Showing posts with label Cane Creek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cane Creek. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2015

A Land of Strangers and the Possibility of Another Book

It has been two years since I published A Land of Strangers: Cane Creek Tennessee's Mormon Massacre And its Tragic Effects on the People Who Lived There. I have a few mixed emotions about what I would do differently if had it to do all over, but for the most part I have been pretty satisfied with the approach and the results.

Ever since I have been asked again and again if and when I am going to write another book. The answer is a bit complicated. But to boil it down as much as possible I haven't found a subject which has grabbed me and refuses to let go.

I originally wrote A Land of Strangers because I felt I had a viewpoint that was not being represented. I found opinions to be sure. Most fell on one of two sides which were diametrically opposed viewpoints. Both were represented on the internet, or published in one form or another.

On the one side were people who believed that the massacre and the events related to it were the machinations of the devil; that the perpetrators were "fiends in human form" working to destroy the work of the gospel and stop it from rolling forth through out the world. Specifically in this case, ministers and the local elite, fearing a loss of power responded with lies and violence. Ultimately their efforts failed and the Church continues to grow.

On the other side were people who saw the late 19th century LDS missionary work in Tennessee as an effort to seduce weak minded people to move to Mormon communities in the west - even if it broke up families - in order to prop up a financial system reliant on the constant influx of low wage workers and to provide ever younger women for polygamous marriages. These missionaries hid behind the veil of religious freedom, making the law powerless to stop them, and leaving violence as the only remedy.

The truth as I saw it was at neither end of the spectrum. The world is not split between just evil and good. no one is wholly one or the other. All of us, no matter how good, have some sin. I assume that that the opposite is also true. With that said, to understand why someone does something that we think of as evil, we must first understand how they justified their actions.

As a lifeguard I learned that person drowning will grab on to anything within reach. Their actions appear irrational, and can actually cause the drowning they are so desperately trying to avoid. But if we know how a drowning person thinks we can devise a method to save them without putting our selves at risk. Instead of reaching out with a hand, and risk being pulled under water, give them something to grab on which you are holding: a stick, a towel, or a ring buoy. The same is true of those who oppose the church's missionary work. If we know how they think we can devise ways to live together peacefully.

That is what I tried to do in A Land of Strangers, and it drove me to research, to write and to see the book through to completion. Will I find another book to write that drives me as much? ......


Monday, June 16, 2014

The Conders Sell their Farm

Long time readers will know about the Cane Creek Massacre and my fascination with the fate of the survivors. Today's tidbit is no different. It comes from the Lewis County Land Deed Book. In 1898, after living in neighboring Perry County for several years, Brother & Sister Conder finally sold their farm on Cane Creek - yes, the one where the shooting happened - to Tom Talley. I already knew Tom had purchased the land. He was the owner who gave permission for the LDS Church to place a stone marker on the grave of Riley and Martin in 1934. But I didn't know when until now

But the Deed Book record told me a little more than just when it was sold. It gave me evidence for the size of the farm. The record estimates 166 acres. It also hinted that there was a more complex deal involved. Reuben Mathis, the member of the mob who saved Elder Jones' life, had timber rights. The deed specified when those rights would end. I clearly don't know much about the legal language used here. I might be able to figure out some of the illegible words if I did. But I think we will understand the general meaning.

For and in consideration of the sum of two hundred dollars – one hundred and fifty-five dollars in hand paid and forty five dollars to be paid January 1st 1900 – for which a note is this day [executed].
[?] W. J. Conder and his wife Malinda Conder have this day long arrived sold and [conveyed] to Thomas Talley his heirs and assigns forever a certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in 3rd civil district of Lewis County on the [waters] of Cane Creek and bounded as follows –
Beginning in the south boundary line of [Entry] No. 188 for 200 acres in the name of Brantly Hutson – 38 ¼ poles west of the south east corner thence west 194 ½ poles to a stake north 127 poles to a stake thence east  - 194 ½ poles to a stake thence south 127 poles to the beginning containing by estimates 166 acres more or less.
The east prong of Cane Creek runs through said land. All the land on the south side of this creek is included in this deed and all on the north side is now owned by Andrew Edward – to have and to hold to the said Thomas Talley his heirs and assigns forever and I [covenant] with said Talley that I am lawfully [seized] of said land and have a good right to [convey] the same and I covenant to warrant and defend the title to the same against the lawfully claims of all persons [whosoever] . But this is understood that Reuben Mathis is to have all the [stove bolts] and [cross ties] timber on said land and is to have until March 1900 to remove said timber from said land.
Witness our hand August 20 1898.

W. Armstrong                                                     William [x] J. Conder
State of Tennessee                                               Malinda [x] Conder
Lewis County

Monday, October 22, 2012

Solomon Hinson's Son

A couple of years ago I posted a short description of Solomon Hinson. His connection to the Cane Creek Massacre was tenuous, but not incredibly so. A newspaper quoted a returned missionary who claimed it was Solomon Hinson  who spread around an inflamatory newspaper article about Mormons, riding house to house, even reading it outload to those who could not read it themselves. The missionary, Elder George Woodbury, was certainly a secondary source. And the only one. It proved only that there might have been rumors that Solomon Hinson was somehow involved beforehand.

After the post was published, a descendent of Solomon Hinson contacted me. Family tradition stated that yes he was indeed involved; not just before hand, but in the shooting itself. It was enough corroboration for me to consider his participation probable.

With the testimony of Harriet Conder, there is a third source. It is true that this source is even more removed. It is a second hand version, and it was not recorded until 65 years after the fact. And she does not actually claim he was at the massacre, only that he had a reason to be.  But the existance of a third independent source means I can be confortable with keeping him in the probable category.

Harriet called him Sol Hinson. A few documents refer to Solomon Hinson by the nick name Sol. A biography collected by the Lewis County Historical Society, a death certificate for one of his sons, and a census record, all indicate he was called Sol, making the connection between Harriet's Sol Hinson and Solomon Hinson a pretty good bet. There might have been other Sol Hinson's, but multiple matching points (i.e. related to Dave Hinson, the use of the nick name Sol, having a son of marriagable age in 1884) make the identification pretty reliable.

As for Sol's son, the one who Harriet claimed was getting baptized that day; Solomon Hinson had eight children. Seven were sons. It could be any one of them, or none of them.

Thomas J. Hinson was born in 1852. He was married in1872 to Margaret Hensley. Thomas does not appear in the 1880 census. There is a Thomas Hinson in Perry County who was very friendly with the missionaries in 1880 and 1881. But reference to him disapear after that and his home was on Roan Creek at the far side of Perry County from Lewis and Hickman counties. Other than their name, there is nothing connecting the two Thomas Hinsons.

David Green Hinson was born in 1854. He married a sister of his older brother's wife, Martha J.Hensley, in about 1876. He does apear in the 1880 census in Hickman County. No one by that name appears in missionary journals in that area.

John Andrew Hinson (1855-1944). He married Mary Ann Carroll on 26 Dec 1877. His wife's family name, Carroll, poses an interesting idea. Several members of the Carroll family were members of the LDS Church by 1884. Most baptisms at the time were relatives of existing members. Other Carroll family members were close friends of the missionaries. Sheriff John Carroll did have a daughter named Mary Ann. But in 1880, she was still living at home, single. If the marriage date is correct, then they could not be the same person.
In a twist, the descendent of Sol Hinson that I mentioned earlier, is descended through John A. Hinson. He added that his grandmother's brother, Clyde Hinson, said that John Andrew Hinson was at the Massacre too. Clyde went on to describe John as a very mean person who cared only about himself. I can imagine a scenario where John was at one time interested in the LDS Church, perhaps because of his wife, but was persuaded to change his mind by some inflammatory literature. But it is more likely that he was involved in order to protect a younger brother from being converted.

Andrew C. Hinson (1858-1929) married Sarah Atlanta Harris in about 1882. Andrew is a possibility but no one by that name appears in missionary journals in that area.

Polk D. Hinson was born in 1860, but did not marry his wife Drucilla Spears, until 1885, and so does not match Harriet's description.

Sarah A. Hinson. Although a child of Solomon Hinson she could not have been referred to as one of his sons.

