Recall that Amalickiah, the king of the Lamanites, by treachery had been killed in his sleep by Teancum on New Year’s Eve. Ammoron, his brother, had taken over as the king and commander. In this verse, which is part of Ammoron’s response to Moroni, we learn that Amalickiah and Ammoron were direct descendants of Zoram: They were Zoramites. Ammoron ends his letter with the normal ending, a statement of personal identification.
As a clarification of what Ammoron saw as his purpose, and as an indicator of his bitterness, Ammoron wrote as his identity, “I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram,” then added, “whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem.” In verse 17, in the earlier part of his letter, he had claimed: “For behold, your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them.” He claimed, then, that these wars were fought to avenge those wrongs. (See above in Alma 46:1–4 — Who Was Amalickiah?).
Book of Mormon Central, “Why Was Ammoron Determined to Avenge the Blood of His Brother? (Alma 54:16), KnoWhy 162 (August 10, 2016). “The dynamics fueling Ammoron’s worldview and objectives are complex. At a most basic level, this is a rather obvious example of tribalism and ethnic tension. While political aspirations were undoubtedly tied up in Ammoron’s declaration, it is important to note that he appealed to a deeply rooted tribal or clan rivalry as the motivation for his political goals. In perpetuating this tribal antagonism, Ammoron promoted an ideology fundamentally at odds with the egalitarian and anti-tribal ideals of Nephite prophets (cf. 2 Nephi 26:33; Mosiah 4:19; 4 Nephi 1:2, 17)”.
Ze’ev W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (Provo, UT and Winona Lake, IN: BYU Press and Eisenbrauns, 2001), 72. Regarding revenge by the tribal redeemer of blood, Professor Falk has written: “Cases of murder, as mentioned above, were not originally considered to be of public concern but only of consequence to the relatives of the victim. Besides the obligation placed upon the redeemer of the blood, there also existed the religious idea of pollution, which in turn was connected with the institution of the asylum and the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts [mens rea] (Exodus 21:12–14; Numbers 35; Deuteronomy 19:1–13). Biblical law, in fact, represents the transition from tribal revenge to judicial procedure, the latter being necessary once mens rea was recognized as a prerequisite to crime.” While all of that is very true under normal circumstances, in the case of Teancum, Amalickiah and Ammoron, not only did this occur in wartime, but Amalickiah himself had committed treachery and murder.