do! "And then I was directed as by a voice speaking to me. "The ashes of our fire was still smoldering. We had been burning the bark of a shag-bark hickory. I was directed to take those ashes and make a lye and put a cloth saturated with it right into the wound. It hurt, but little Alma was too near dead to heed it much. Again and again I saturated the cloth and put it into the hole from which the hip joint had been ploughed, and each time mashed flesh and splinters of bone came away with the cloth; and the wound became as white as chicken's flesh. "Having done as directed I again prayed to the Lord and was again instructed as distinctly as though a physician had been standing by speaking to me. "Near by was a slippery-elm tree. From this I was told to make a slippery-elm poultice and fill the wound with it. "My eldest boy was sent to get the slippery-elm from the roots, the poultice was made, and the wound, which took fully a quarter of a yard of linen to cover, so large was it, was properly dressed. "It was then I found vent to my feelings in tears, and resigned myself to the anguish of the hour. "And all that night we, a few poor, stricken women, were thus left with our dead and wounded. "All through the night we heard the groans of the dying. Once in the dark we crawled over the heap of dead in the blacksmith's shop to try to soothe the sufferer's wants; once we followed the cries of a wounded brother who hid in some bushes from the murderers, and relieved him all we could. "It has passed from my memory whether he was dead in the morning or whether he recovered. "Next morning brother Joseph Young came to the scene of the massacre. "'What shall be done with the dead?' he inquired, in horror and deep trouble. "There was not time to bury them, for the mob was coming on us. Neither were there left men to dig the graves. All the men excepting the two or three who had so narrowly escaped were dead or wounded. It had been no battle, but a massacre indeed. "'Do anything, brother Joseph,' I said, 'rather than to leave their bodies to the fiends who have killed them.' "There was a deep dry well close by. Into this the bodies had to be hurried, eighteen, or nineteen in number. "No funeral service could be performed, nor could they be buried with customary decency. The lives of those who in terror performed the last duty to the dead were in jeopardy. Every moment we expected to be fired upon by the fiends who we supposed were lying in ambush waiting for the opportunity to dispatch the remaining few who had escaped the slaughter of the preceeding day. So in the hurry and terror of the moment some were thrown into the well head downwards and some feet downwards. "But when it came to the burial of my murdered boy Sardius, Brother Joseph Young, who was assisting to carry him on a board to the well, laid down the corpse and declared that he could not throw that boy into this horrible grave. "All the way on the journey, that summer, Joseph had played with the interesting lad who had been so cruelly murdered. It was too much for one whose nature was so tender as Uncle Joseph's, and whose sympathies by this time were quite overwrought. He could not perform that last office. My murder son was left unburied. "'Oh! they have left my Sardius unburied in the sun,' I cried, and ran and got a sheet and covered his body. "There he lay until the next day, and then I, his mother, assisted by his elder brother, had to throw him into the well. Straw and earth were thrown into this rude vault to cover the dead. "Among the wounded who recovered were Isaac Laney, Nathaniel K. Knight, Mr. Yokum, two brothers by the name of Myers, Tarlton Lewis, Mr. Haun and several others, besides Miss Mary Stedwell, who was shot through the hand while fleeing with me, and who fainting, fell over the log into which the mob shot upwards of twenty balls. "The crawling of my boys under the bellows in the blacksmith's shop where the tragedy occurred, is an incident familiar to all our people. Alma's hip was shot away while thus hiding. Sardius was discovered after the massacre by the monsters who came in to despoil the bodies. The eldest, Williard, was not discovered. In cold blood, one Glaze, of Carroll county, presented a rifle near the head of Sardius and literally blew off the upper part of it, leaving the skull empty and dry while the brains and the hair of the murdered boy were scattered around and on the walls. "At this one of the men, more merciful than the rest, observed: "'It was a d__d shame to kill those little boys.' "'D__n the difference!' retorted the other; 'nits make lice!' "My son who escaped, also says that the mobocrat William Mann took from my husband's feet, before he was dead, a pair of new boots. From his hiding place, the boy saw the ruffian drag his father across the shop in the act of pulling off his boot. " 'Oh! you hurt me!' groaned my husband. But the murderer dragged him back again, pulling off the other boot; 'and there,' says the boy, 'my father fell over dead.' "Afterwards this William Mann showed the boots on his own feet, in Far West, saying: 'Here is a pair of boots that I pulled off before the d__d Mormon was done kicking!' "The murderer Glaze also boasted over the country, as a heroic deed, the blowing off the head of my young son. "But to return to Alma, and how the Lord helped me to save his life. "I removed the wounded boy to a house, some distance off, the next day, and dressed his hip; the Lord directing me as before. I was reminded that in my husband's trunk there was a bottle of balsam. This I poured into the wound, greatly soothing Alma'a pain. "'Alma, my child,' I said, 'you believe that the Lord made your hip?' "'Yes, mother.' "'Well, the Lord can make something there in the place of your hip, don't you believe he can, Alma?' "'Do you think that the Lord can, mother?' inquired the child in his simplicity. "'Yes, my son,' I replied, 'he has shown it all to me in a vision.' "Then I laid him comfortably on