William W. Hinson was born in 1865. He married Mary A.Talley, but marriage date has not been recorded. Like Mary Ann Carroll, Mary A. Talley may have been related to existing members of the church. There is a women by that name living in the area for whom no marriage is recorded. She is the niece of Eli Talley.

Solomon Jr. Hinson was born in 1868, was probably too young to have been married at the time or to have been baptized without a parent's permission.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Harriet Conder Tells about the Massacre

On January 15, 1949, Harriet Lendora Brakefield Conder shared with her granddaughter what she knew of the Cane Creek Massacre. Harriet was 93 years old when she made this recording. She was not an eyewitness to the shooting, but her husband was the brother of Jim Conder who owned the home where the shooting took place. Presumably she got her information from the Jim and Malinda Conder. Since Blogger does not allow the uploading of audio files, I added the audio to a photo of Harriet and uploaded it as a video to YouTube.

  
[Start]

Grandaughter: Alright … grandma, I want you to tell me the story of the martyrdom of the Elders at Uncle Jim’s Conder's place.

Harriet: Well, it was three Elders went to Jim Conder's and one was, was on his way. And, and there’s a man met him, they, the mob met him and left a man to guard him. And uh, and uh he talked so to the man and the man beat him up. And just shot up. And the man got away.

Grandaughter: The Elder got away.

Harriet: The Elder got away. And the Elder got away. And then they, they come on then …

Grandaughter: The mob went on?

Harriet: The mob went on, to Jim Conder’s house. And when they got to the house, they, they killed two of the Elders, and one of them got away.

Grandaughter: Well, uh, what did they do? Uh, were they all masked? And uh, now, uh, Uncle Jim was holding a cottage meeting or was there someone to be baptized?

Harriet: Yes, it was Sol Hinson’s boy, they claimed they wanted to kill them because they were gonna baptize Sol Hinson’s boy.

Grandaughter: Uh-huh.

Harriet: And uh

Grandaughter: And uh, now these Elders, were they in the house when the mob came up?

Harriet: Yes. The two of them, well there’s three of them. One of them jumped up and left the house when they come in shootin’

Grandaughter: Well, where did he go?

Harriet: He got out of sight, that one did.

Grandaughter: Down in the orchard?

Harriet: In the orchard.

Grandaughter: Well, and, didn’t you tell me that one of the Elders was upstairs reading the Bible?

Harriet: Yes, he was reading the Bible when they come in on him. There Jim ...

Grandaughter: Was the mob masked? Or did Uncle Jim know who they were?

Harriet: No, he didn’t know them. They were just drunk … drunk men.

Grandaughter: Yes.

Harriet: I don’t think there’s masked at all, cause he didn’t know the man John Riley killed.

Grandaughter: Well, now, who was John Riley?

Harriet: John Riley was Jim Conder’s step son.

Grandaughter: And uh, when this mob came up, Jim Riley, uh, what did he do?

Harriet: Well, John Riley and Martin Conder was out in the orchard and when they come in shootin’ the Elders, they run to the house. And uh, they, Martin just run in and went knocking them down and they shot him.

Grandaughter: And Killed him?

Harriet: Killed him, Yes, they killed Martin.

Grandaughter: Martin Conder.

Harriet: Killed Martin Conder and then they shot his mother, Martin’s mother, And they said … John Riley said, “Are, are you hurt mother?” And she says “Yes, John, I’m hurt and hurt bad” And he just went upstairs and got the gun and come down and shot Dave Hinson … dead.

Grandaughter: Well, was he one of the mob leaders?

Harriet: He was the mob leader. He was the captain of the mob.

Grandaughter: Did they, uh, hurt this boy who shot him? What did they do to him?

Harriet: Killed him.

Grandaughter: Killed him?

Harriet: Killed him.

Grandaughter: And then they buried the two boys out in the orchard, you say?

Harriet: They buried the two boys. And they come and took the Elders back to Utah.

Grandaughter: The bodies?

Harriet: Yes, the bodies.

Grandaughter: Well they had to slip in and get the bodies, though. The mob wouldn’t let them take them out.

Harriet: Mm-mm.

Grandaughter: Well, now did this boy who was going to be baptized, did his father object to him being baptized?

Harriet: Oh yes, yes.

Grandaughter: Oh he, he was the one who was killed, is that it?

Harriet: Yes, he…

Grandaughter: He was the leader.

Harriet: Yes, Dave Hinson was the leader, and he was, was killed

Grandaughter: He didn’t want his son to be baptized.

Harriet: No, that was his nephew was going to be baptized.

Grandaughter: Oh, his nephew.

Harriet: Sol Hinson’s boy, was going to be killed, was going to be baptized.

Grandaughter: Well, and Sol Hinson’s boy, was old enough to know his own mind.

Harriet: Oh yes, he’s married.

Grandaughter: Well, they, uh, they just objected to the Mormon Elders preaching their religion, then.

Harriet: Oh yes. That’s they all objected to. And this one that was guardin’ him ya know, and he, he talked to the one who’s guardin’ him. And he told him to get away and shot two straight up.

Grandaughter: After the Elder had talked to this mob?

Harriet: Had talked to one of the mob. So he got up and left. The Elder did, and the man come on back to the house.

Grandaughter: Well, about when did this all happen, about what date?

Harriet: Well it was, I think it was eighteen and eighty. Eighty….

Grandaughter: Four?

Harriet: Four! Eighty four, yes.

Grandaughter: In August you thought?

Harriet: In August. I’m pretty sure it was August.

Grandaughter: Well, this is all of our record. So we’ll have to sign off now. Was that all of the story?

Harriet: That’s all that I can remember. All. Mm-mmm.

[End]

There are a few noteworthy things here. First, I love to  hear the voices. The accent, the inflection, the tone, even the errors, all come across differently when it is heard instead of just read. Second, Sol Hinson [actually Solomon Hinson, Dave Hinson's uncle] has been connected to the Massacre by others, but never in this way. I'll look at that in a future post. Third, there was no hint of a planned baptism at the meeting from other sources. But spur of the moment baptisms were not uncommon. Or perhaps the baptism was planned for another day and Harriet misremembered that detail. She wouldn't be the first.

Monday, August 27, 2012

A Sign of the Times

On Wednesday, January 4th, 1967, early in the morning, the state of Tennessee erected a historical marker near the site of the Cane Creek Massacre. The images I have are poor but you can see a few things. The crowd was small. Not really surprising. It was remote; far more so than today. The Cane Creek Massacre was not an event that was popular to discuss among the residents of Lewis County at the time.  The first photo I have is much fuzzy. In it I count perhaps a dozen people most of them women in knee length winter coats and heels. Only a couple are facing the camera. The photo caption had no names.


The second photo looks more posed. The cation read, left to right, Walter F. Hogan, Elder Robert Marcum, Mission President Raymond W. Eldredge, T.J. Green of the Tennessee Central District based in Nashville and [sadly the rest of the caption was cut off on my copy].



From other records I know the people present included Samuel Smith who was a representative from the Tennessee Historical Society, several members of "the Mormon Church and their wives from Nashville" and President Raymond W. Eldredge (1908-2005) from the Mission Presidency in Louisville, Kentucky. Beyond that, perhaps someone from the newspaper in which the report was printed was also there.

I can also tell where it was placed was different than where it was placed the last time I saw it. Based on my knowledge of the area, and clues fromvarious sources, I'm guessing it was just across the street,on the north west corner. There was an error in the first sign in the spelling of John H. Gibbs' name. It was spelled "Biggs".

About two and a half years later, this same mission president responded to a letter asking about the massacre and whether a marker had been place commemorating it. The letter was written by a US Navy Chaplain then serving in Millington, Tennessee (about 10 miles north of Memphis). I don'thave the letter, but I have a copy of the Mission President's response, which was CC'd to the Office of the Church Historian. I have not been able to determine if he is still living, but I have a lead.
According to President Eldredge, only a few weeks after the sign was put up, a truck rounding the corner lost control and ran over the sign, bending the pole at the base. The State mounted the sign - which was apparently undamaged - on a new pole, this time sinking it in cement. A few weeks later the sign was again hit by a truck that lost control rounding the corner.This time the cement foundation was uprooted from the ground. President Eldredge was not convinced of the truth of the explanation, believing that local sentiment was not in favor of having the sign in the first place. But he had no evidence proving it was malicoiusly damaged. Interestingly enough, there was a lumber mill about two miles down the road -on the site of the LDS church that was burned down in May 1884 - and logging trucks would have had to round that corner frequently. Without a stop sign from that direction, there would be no reason trucks could not try to take the corner at speed.

