escallop shells thereupon, or, in remembrance of the expedition. . . The escallop is also a symbol of the Apostle S. James the Great, who is generally drawn in the garb of a pilgrim.” Henry Gough, A Glossary of Terms used in British Heraldry (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1847), 127–128.
46.3 Nephi 21:27.
47. Willard Richards was the founding editor of the Deseret News, which was first published on June 15, 1850.
48.4 Nephi 1:15.
49. Ether 2:1–3.
50. Richards thanked Kane for sending the “splendid signets” (which Bernhisel carried to Utah that spring). He wrote, “May our friendship be as endless as the token is significant.”
Richards to Kane, August 31, 1851, Kane Collection, Yale.
106
the prOphet and the refOrmer
My health seems bettering as my ague is slowly wearing away;
and I am trying to keep on my armor with a mind prepared for more
Life’s Battle with the Prince of the Power of the Air.51 But shall I feel
I will live?—I am going to make a request you are perhaps the only
men of sense of my acquaintance will not laugh at. My valued ancient
friend Mr. Smith gave me a blessing at the Omaha Camp that was full
of kind and hopeful meaning. I want to know if he would be willing
to reiterate it now!—It has not failed so far, though there have been
times plenty when I could not have insured on it at 99 ½ per cent;—
but I am curious to know, does he say it is still to hold?52
Three illegible words Thursday Night. Feb. 20–21., 2 ½. A. M.
But now my second nights candles are burning low, and one of
them sputtering over one of my ink smeared pages, suggests to me to
avoid tiring you as much as myself with this long worldly minded letter.
Write to me in answer to his; for, even with the best intentions, I have
found there is no keeping up a correspondence without some degree
of mutuality. Your writings shall continue to be regarded confidential,
of course;—though you remark how little I seek non committalism on
my part. Command me freely as of old when I can [p. 20] render you
or yours any service. Nothing will better keep fresh my feeling in your
favor.—And God bless you, and keep you ever mindful as you have
been of your responsibility—as true to your high calling! So long you
will always know me
Your faithful friend
Thomas L. Kane
51. A reference to the devil; see Ephesians 2:2.
52. Smith replied that Kane’s blessing remained in force. See Young to Kane, September 15, 1851.
15
Kane to Young, February 21, 1851
this shOrt nOte, apparently sent with Kane’s February 19 letter, clarified
that while that letter was addressed to “my dear friends,” Kane intended it for
the First Presidency of Young, Willard Richards, and Heber C. Kimball, who
could then share it with others.
Source
Kane to Young, Willard Richards, and Heber C. Kimball, February 21,
1851, box 40, fd 10, BYOF.
Letter
My friends
Young, Richards, & Kimball,
This Letter is addressed to you. Because I have thought mainly of
you in writing it. But I have headed it with a free plural, that so it might
better address those whom you should think worthy of reading it. It is
written for all such.
Thomas L. Kane
Independence Hall, Philada
Friday Feb. 21. 1851.
16
Kane to Young, April 7, 1851
in april 1851, as the newly appointed territorial officials prepared to travel
across the plains to Utah, Kane wrote a letter of introduction to Young for
Judge Perry Brocchus. Kane relied on both a personal meeting and recom-
mendations from trusted political allies. Brocchus, about 35 years old, was
a Virginian who had settled in Alabama where he practiced law and became
a Democratic Party newspaper editor. He had also worked with Lemuel
Brandebury, another of the new Utah justices, in the Treasury Department’s
Solicitor’s office. For five years, Brocchus had been seeking a judgeship
in one of the western territories.1 A Democrat who was appointed during
a Whig administration, Brocchus may have owed his position to Almon
Babbitt and Stephen A. Douglas, who warmly recommended Brocchus as
one of his “most desirable friends,” an “accomplished gentleman” and a
“sound lawyer” who would discharge his duties in a most “satisfactory”
manner.2
Source
Kane to Young, April 7, 1851, box 40, fd 10, BYOF.
1.“Death of J
udge Brocchus,” newspaper clipping, Perry E. Brocchus Files, Special Collections,
Marriott Library, University of Utah; “Letters of Application and Recommendation during the Administrations of James Polk, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore, 1845–1853,”
Microfilm Roll #10, U.S. National Archives.
2. Stephan A. Douglas to Young, April 9, 1851, BYOF.
Kane to Young, April 7, 1851
109
Letter
Independence Hall, April 7. 1851.
My dear Sir,
I am asked to introduce to you the Honorable Percy E. Brocchus, whom
the President has appointed an Associate Judge of your Supreme Court; and
the pleasure I have derived from a recent interview with him, makes me
glad that I am aided in doing so by the highest possible authority. Colonel
Forney,3 whose letter I enclose,4 and known to you best as the Editor of
“The Pennsylvanian,” is the Leader now, of our Democratic party in
Pennsylvania—whose will is Law with its followers to the North. And, while
his distinguished talents must be admitted, he perhaps owes his high posi-
tion to no [p. 2] virtue more than his known scrupulous regard to the value
of his word. What he says he means, and what he does not mean he leaves
unsaid. Colonel Forney and myself differ widely in our views of sectional
politics, but I am bound to say that a more faithful friend, or more high toned
and gallant gentleman, never stepped, North of Mason and Dixon’s Line.