his face, and said, 'Now you lay like that, and don't move, and the Lord will make you another hip.' "So Alma laid on his face for five weeks, until he was entirely recovered -- a flexible gristle having grown in place of the missing joint and socket, which remains to this day a marvel to physicians. "On the day that he walked again I was out of the house fetching a bucket of water, when I heard screams from the children. Running back in affright, I entered, and there was Alma on the floor, dancing around, and the children screaming in astonishment and joy. "It is now nearly forty years ago, but Alma has never been the least crippled during his life, and has traveled quite a long period of time as a missionary of the gospel and a living miracle of the power of God. "I cannot leave the tragic story without relating some incidents of those five weeks when I was a prisoner with my wounded boy in Missouri, near the scene of the massacre, unable to obey the order of extermination. "All the Mormons in the neighborhood had fled out of the state, except a few families of the bereaved women and children who had gathered at the house of brother David Evans, two miles from the scene of the massacre. To this house Alma had been carried after that fatal night. "In our utter desolation, what could we women do but pray? Prayer was our only source of comfort; our Heavenly Father our only helper. None but He could save and deliver us. "One day a mobber came from the mill with the captain's fiat: "'The captain says if you women don't stop your d__d praying he will send down a posse and kill every d__d one of you!' "And he might as well have done it, as to stop us poor women praying in that hour of our great calamity. "Our prayers were hushed in terror. We dared not let our voices be heard in the house in supplication. I could pray in my bed or in silence, but I could not live thus long. This godless silence was more intolerable than had been that night of the massacre. "I could bear it no longer. I pined to hear once more my own voice in petition to my Heavenly Father. "I stole down into a corn field, and crawled into a 'stout of corn.' It was as the temple of the Lord to me at that moment. I prayed aloud and most ferevntly. "When I emerged from the corn a voice spoke to me. It was a voice as plain as I ever heard one. It was no silent strong impression of the spirit, but a voice, repeating a verse of the saint's hymn: "That soul who on Jesus hath leaned for repose, I cannot, I will not desert to its foes; That soul, though all hell should endeaver to shake, I'll never, no never, no never forsake!" "From that moment I had no more fear. I felt that nothing could hurt me. Soon after this the mob sent us word that unless we were all out of the State by a certain day we should be killed. "The day came, and at evening came fifty armed men to execute the sentence. "I met them at the door. They demanded of me why I was not gone? I bade them enter and see their own work. They crowded into my room and I showed them my wounded boy. They came, party after party, until all had seen my excuse. Then they quarreled among themselves and came near fighting. "At last they went away, all but two. These I thought were detailed to kill us. Then the two returned. "'Madam,' said one, 'have you any meat in the house?' "'No,' was my reply. "'Could you dress a fat hog if one was laid at your door?' "'I think we could!' was my answer. "And then they went and caught a fat hog from a herd which had belonged to a now exiled brother, killed it and dragged it to my door, and departed. "These men, who had come to murder us, left on the threshold of our door a meat offering to atone for their repented intention. "Yet even when my son was well I could not leave the State, now accursed indeed to the saints. "The mob had taken my horses, as they had the drove of horses, and the beeves, and the hogs, and wagons, and the tents, of the murdered and exiled. "So I went down into Davies county (ten miles) to Captain Comstock, and demanded of him my horses. There was one of them in his yard. He said I could have it if I paid five dollars for it's keep. I told him I had no money. "I did not fear the captain of the mob, for I had the Lord's promise that nothing should hurt me. But his wife swore that the mobbers were fools for not killing the women and children as well as the men -- declaring that we would 'breed up a pack ten times worse than the first.' "I left without the captain's permission to take my horse, or giving pay for it's keep; but I went into his yard and took it, and returned to our refuge unmolested. "Learning that my other horse was at the mill, I next yoked up a pair of steers to a sled and went and demanded it also. "Comstock was there at the mill. He gave me the horse, and then asked if I had any flour. "'No; we have had none for weeks.' "He then gave me about fifty pounds of flour and some beef, and filled a can with honey. "But the mill, and the slaughtered beeves which hung plentifully on its walls, and the stock of flour and honey, and abundant spoil besides, had all belonged to the murdered or exiled saints. "Yet was I thus providentially, by the very murderers and mobocrats themselves, helped out of the State of Missouri. "The Lord had kept his word. The soul who on Jesus had leaned for succor had not been forsaken even in this terrible hour of massacre, and in that infamous extermination of the Mormons from Missouri in the years 1838-39. "One incident more, as a fitting close. "Over that rude grave -- that well -- where the nineteen martyrs slept, where my murdered husband and boy were entombed, the mobbers of Missouri, with an exquisite fiendishness, which no savages could have conceived, had constructed a rude privy. This they constantly used, with a delight which demons might have envied, if demons are more wicked and horribly beastly than were they. "Thus ends my chapter of the Haun's mill massacre, to rise in judgment against them!"