The sign itself was replaced in 1996, but the Tennessee Historical Commission (THC) has no records of replacing it more than that. The records don't even indicate it was replaced in 1967. If the sign was not damaged in either of the 1967 events, the THC would have no reason to actually replace it. WHile the THC provides the signs, the The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) provides the pole and places it on the roadside. If the pole was damaged, TDOT would been the ones to replace the pole, leaving no records of their work on file at the THC. If this was the only time the sign itself was replaced, the spelling of Elder Gibbs name would have been corrected at that time.

The sign was eventually moved across the street, also probably in 1996. I went to see it myself for the first time in 2009. But even a new location did not prevent it from being damaged as it was in January of 2011.

http://amateurmormonhistorian.blogspot.com/2011/02/cane-creek-historical-marker.html
http://amateurmormonhistorian.blogspot.com/2011/03/to-see-what-was-left-of-marker.html
http://amateurmormonhistorian.blogspot.com/2011/03/vandalism-and-rumors-of-vandalism.html

This time the sign was damaged beyond repair. It has not yet been replaced.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Guns of the Fathers

A few weeks ago I visited the owner of a place that is today called Talley Hollow on Cane Creek. In 1884, it was called the Conder Farm. The log home where the massacre happened once stood in this hollow.(See note 1.) Today there is only a graveyard to remind the casual visitor of the bloody past. That is, unless you look around carefully. And that is just what the current owner's grandfather did. Foundation stones, bits of pottery, and other discarded items are hidden by the dirt and foliage of over a hundred twenty seven years. No surprise really, the home had been burned to the ground before 1895. But one item surprised me the most; a muzzle loading rifle.

The four foot long handmade gun was found inside the hollow portion of an old tree. It is a magnificent piece. The stock was obviously hand made with a couple pieces missing, like the stock plate and the ramrod. But it was still in pretty good shape. The action had been replaced. It had likely been made as a flintlock originally, and then had a cap lock action added. Notice the double trigger? It is a kind of safety. One is use to set the trigger relase first so that when the second is pulled it will fire more easily. By the way, it still works.

The barrel is octagonal and had a set of initials [GTM] stamped on the top about halfway between the action and the muzzle. The initials didn't photograph well. In all, it is a wonderful piece to look at and hold. The gun was certainly from the right period.(see note 2.) Although it would have been 20+ years old by 1884, and perhaps much more, that is not a problem considering the remoteness of Lewis County and its relative poverty at the time. I would have been surprised to find the latest models of firearms anyway. The big question is, did its presence have anything to do with the massacre? Of course, we will never know. Unless some journal turns up describing how someone left their gun there, I see no way to know for sure. But it certainly stirs the imagination. This is one of the reasons I love to study history in the first place.

1. A hollow is a narrow valley. It was common to build homes in these natural feature. It created natural divisions between neighbors. Cane Creek has dozens of hollows along both sides in the upper portion of its east fork where the massacre took place. They often were named for who lived there. The Talleys have lived in this hollow since 1884, and nearby before that.

2. When I visited, the person who introduced me was a gun expert. He pointed out many of the observations I have made here. He also noticed that the gun had something still in the barrel. On a later visit he was able to extract what was inside and found that the gun was still loaded.

Monday, November 14, 2011

The Home of I. T. Garrett

Isaiah Thomas Garrett, aka Tom, was the very first person to invite the LDS missionaries to speak on Cane Creek, Tennessee. He invited Elder Edward Stevenson Jr. to make the journey to his cabin in the hills. But Stevenson was released and went home before he was able to make the trip. His replacements, Joseph Argyle and Thomas Higham, made the trip instead. The place they preached was Tom's home shown here in a 1967 photograph, taken from the backyard. The opening in the center is a dogtrot, which was open all the way to the front. It allowed a breeze to pass through the house in the days before air conditioning.

The home has been mistaken for the farmhouse of Jim and Malinda Conder, which was the site of the Cane Creek massacre, but that home was a mile away and had burned to the ground, probably just before 1895. Tom's house was the place where three of the four missionaries stayed the night before the shooting. It was the last surviving structure with a connection to the massacre. I had hoped I might be able to get a better, and more current photo. But the road that ran along Cane Creek had been moved. So I wasn't sure where to look.

I knew that it was on the north side of the Creek, about a mile east of the Conder home. I knew that it had passed to the Talley family, after Tom had left Tennessee for the safety of Illinois. I knew that some missionaries had stayed there in the 1940's, even sleeping in the same bed that he missionaries had slept in on the night before the violence. But despite those clues, I couldn't find where the house was today.

Then a few weeks ago, I met with some descendents of the Talley family. They were a wealth of information, some of which I'll share later. But they shed some light on why I could not find it. The owner of the land had built an addition in front of the log home. I was lucky enough to meet someone who had worked on the heating system for the addition. He correctly described the house, with the dogtrot and all.

But it soon became clear that even the addition would not be enough. So, sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, the owner of the home had the log house portion demolished, sold the logs it was made from, and replaced it with a newer structure. According to my source, an official with Lewis County, it was the last log home standing in the county. Today, there in a mobile home on the site which has had several additions built on to it.

While I may have been 30 years too late to get an update photo. At least I know where it was. Slowly and surely, I'm collecting a better understanding of just where the places connected to the massacre were.

Monday, August 15, 2011

The evolution of manuscripts: How an alternate version of the Cane Creek Massacre survives

There are few different versions of the Cane Creek Massacre and how it went down. There were various newspaper accounts that came out in the first week after the shooting. Most were incomplete and slightly unreliable (see Betty Webb's account of the massacre). The most complete version was written about a week afterwards and was jointly written by two eyewitnesses with some missing details added from second hand sources. It was included as part of a petition to the Tennessee Governor and has agreed the most with my research. But it isn't the only one people quote today.

Of the versions from non-Mormon sources, one has had more lasting notoriety that the rest. It was written by W. L. Pinkerton in about 1905, and has been extensively quoted. His original work was published in while he worked for the Lewis County government, and again in serial form in 1909. All originals of his work have since been lost. But his words have been partially preserved in at least three places.

In 1938, as part of the Works Project Administration, local records were transcribed in order to preserve history. In Lewis County many family bibles and other local records were copied and archives under the program. One document describes, in part, then events surrounding the Cane Creek Massacre. The original was owned by Katie Cooper who lived 15 mile east of Hohenwald, TN. It was transcribed by Lillie L. Skelton. The transcribed copy was then typed up (by Josie Smith) and filed in the Tennessee State Library and Archives. I've held the original in my ungloved hands. It has been called the Cooper Skelton Manuscript. Sadly, somewhere in the process, before it was typed, one or more pages went missing. So the account is incomplete. While describing Elder Jones capture, it jumps to when Elder Roberts is retrieving the bodies. And it does this mid paragraph. The shooting itslef left out entirely.

In 1943, a newspaper editor for the Lewis County Herald in Hohenwald, re-ran the 1909 serial that Pinkerton ran. It was probably in the newspapers archives which today does not exist. The version is far more complete than the Cooper Skelton Manuscript. It includes a section on the shooting. Yet it too is missing some parts. Specifically it is missing some of the most egregious and offensive parts. Why? In this case we can trace the intent back to the editor from 1943. His name was W. W. Pollock. As chance would have it, the Pollock family purchased the newspaper from a local bank that had taken ownership through bankruptcy proceedings. But a few years earlier, the family was in the gravestone business. In fact, in 1934, they were the company that was commissioned by the Church to carve a marker for the two sons of Malinda Conder: John Riley Hudson, and William Martin Conder.

W. W. Pollock was the man who delivered the stone and was present for the dedication, which was presided over by Elder Callis. Pollock was favorably impressed with the Church and made several "additions" to the story based on his research and experience including an account of the dedication of the new gravestone.

The most recent version was in 1967. Marise Parish Lightfoot and Evelyn B. Shackelford took two copies of the Pinkerton document - the Cooper Skelton Manuscript and another unspecified copy of the 1909 serial - and combined them together trying to resolve some of the missing information. There were still some missing parts that were included in the 1943 version, that were still missing from the 1967 version. But exactly which parts were original to Pinkerton and which were created by Pollock in his re-write is difficult to determine. Even with the additions it is obvious that parts are still missing.

Copies of these documents circulate around on the internet. They sometimes get modified depending upon the personal slant of the transcriber. But they all share the same flaw. They are not original documents. Even when Pinkerton wrote it, it was 20 years afterwards. There are no sources, so there is no way to verify any of his assertions. And it disagrees on major points with first hand eyewitness testimonies of both Mormons and vigilantes.

[William Levi Pinkerton was born in1876 in Cow Hollow Branch, Hickman County, Tennessee. He married Annie Eliza Worley in 1900 and the two had only one child; a daughter born in about 1903 whom they named Lucile. He worked for the Lewis County government  in public education from 1905 to 1906. He founded the Lewis County Herald at about the same time. He published a history of Lewis County in around 1909, when he was a young lawyer working in Hohenwald. He shows up in the 1910 census as an editor for a weekly newspaper in Dickson County, and he was listed as the cashier for the Leipers Fork Bank in 1911. In fact he was instrumental in founding that bank though he made himself Cashier to keep an eye on it. The only biography I could find was written in 1913, at which time he had retired from "public" life. By the 1930 census he was a self employed Lawyer. And according to W. W. Pollock, a newspaper editor who republished his history of Lewis County, Pinkerton later became a judge in Hickman County.  It was in Centerville, the seat of Hickman County, that he passed away in 1948.]

Monday, March 21, 2011

Vandalism and Rumors of Vandalism

My educational background is in political science. I have been trained when I write to be careful to present only facts, or at least what can be presented as facts. It was politics after all. So as an historian, amateur or otherwise, I am hesitant to report rumors as they can be misinterpreted as fact. Not that I think that my readers are too unsophisticated to distinguish fact from rumor, but that I will unconsciously assert that what I am saying is true, even if the evidence is not complete.

But, in my personal research, I have found that rumors, far from being misleading, can be enlightening. Much of what happened to Mormons in the post Civil War South, was fed by rumor. If I wanted to understand why Mormons were treated the way they were, ignoring rumors would be like seeing a movie with half the screen blocked. So I listen to rumors, and sometimes I pass them along.

So rumor has it that the missing historical marker for the Cane Creek massacre has been found. A tip led a Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) crew, to a bridge crossing the Buffalo River about six miles south of the city of Hohenwald. The sign’s original location was about 13 miles north of where it was found. It had been thrown into the river from the bridge. The TDOT crew waded out into the river and retrieved the sign. But the sign has not yet made it back into the hands of the Historical Commission, and I have not been able to get confirmation that the sign has indeed been found.

A representative for the Tennessee Historical Commission (THC) believes that because of how the sign was broken off, it is probably not repairable. It was made from cast aluminum (not iron as I once thought) at a foundry in Ohio - Sewah Studios. Although there are processes for reattaching the broken off piece of the sign to its base, I am told by friends accustomed to working with aluminum that such a repair would be difficult, and the results may not be satisfactory. In addition it might not be cheaper than replacing the sign altogether. And even if it is less expensive and a local foundry could be found to perform the work, there is still no money in this years’ THC budget for the repair.

So to make a long story short, even if the sign has been found, it still will have to be replaced.

I also find the speculation about the culprits and their motivation fascinating. Before it was found some wondered if it someone would try to sell it for scrap metal, an option I had not considered, mostly because the sign would have been easily identified. Other suggestions were more in the line of what I was thinking; someone didn't like what the sign said. To be fair, I've never run into anyone who thought the sign should disappear; only people who thought others might want to help it do so.

But it was who people thought might do such a thing the fascinated me most. Suggestions to their identity were as varied as juveniles with rich parents and too much time on their hands, to relatives of those who ran the Mormons off 125 years ago, to members of the TDOT crew that found the sign. I find little value in such speculation. Except in that it tells us a little bit about the speculator. I certainly don’t believe members of the TDOT crew that retrieved the sign had anything to do with it. But the person who suggested the possibility was a longtime LDS resident whose family has experienced more than their share of anti-Mormon bias. So it might be a little paranoid, but perhaps understandably so. In the massacre that the sign describes, some people in the mob were the very ones who should have been protecting them; among them a deputy sheriff, and a prominent local physician.

While several signs have been vandalized in the area, and the culprits’ motivations are not really known, it probably doesn’t matter. In a county with about twelve thousand residents, it takes just a handful to perpetuate this kind of damage. Despite what happened more than 125 years ago, Lewis County is a great place to live. And stealing a sign doesn't compare to some of the things being done to Mormons and Mormon structures elsewhere, even today. But that is the subject for another day.

Monday, March 14, 2011

I like to collect photos

Some people collect stamps, I like to collect photos and articles about events in Tennessee Mormon history. Often I have been given these by friends or readers (sometimes by those who are both). Often what I get is tangentially related. But even if they are, I find there is something new in it.

Recently I was given this image. It was dated 1964 and showed Robert Coleman and Horace Cooper "Bud" Talley. The building behind them was identified as the Old Talley Cabin. According to the photgraph notes this was the sme cabin where the B. H. Roberts stayed at Cane Creek after he exumed the bodies of Elders Gibbs and Berry. The bodies actually were left in the wagon in the barn.

The cabin originally belonged to I. Tom Garrett, who was the owner when the missionaries were killed. After Mr. Garrett fled Cane Creek for Illinois in fear for his life, the family sold it to Bash Talley, one of the few members of the branch who stayed at Cane Creek. Bash also ended up buying the land on which the Conder farm sat. H. C. Talley, in this photo, was the son of Bash and Eliza Talley, though he did not join the LDS church until 1949.

When I read this it reminded me of a story told to me a while back how Bud Talley would say the bodies were kept in his barn the night B. H. Roberts dug them up. I always thought, "that can't be right." But now seeing this photo, I put two and two together. I knew the Talley family owned the land that the Garret cabin was on. Now it all makes sense. I'm sure whoever took this photo wasn't thinking it would someday resolve two conflicting stories.

So go ahead and collect stamps. I'll stick with photographs.

Monday, March 7, 2011

To see what was left of the marker

Last week I reported that the historical marker for the Cane Creek Massacre had gone missing. Well, here is what is left. And soon even that will be gone. The Tennessee Department of Transportation is goin to remove the pole and someday, but not this year, it will get replaced.

To give you an idea of scale the post is about 4 inches thick. The sign was made of cast iron, and appears to have been snapped off with a considerable amount of force.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Cane Creek Historical Marker

Yesterday, I spoke with a friend who lives on Cane Creek Road in Lewis County. She told me that the historical marker for the Cane Creek massacre is missing. Now, there are a few possible explanations. It could have been knocked or blown down. Tennessee does have tornado problems. But there hasn't been a tornado through there and there is no damage to the surrounding area. Plus the post is still there, which means it wasn't knocked down by a car. In addition there are parts of the sign still attached to the metal post, which means it wasn't removed by someone with the proper tools. Call me paranoid, but I think it was vandalized. I'm heading up there this weekend to get a photo myself. I'm also contacting the Tennessee Historical Commission.

The sign is the second placed by the historical society, the first was placed in 1966 at a small pull-over spot along the main highway. There was even a picnic bench at the first spot. But according to one local resident it was knocked down and was missing for a long time. The Historical Commission records show the sign was replaced only once in May 1996. At the same time the sign was moved to the intersection of Cane Creek Road and Hwy 41; closer to the Conder farm but with no place to pull over and read it. The sign reads:

TENNESSEE'S MORMON MASSACRE

One-half mile west on August 10, 1884, at a farmhouse on the east fork of Cane Creek several Mormon missionaries and their followers were attacked by a mob of disguised citizens. Killed were two missionaries, Elders William S. Berry and John H. Gibbs, two of their local associates, Martin Conder and J. R. Hudson; and one of the mob. The fight was caused primarily because of local opposition to the practice of plural marriage by the Mormon Church.