Keepitreal2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The only dead link I was referring to was Part III: Individual Affidavits from the National Archives (M–Z) which was used to cite, "William Reynolds put his musket against Sardius's skull and blew off the top of his head, killing him."

The Part III: Individual Affidavits from the National Archives (M–Z) link is still a Dead Link. I used wayback] to find the page, but the only Williams to appear on the page was "William Niswanger" and "William Laughlin". No where is there a "William Reynolds" nor do the words "Reynolds", "musket", or "Sardius" appear anywhere. That source had failed verification because it didn't say what it was being used to cite.

However, that still doesn't address the other issues below. --- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I found that the BYU resource can be found live here and three sub-pages ([1], [2], [3]) but I am also unable to find the material we're trying to validate. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested reference...

I am presently at work and had stopped to check my mobile phone to see if there were any responses to recent changes on this article, and I came across Keepitreal's citation--FINALLY, I said to myself, something we can use: an outstanding first-person source that now allows (and indeed requires) a rewrite of the pertinent portions of this article. THIS is what we've been looking for, this whole time! I had written a complimentary reply to Keepitreal--whom I still compliment for her contribution--when the edit-conflict screen informed me that someone else had posted something new to this page.

As far as the feelings expressed by this editor toward myself and other editors throughout this entire matter, I simply say: "the Lord judge between us, and may His will be done." I serve a higher Master, One who calls me to forgive, to turn the other cheek, to do good even to those who hate me. I don't usually find that easy to do; as I am sure I have demonstrated, myself, here and on other past occasions. That said, I compliment Keepitreal for her contribution, and invite her to consider the notion that "you catch more flies with honey, than you do with flypaper." Wikipedia is a collaborative effort: we may not all agree on everything; we may even disagree sharply on even the most basic of issues--the challenge, and the point, is for us all to work together and 'get along.' If I have offended you in some way, Keepitreal, I apologize here and ask your forgiveness. And I equally extend my forgiveness to you, for any offense you have caused me.

This evening, when I return home from work, I intend to dedicate my evening to a complete rewrite of the appropriate portions of this article, to incorporate the source Keepitreal has given us, here. I consider it a valid source for purposes of this article, and hope to be able to incorporate it in a manner that will preserve the article's NPOV nature. As the man on the TV said: "stay tuned..." God bless you, Keepitreal, and I wish you only the very, very best--even if I must sharply disagree with you on some points (as I recently expressed here and on your talk page). - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually glad for the reference also. I am going to also use this source on the Hans Mill page, but it still isn't correct. Just so you know you can link the book here

However, the source doesn't back up what it being used to cite. What it says is:

Sardius was discovered after the massacre by the monsters who came in to despoil the bodies. The eldest, Williard, was not discovered. In cold blood, one Glaze, of Carroll county, presented a rifle near the head of Sardius and literally blew off the upper part of it, leaving the skull empty and dry while the brains and the hair of the murdered boy were scattered around and on the walls.

No where dose it say that "William Reynolds" did it. It say someone named "one Glaze, of Carroll county" did it. William Reynold isn't mention at all with regards to killing Sardius. Therefore even using the new source, as written, has failed verification. I have reworded its use on Haun's Mill.

As for the indlusion here, I still think saying "one Glaze, of Carroll county, put his musket against Sardius's skull and blew off the top of his head, killing him." is out of scope and WP:POV. It isn't needed and this page isn't about Haun's Mill.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 20:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hang loose, if you can... I just got home, and am just getting started. I'll let you know when I'm done, and you can tell me what you think and offer/make any needed changes. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)