Tennessee Historical Commission


Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Family Photos

One of the resons I like a blog as a medium for sharing Mormon history is that it encourages feedback from readers. Well, this was a week for feed back. 
Solomon J Hinson


One reader sent in two photographs of his ancestors who, according to family tradition were among the vigilantes who attacked the Conder home in 1884. 

The two were father and son Solomon Jordan Hinson and John Andrew Hinson (aka Turkey John).

The story was originally told by Clyde Hinson, a granson of Turkey John.


Turkey John Hinson


"He told us that his grand father 'John A. Hinson' was there, and did take part in the terrible day. He told me also about what kind of person John was, and it was not good. Clyde said that he was a very mean person who cared only about himself. He said that he use to ride his mule up and down Indian Creek with his shotgun by his side."

 But I also found it interesting that this reader had relatives on both side of the conflict. While his grandmother was a Hinson, his grandfather was a Carroll. There were several members of the Carroll family who were members of the Cane Creek Branch, including Malinda Carroll Conder.



Friday, October 1, 2010

What would you ask ?

Two weeks ago, I spoke with one of the descendents of Visey Conder. Visey was the youngest daughter of Jim and Malinda Conder at whose home the Cane Creek Massacre occured. It was a delightful conversation, but it got me thinking about what sort of questions I should be asking. Some details came out in the course of the phone call. Visey is pronounce "Vie-See" with the emphasis on the first sylable. At some point Visey became a Methodist, married a Methodist, and raised all her children as Methodist. Rachel, who never married, remained committed to the LDS church. She had a cupboard in which she kept all the "pamphlets" she received from the church in the mail. She lived with Visey and her family until she died. And when she did Visey's husband took the whole cupboard out and burned it with all it's contents.

I have more questions I didn't think to ask, like "What ever happened to Martin's violin?" and I have some photos which show the Conder sisters with others I'd like to identify. But most of all, I'd love to learn which sister was which in the photos I have.

I offered to let her write up something for a guest post about what she was told about her family. She seemed very interested. If she decide not to, I'll put together more of my notes from our phone call.

But I am a little too close to think of everything. What kind of questions would you think of asking?

Friday, September 3, 2010

Judge Bateman's Charge to the Grand Jury

[Several weeks after the Massacre at Cane Creek, a grand jury was convened in Lewis County to bring any indictments should a witness come forward. The judge, P. T. Bateman, addressed the grand jury, instructing them to consider carefully how they proceed. His speech is both a call for justice and an admission that justice is unlikely. It is a sense prophetic in that no indictments were ever delivered.

The reaction from Mormon sources, however, is surprisingly positive. The Deseret News reprinted the below text from the Hickman Pioneer, a local Tennessee newspaper. When compared to other statements made by public officials, Judge Bateman’s position is considered almost favorable. While not condoning any of the LDS religious practices, he does stress the need for what is essentially the Rule of Law. The perpetrators must be punished.]


Gentlemen of the Jury:- There has been a great deal said about the mob of masqued men, in this county, killing four Mormons, including two of their elders, and of the Mormons killing one of the masqued men. How the facts are I do not know, whether you will be called on or not to investigate the case. Let this be as it may, it is my duty to give you proper instructions for your action in case the matter is brought before you.


In the first place the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State guarantee to every person the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. This right is the same whether the worshipper be a Christian, a Jew, a Mohammedan, a Mormon, a Buddhist, or any other sect. And it is not left for you or me to question the conscience or the motives of anyone; we can only look at the professions and leave the matter of conscience to them and their Maker. I am perfectly satisfied with the situation, for all religious sects and creeds stand on an equal footing with me, and I have no desire to change anyone from his religious belief to any other. If his religion suits him it suits me. But it appears from the history of mankind from the earliest dates that the differences in religious belief have caused more bloodshed torture, suffering and misery than any other one thing that has agitated the human family, and so far back as we have history it appears that one sect would become dissatisfied with the consciences of some other sect and would try to reform it to suit their own liking, which would generally bring about trouble; and in latter days the Christians, feeling it their duty, send out missionaries to spread their doctrines among other nations, get them killed where the nations are satisfied with their own religion and do not desire a change; so it appears that the Mormons, feeling some uneasiness about the future of the Christians, send out their missionaries among them to teach them their new doctrines, and occasionally get them killed. And this thing of murdering one another for differing in religious belief has been going on as far back as we have history , and it looks as if it would continue as long as there remain two different religions and they can get hold of each other’s missionaries, and no civil tribunal to this day has ever been able to suppress it. This remedy to prevent the spread of new doctrines among people who have a religion that suits them, has been very effective, and has kept the great religious divisions of the world confined principally where they could be protected by soldiers of their own faith; so it is, we see repeated here what has been going on as far back as history reaches. This practice of killing men for attempting to introduce a new religion in a country that does not want it can never be suppressed by the civil tribunals, and he who expects it will certainly be disappointed; because at this time we find a part of the clergy, a portion of the press and a large number of the people justifying it, and thereby encouraging its continuation. On the other hand, a part of the clergy, a portion of the press and a large number of the people have acted nobly in condemning such acts and endeavoring to prevent a repetition of them.

I have said this much that the public may see how futile it is for a court to attempt to do anything in a case like this one before us, and it is obliged to remain this way so long as there is such a diseased sentiment among a part of the clergy, a portion of the press and many of the people.

But, gentlemen of the jury, it makes no difference how powerless the courts are in such cases, they must act, and in cases like this they must generally fail to do anything, and must bear the consequences of one party for tying to do, and the censures of the other party for not doing what they cannot do.

The law is: That any person going about the country masqued of disguised is guilty of a misdemeanor. If they make an assault upon any one with a deadly weapon it is a felony, and if they kill anyone it is murder, and in such cases it is the duty of the grand jury to send for witnesses if they think they know who can make out the case, and examine the witnesses touching the offense of going masqued or disguised and any offense growing out of it, and find bills or not, as the proof may justify; and if they find any they will require the attorney general to draw up the proper bills; or, in case anyone wants to prosecute, he will go to the attorney general who will draw up bills for him in proper form and put the names of the witnesses and prosecutor on the back and sign them and the prosecutor will take them before the grand jury, whose duty it is to examine the witnesses and find bills or not as the proof may justify. So any one who may wish to prosecute will find both the court and grand jury room open to him. It is the duty of the grand jury to give what aid they can to anyone who may wish to prosecute those engaged in the mob or anyone who aided, abetted or encouraged it. It is the policy of the law to put a stop, as far as possible, to mob violence. It sets all law at defiance; it ignores all individual rights; it endangers the lives of all citizens, and for any one to excuse it is to encourage it, and it is a step towards extinguishing every right guaranteed by our Constitution.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

A Graphic Tale of Violence, Forgiveness, and Sacrifice.

[Warning: This story contains a little graphic violence. If you want to avoid the most graphic parts, don't read the sentences that I struck out below.]

Two brothers, Joseph and Robert and Robert’s wife Isabella were on their way from Spanish Fork, Utah County, their former home, to their new home at Long Valley. It was April 1866, and this area was still frontier. They had spent the winter at their old home and had purchased some farm implements including a plow. A pair of good horses pulled the light wagon it was on. In addition they had bought more supplies.

Along the way they stopped briefly at the homes of friends who would be joining them in their new home further south. They stopped at Ezra Strong’s place in Kane County. And at William Maxwell’s place at Short Creek. At both places they decided not to wait for their friends. They wanted to get back to their new home and get started on the considerable work still needed.

But their decision was fateful. For just two miles past Short Creek, at a place called Cedar Ridge, they were attacked by Indians. Joseph was shot in the leg and they turned back to Short Creek. But they never made it. The Indians chased them down. At Big Sandy Wash, the Indians crippled one of the horses by shooting it in the shoulder making it unable to pull. This probably happened at full gallop since the other horse pulled unevenly on the harness and cramped the wagon. Unable to go any further they were killed and their horses taken.

Robert and Joseph had a brother named William who grew concerned that they had not yet arrived. So William started from Long Valley and started back tracking. Stopping at a grassy spot to rest the horse, he said a quiet prayer for the safety of his brothers and sister-in-law. As he prayed, a vision was opened to him showing their fate. Fearing it could be true he hurried on to Grafton for help. Along the way he met a friendly Indian who confirmed his horrible vision.

At Grafton a posse was organized and sent to recover the bodies. Robert was found tied faceing out to the front wagon wheel, his body riddled with holes. Joseph was found a short distance from the wagon. Isabellas body was on the wagon tongue face up, stripped, raped and mutilated. She was pregnant with their second child. They took their bodies to Grafton and buried them there.

William tried to find the Indians who killed his brothers and sister-in-law. William traced the iron arrowheads the Indians used back to Mr. Wilcock, the man who made them. Wilcock identified the two Indians to whom he sold the arrowheads. It wasn't long before William cornered the two in a log cabin. Butcher knife in hand, he held one against the wall, intent on extracting whatever he knew about who had used those iron arrowheads. As the Indian talked, William became sure this was one of the killers. The knife was at the Indian’s abdomen. But then something changed. As the Indian folded his arms and stood there motionless, William heard a voice saying "Venegence is mine saith the Lord" and he realized he wanted “no human blood on his soul”. He released his grip and told the Indian to go.

Eighteen years later, William was called on a mission. He was much older than his companion and the lessons he learned in not letting his anger control him had served him well. Even in the face of danger, William remained calm and in control. Four months into his mission he was sitting in a members home when four men forced their way in the front door. They shot the missionary leading the services and then turned to shoot William’s companion. But William’s quick thinking saved his companion’s life. He grabbed the shot gun barrel and held it, preventing the shooter from getting a clear shot. He didn’t fight the shooter, he just held the gun. His companion survived, escaping out the back door and into the woods. But William wasn’t so lucky. Another shooter pointed his gun at William. Knowing he fate was sure, he bowed his head and waited for death. William Shanks Berry died defending his companion on August 10, 1884 at Cane Creek, Tennessee.

Monday, May 31, 2010

The Conder Family before and after the Massacre

[This paper was presented at the MHA conference on May 29, 2010. ]

Prologue

On August 10th 1884, over a dozen disguised men armed with pistols and shotguns attacked the home of Jim and Malinda Conder where LDS Church services were about to begin. When the shooting was over five people were dead, one crippled, and the lives of the nine LDS families still living at Cane Creek were forever changed. But with the crippling of Mrs. Conder and the death of her two sons and it was the Conder family which suffered the most.

The Conder Family

Twenty nine years earlier, in 1855, the future Mrs. Conder was twenty-two year old Malinda Carroll living on Little Swan Creek in Lewis County. That year she married John R. Hutson and the two moved into a log home along the east fork of Cane Creek . Even before their first child was born, however, John died . Malinda was devastated, but she continued living on Cane Creek . When her son was born later that year , she named him John Riley Hutson, after his deceased father. Riley was six years old, when Malinda remarried. Her new husband, Jim Conder, treated her son as his own.

Their life was soon interrupted by the Civil War. Actually, the closest the war came to their home was small units foraging for food and supplies. But still, people from Cane Creek lost fathers, husbands and brothers in battles across the south. Jim Conder and his brothers fought at the Confederate defeat at Raymond, Mississippi in May 1863. One of Jim’s brothers was killed. Two others were captured. To avoid the same fate, Jim just went home .

Back at Cane Creek, Jim and Malinda resumed their lives. They had three children of their own ; Martin, Rachel, and Visey. They built up their farm to about 300 acres including an apple orchard near the house. A saw mill at nearby Ivy Mills provided periodic employment which they took when they could get it. In the evenings they gathered in the homes of friends and family for entertainment. Music was a big part of that. Young Martin Conder, for example, learned to play the violin . From time to time they would listen to traveling preachers. Campbellites, Baptists and Methodists were the most common, but the Mormons came too.

As early as 1878, LDS missionaries were holding public meetings in area schoolhouses and the homes of some prominent residents like Sheriff John Carroll. But it was at the home of Eli and Barby Talley that a branch of the LDS Church took root. Eli opened his home for the missionaries in late July 1879. By September, both he and his wife requested baptism. Dozens more, most of whom were relatives, would eventually follow.

Among them were Jim and Malinda Conder. Barby Talley was Malinda’s sister-in-law through her first husband. And Malinda’s brother was Sheriff John Carroll. But it was Jim who first committed to baptism . Malinda decided to wait. Although no clear explanation is given, one elder speculated it was because of the false rumors being spread about the LDS church.

The events that convinced others to join had no apparent effect on Malinda or her decision on whether to get baptized. On November 10th, 1879, Rachel Lancaster was miraculously healed. Shortly thereafter Rachel and her sister-in-law, Sarah Lancaster , joined the small branch, bringing membership up to eight. And the healing caused a stir among others living on Cane Creek. Within a couple of months, seven more people were baptized. Still, Malinda and her children were not among them.

Several families that joined the LDS church took the opportunity to gather to Zion. Rachel Lancaster, Burwell Blanton and his family, and the three DePriest brothers along with their families, went to Colorado as directed by Church leaders. But most of the members of the Cane Creek branch elected to stay in Tennessee. Jim showed no interest in moving west and no missionary recorded encouraging him to do so.

Over the next five years, Jim was actively involved in the branch. He and two others coordinated the building of a log meeting house. And missionaries frequently ate and slept at the Conder home. Many elders became close friends with the Conder family. So close that they were not above playing pranks on each other.

One March morning, Jim Conder returned from hunting squirrels to find a young man at his home. The man introduced himself as Willis Robison, a Baptist minister. He said he had heard there was going to be a Mormon service there that evening and he wished to attend. He said he had heard much spoken about the Mormon Elders, though most of it in disrespect. Actually, Reverend Robison was Elder Robison, a relatively new LDS missionary to Tennessee who had not yet visited Cane Creek. At the urging of his companion and with the consent of Jim’s family, he had agreed to pose as a Baptist preacher. But Jim was not so easily deceived. After only a few minutes, he interrupted Robison saying “You can’t fool me on them eyes. You’re an elder yourself.” Jim and Elder Robison became close friends after that.

In February 1884 Malinda had a change of heart. She and two of her children, Riley and Rachel were baptized. Even in Tennessee, February is not a warm month. The discomfort of an outdoor, midwinter baptism is mitigated only by true dedication. Malinda did not get baptized just to please her husband. Her conversion was genuine. This also marked the beginning of a string of baptisms at Cane Creek. In April and May of 1884, eighteen more were performed, including two more of Jim and Malinda’s children: Martin and Visey.

Originally, Martin had no interest in getting baptized. Martin genuinely liked the missionaries, but he was sometimes described as a hardened mountain boy. His rough demeanor concerned even his parents. So the service was planned for just four baptisms including Visey. But since the missionaries were going to leave Cane Creek to visit another branch right after the service, one missionary was impressed to seek out Martin before the service started in order to say good bye. He found Martin working in a bean field belonging to Tom Garrett . As the two were saying good-bye, the elder shared his testimony. Martin was so touched by his words, that he insisted on being baptized that very day.

Lead up to the Massacre

About five days before the massacre, two missionaries recently assigned to the area, made their way to the Cane Creek where they stayed at the Conder home. Two other missionaries joined them at Cane Creek the next day, staying at the Garrett home that first night. The four spent the week visiting members and preparing for Sunday’s service.

On Friday afternoon, while they met at the home of Eli and Barby Talley, A neighbor, Rube Mathis, came to visit the Conder family for an early afternoon meal. Unlike nearly everyone else living on Cane Creek, Rube wasn’t related to the Talley family. He was actually first cousins with the one vigilante who would be killed at the massacre, David Hinson. Because of that relationship, Rube had attended a meeting the previous day. Its purpose was to decide what to do about the Mormon problem. We have to guess what they decided. But since Rube was friends with the Conder family, he felt the need to warn them they were in danger.

It isn’t clear whether Jim and his sons understood the nature of the plans being made against them, but they dismissed the warning. They told Rube that they had been threatened before, but it never amounted to anything. This time, they insisted, would be no different. When Rube realized he could not get them to cancel the Sunday morning service, he left with the advice that they not do anything foolish to make things worse.

However, Rube must have made quite an impression on Malinda Conder. That night she had a dream about Sunday’s meeting. In her dream she saw that there would be violence and bloodshed. So, when she awoke Saturday morning, she urged her boys to load their guns in order to be ready for whatever happened. They did as she asked. Riley placed his muzzle loading double barrel shotgun in the loft, probably thinking he wouldn’t need it. Martin hung his single barrel gun on deer antlers over the back door, where it was more readily accessible.

The Massacre

On Sunday morning guests began arriving at the Conder home at least an hour before the scheduled meeting. Malinda’s niece, Betty Webb brought her husband Al and their two sons: Byron and Kess. They came partly out of curiosity, but mostly to support “Aunt Sues” as Malinda was known to her extended family. But the visitor Malinda seemed most excited about was her nine month old grandnephew Kess . She took Kess in her arms and from that point on her focus was on the baby. Thirteen year old Visey took over for her mother in the kitchen.

Malinda and her other daughter, Rachel, sat in the room which had been set up for the meeting. Betty Webb, Eliza Talley and others who have not been definitively identified were also in the room as well as three missionaries . Prior to the start of the meeting, they sang a collection of hymns . Outside, Martin and Riley showed a few guests around the orchard next to the house. Jim was positioned at the front gate. He welcomed latecomers as they arrived and kept an eye out for the trouble Rube Mathis had warned about.

Just as the singing inside stopped, a dozen or more men emerged from the forest and seized Jim. He had only enough time to call out for his sons to get their guns. Both boys ran for the house. Riley jumped the fence and made it there first. He went in the back door and up to the loft to get his gun. By the time Martin made it to the house, three or four of the vigilantes were already inside. One of them was going for Martin’s shotgun hanging over the back door. Martin reached for it as well and soon found himself wrestling for control of the gun. In the struggle the vigilante’s mask came off revealing him to be David Hinson. At this Hinson lost his temper. He drew a pistol, pointed it at Martin’s face and pulled the trigger. The gun snapped, but didn’t fire. Furious, David hit Martin on the head with the pistol knocking him to the ground. The gash on his head looked serious but at most rendered him briefly unconscious.

By the time Martin regained his senses, he could see two missionaries lying dead on the floor. David Hinson was still standing there holding Martin’s shot gun. So Martin did what any twenty-two year old boy pumped with adrenaline and testosterone would do. He got up and tried to grab his gun. This time, however, another man shot Martin, killing him instantly.

Moments later, Riley came down the stairs with his own shot gun just in time to see Hinson walking away from Martin’s body and out the door. Two of the vigilantes still in the house saw Riley with his gun and tried to grab him. Riley shook them off and moved to the door. He picked David Hinson out from the crowd and shot him above the waist .

Responding quickly one of the men outside fired on Riley fatally wounding him in the stomach. Other vigilantes fired into the house, one of them hitting Malinda who was still holding baby Kess. Part of the shot hit her in the upper thigh, breaking the bone.

After the Shooting

After the vigilantes left, Jim and several others ran to the house. Martin and the missionaries were dead. Riley still was conscious, so they helped him to a shed behind the house. Knowing he could not survive his wounds, Riley insisted that they do what they could to save his mother. Riley lived only a couple of hours after the shooting. Someone was sent by carriage to get a doctor. They returned with Dr. Plummer who tried to set Malinda’s broken bone . Even with this help it appeared for a while that she would not recover.

Immediately after the shooting, Jim told Tom Garrett that he knew who the disguised men were. But when the coroner arrived the next day, Jim testified that because of the masks he could not identify any of them except David Hinson who was, by then, dead. Fear of reprisal kept him silent. It was just a glimpse of the fear that came to drive behavior of the survivors of the Massacre for years afterwards.

In fact, the fear intensified into justifiable paranoia. A couple of days later, just before midnight, the Conder girls heard rocks being thrown at their door. Anxious that the vigilantes might have returned, they immediately put out their lamps. By the moonlight they could see a dirty, ill clad man crouching behind a tree stump. He claimed to be Elder Willis Robison and asked to be let in. The Conder family knew Elder Robison, but this man looked more like a farmhand. He said he came a long way to make sure everyone was all right and to see if he could help. He refused to be turned away now. Awakened by the disturbance, Jim came to the door. He immediately recognized his friend’s voice and let him in. Jim told Elder Robison all about the Massacre and assured him that there was nothing he could do for them. He also told him that the last two missionaries had made it safely to Shady Grove.

Elder Robison observed how Jim and Malinda were dealing with the tragedy in different ways. Malinda was understandably bitter, considering her injury and the loss of her two sons. Bedridden, she was smoking a corn cob pipe to ease the pain. In addition her survival was still in doubt. Jim, however, wasn’t angry. He seemed sad yet at peace. He was grateful that in the midst of all the violence that God had preserved those he had. But the longer Elder Robison stayed the more uneasy Jim became. He said he was concerned for Elder Robison’s safety and encouraged him to leave immediately. But more than that, he was afraid that guards placed by the vigilantes had seen Elder Robison arrive and would soon come to get him. That would, of course, put the rest of his family great in danger. So, at Jim’s urging, just an hour after his arrival, Elder Robison left the Conder family as he had found them.

Second hand reports claim that Jim immediately left Lewis County in fear of his life, leaving his family behind. Malinda was certainly too weak to move. But other evidence doesn’t support this claim. Eight days after the massacre Jim was seen outside his home chopping firewood when B.H. Roberts exhumed the bodies of the dead missionaries. Elder Roberts later wrote that eventually Jim took his whole family to Perry County. And leaving did seem wise. Two other murders were rumored to have been committed by the vigilantes, exacerbating the fear that the violence wasn’t going to stop.

But the fear didn’t last forever. Jim and Malinda eventually came back to Lewis County, although they could not bring themselves to live in their original home . In 1895, Visey married Will Haley , a resident of Trace Creek eight miles to the south of Cane Creek. Jim, Malinda, and Rachel moved into a house next door to Visey and her new husband. They lived there quietly for many years, perhaps hoping to avoid stirring up the previous animosity. But in 1900, Jim, Malinda, and a few other branch members still living in Lewis County signed an open letter attesting to the character of the missionaries who served at Cane Creek. The letter was reprinted in LDS Church publications. Such a public repudiation of the popular justification for the murders could have been dangerous but they suffered no repercussions for their statement. Some of the suspected vigilantes had died or moved away by 1900. While others were reported to be ashamed of the part they played in the violent affair.

In retrospect we can see the tide had turned, although at the time no one would have believed it. Few Latter-day Saints from outside Tennessee braved the unknown danger of Lewis County, Tennessee. Contact between the LDS Church and the members still living there was sporadic at best. Whether it was a missionary on his way to serve elsewhere or a missionary on her way home, the visits were short and private. Sometimes missionaries would visit to perform ordinances in catch up fashion like the baptisms for teenage children of member families. Several of Malinda’s nieces and nephews were baptized in this way.

Although they did not have regular services, the Conder family remained committed to the LDS Church. In 1910 they, along with seven others were listed on LDS Church rolls for Lewis County. With the exception of the Conders, however, none of the survivors of the massacre still living in the county were included on the list. It would, however be their last appearance in Church records. In 1911, Jim passed away , followed in 1916 by Malinda .

Completely devoted to caring for her parents in their old age, Rachel chose to not get married. In her old age she told one interviewer that she did not regret that decision. After her mother died, Rachel moved in with her sister. They entertained a handful of guests interested in talking to the survivors of the Massacre. The sisters recounted their experience and showed off relics of the past. Among them were Riley’s shot gun and Martin’s violin. One guest was even allowed to play the violin. Later the shotgun was donated to the Church History Library, but the location of the violin has passed from public record.

Although they received guests, the old fear was still present. In 1934, the LDS church placed a monument on the grave of Riley and Martin. Charles A. Callis, the newest member of The Twelve, dedicated the monument in the presence of a dozen guests. The Conder sisters did not attend the service, possibly out of fear that such an open association would stir up the old animosities.

In 1947, when missionaries were again permanently assigned to Lewis County , one of the first tasks of the new missionaries was to visit the homes of known members, including Rachel and Visey Conder. The sisters were polite to the elders, allowing them to take photographs. In one missionary’s opinion, however, the sisters didn’t want to have anything to do with them after that out of fear it could cause them trouble. The men who had killed their brothers, crippled their mother and driven them from their home were all dead and gone, but the effects of their violence were still being felt. Even after sixty-three years, the fear was still strong.

Eventually the last two members of the Conder family at the massacre passed away. Rachel died in 1955, still in Lewis County at the age of eighty-seven. She was buried at Trace Creek Cemetery, a few miles south of Cane Creek. Visey died a few years later in 1958 at the age of eighty-eight. Visey was survived by her husband Will, two daughters, four grandchildren, and several great grandchildren.

Bibliography

Friday, February 12, 2010

Cabins and why I can't take a vacation from my hobbies

Last Week I took some much needed time off from work and hobbies to spend some dedicated time with my wife. We abondoned our children to the care of a college student in our Ward (ha ha ha unsuspecting fool!!) and drove to the Smokey Mountains. While there we happened upon a section of the National Park called Cades Cove. Now I had no idea this was there, but my wife saw something about it in the all the pamphlets she gathered and thought it would be a great way to spend an afternoon.

Cades Cove was settled from the 1820's to the 1930's with a vast majority of the buildings being from the late 19th century. In fact this is the largest collection of 19th century log cabins on the eastern US. All of it exists only because the land was "purchased" in the 1930's and was protected from development since then.

So I walk up to the first cabin and it dawns on me. Somewhere in this collection of 19th century Tennessee cabins is an example of what the the Conder home would have looked like. (So much for leaving my hobbies at home) I have always wondered about things described about the Conder home that didn't fit my preconceived notions about cabins.
  1. The Conder home was big enough to hold a Sunday meeting for probably 50 people. I was in perhaps half a dozen log cabins during our trip and saw many others just from the outside. Some were surprizingly large.Yes, 50 people would be crowded, but doable. Even comfortable in a few.
  2. Riley was in the loft getting his gun but was not seen by the vigilantes until he came down the stairs. Nearly every cabin I saw had a ceiling all but completely closing off the loft. None of them had a ladder to get to the loft. In every case it was a steep and narrow stair case completely covered and with a door. In most families the sons slept in the loft while the parents and girls and little children slept downstairs.
  3. Martin came in through the back door. All the cabins had at least two doors and most had three. In a log cabin, doors are cheap to make.
  4. Visey was in the kitchen when the shooting started. Only one cabin I went into had a single room. It was built in 1829. All of the others had 2 to 5 rooms, plus a loft. The kitchen was usually one of the first rooms added to a cabin, since cooking meant heat and in Tennessee, the summers are hot enough indoors without adding to it with cooking.
  5. Malinda was shot through the front windows. Framed windows were in every cabin I saw. They appeared to be relatively modern in design, though not with that tilt-in-for-cleaning feature.
  6. Jim Conder was at the gate greeting guests. Split rail fencing in a zig zag pattern was cheap, easy to build and easy to modify when you wanted to make your herb garden a little bigger. If you wanted to keep unwanted livestock away from your house and garden, you kept your gate closed, giving Jim a good reason to be at the gate when the guests arrived. What I didn't see was a gate designed to work for the split rail fencing.
Here is a photo of the smallest of the cabins at Cade Cove. Except for the lack of a kitchen it had the features the Conder home did, even a stairway to the loft. The inside was easily 20' by 25'. The Conder family was affluent by Cane Creek standards. Jim had over 300 acres under cultivation and at least one "shed" out back. The average family in 19th century Tennessee would, in addition to the main home, need a smoke house, a corn crib, a barn, and an outhouse.

Friday, January 22, 2010

John Nicholson's lecture on the Tennessee Massacre

On September 22, 1884, John Nicholson lectured in Salt Lake City on the causes of the Cane Creek Masaacre. John Nicholson worked as an associate editor for the Deseret News under Charles W. Penrose. He wrote hymns (see note), missionary tracts, and was a popular public speaker.

It was actually the second lecture he made about the causes of the Massacre. The first was delivered on the 14th or 15th of September in the Twelfth Ward Assembly Rooms. The response was so possitive that a number of people asked that Mr Nicholson repeat his message infront of a larger crowd.

The Salt Lake Theatre was secured for September 22nd. The manager of the theatre was Hiram Bradley Clawson who was also the Bishop the Twelfth Ward where John gave his first presentation. The organizers also obtained the services of a stenographer, John Irvine. It is the stenographers copy that we have today, though there are some notes from the lecture on the 15th included at the end. The theatre was packed with an additional three to four hundred people sitting on the stage itself. The Theatre Ochestra and the Sixteenth Ward Band were on hand to play music before Mr Nicholson began speaking.

The text of his lecture is now in the public domain, available from several sources on the web. Here are just a few.

Open Library
Internet Archive

By the way, I don't agree with Mr Nicholson about the cause of the Massacre. He says that the Red Hot Address was a principle cause. Although I have nothing to judge the specifics of his reasoning about politics in Utah, I doubt the magnitude of his assumed effect on the people of Lewis County. I think it was something else that pushed them over the edge and it had little to do with the Red Hot Address. But that is the subject of another post.

[John Nicholson wrote the text for Come Follow Me, The Lord is My Light, and While of these Emblems We Partake]

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Where are the guns now?

In a phone conversation the other day, the subject came up about a gun that had been inherited from the interviewees grandfather. According to family lore, the gun was picked up by an ancestor who was assisting with removing the bodies of the two elders from Cane Creek. The story goes on to say that this was THE gun used in the Massacre. OK, there was more than just one gun. There were many guns. I will be looking into the details about this specific gun in the future, but it made me think about the guns about which we know and wonder which gun could this be.

John Riley Hudson had a muzzle loading shotgun. He loaded it the day before the Massacre after being warned by his mother about a dream she had. The loaded gun was kept in the loft in anticipation of trouble. When James Conder called to his sons to get their guns, Riley ran to the house and went to loft to get his. He came down the stairs to find two dead missionaries, and a dead brother. Two men tried to disarm him but he shook them off and ran to the door where he fired on, and killed, David Hinson. Riley singled out Hinson and it is likely he felt Hinson was primarily responsible for what had happened. The gun was kept by his two half sisters until the 1940's when it was donated to the LDS Church History Library and Archives, where it can be seen today. Ardis Parshall has a great post on this very subject.

The second gun belonged to William Martin Conder. Martin had also loaded the gun on advice from his mother, but he placed it on deer antlers hanging over the back door. It has been alternately described as a shot gun and a Kentucky hunting rifle. It was certainly a long gun of some kind. When he ran for his gun David Hinson went for it too. The record is not clear about who got there first, but the two ended up fighting over the gun. Eventually Hinson gained the upper hand and used the gun to shoot Elder John H Gibbs. From there the gun disappears. The sisters did not talk about it, and it does not appear in any other records.

Until the other day, when a man claimed to have THE gun used in the massacre. The gun he has is a shotgun. We discussed the details about the guns manufacture but neither of us are gun experts. What is most interesting is the provenance. This gun has been in this man's family for several generations and we can track its ownership back to someone who would have been in a position to pick up the gun. For a historian this is very exciting. Most relics don't have it that good.

There were, of course, other guns used in the Massacre. Each of the vigilantes probably brought a gun or two. Some were pistols like David Hinson's and Jack Well's. Other were shot guns, like Babe Hinson's and the guns used inside the house against Elder William S. Berry and Malinda Conder. But these guns, with the possible exeption of David Hinson's, were most likely taken with the vigilantes when they left. Only Martin's gun would have had no one to remove it, yet it certainly disappeared shortly after the Massacre.