Mr. Fillmore speaks highly of Judge Brocchus, as does Mr. William
R. King, the Senator from his own State;5 yet I value their recommenda-
tion so much less than Colonel Forney’s, that I feel I cannot do better
than to leave it to introduce Judge Brocchus to your courtesy and regard.
Always yours faithfully
Thomas L. Kane
H. E. Governor Young.
3. J
ohn W. Forney (1817–1881), a prominent Democrat, edited the Pennsylvanian (a Philadelphia paper with close ties to the Kanes) between 1845 and 1852. In 1851, he was appointed clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and later served as clerk of the Senate. Over his father’s protest, Kane allowed Forney to stay in the Kane family home in the early 1850s to keep from “sinking into ruinous dissipation” through alcoholism. As a result, Forney publicly supported Kane’s reform projects. Daniel W. Pfaff, “John Wein Forney,” in John A. Garraty and Marck C. Carnes, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 8:258–259; Elizabeth W. Kane, account of Grant’s visit, 1869, Kane Collection, BYU.
4. Forney wrote, “All that I know of Judge Brocchus is creditable to him. His character for liberal and elevated impulses; his opposition to all proscription for opinion’s sake; his energy of purpose; his integrity, and his ability;
all are vouched by distinguished testimonials.” Brocchus went to Utah, Forney continued, “not because he is worn out in politics at home, but in order to identify himself with its people and their destinies.” Forney to Kane, April 7, 1851, BYOF.
5. William R. King (1786–1853) was a Democratic senator from Alabama during most of the era between 1819 and 1852. A sectional moderate and a close friend and ally of James Buchanan, King served as president pro tempore of the Senate from 1850 to 1852 and briefly as Vice President to Franklin Pierce in 1853 before his death. See J. Mills Thornton, “William Rufus Devane King,” in Garraty and Carnes, American National Biography 12:720–721.
17
Kane to Young, April 7, 1851
in a secOnd letter on April 7, Kane explained that he had been pressured
to give recommendations to Young for all of the Utah officials, but would
only endorse Perry Brocchus and Lemuel Brandebury (apparently refusing to
vouch for territorial secretary, Broughton D. Harris). While Kane urged Young
to “receive them cordially,” he expressed wariness over the “class of persons
who are the customary applicants for Executive favor at Washington.”
Source
Kane to Young, April 7, 1851, box 40, fd 10, BYOF.
Letter
Independence Hall
Philada., April 7. 1851.
My friend,
I have been strongly pressed to give my personal authentication
of the character and position of Messrs. Brandeberry1 and Brocchus,
your two Judges appointed by the President. I could desire to do this,
since I regard it to your interest to receive them cordially, and nearly
1. Before his appointment, P
ennsylvania lawyer Lemuel G. Brandebury had lobbied to
serve as recorder in the U.S. Land Office in Washington, D.C.; supporters in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, called him “a gentleman of intelligence and business capacity.” Members of the Pennsylvania state senate and Governor William F. Johnson also wrote letters of recommendation. He failed to receive that appointment, but received a position in the Solicitor’s office of the U.S. Treasury before seeking a new position in Utah. Brandebury was selected when another Pennyslvanian withdrew, and the state’s patronage spot became empty. During
Kane to Young, April 7, 1851
111
as much so that they should feel you are prepared to do so. But I have
still thought it safest; and therefore, on the whole, best, to request their
crack admirers to give me their own recommendations, which alone in
these two cases, I have felt free to endorse. [p. 2] I cannot speak with
full confidence of persons not individually known to me; still less of the
class of persons who are the customary applicants for Executive favor
at Washington.
I feel bound to write you this; though I have no notion you would in
any event modify or abdicate any of your customary discretion.
In haste as always—but no less
Faithfully
Your friend
Thomas L. Kane Brigham Young.
P. S. Say for me to Dr. Richards, that at my first leisure I shall write to
him. Meantime I want him not to miss a message for him I put in a letter
to Mr. W. W. Phelps now of Salt Lake and Deseret.2
Th. L. K.
the nomination process, Brandebury twice withdrew his application. Thomas G.
Alexander,
“Carpetbaggers, Reprobates, and Liars: Federal Judges and the Utah War,” Historian 70
(Summer 2008): 209–238; Millard Fillmore, Nomination, to Senate of the United States, March 12, 1851, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States, 32nd Congress, 8:327, 331.
2. This letter from Kane to William W. Phelps is apparently not extant.
18
Kane to Young, Heber C. Kimball,
and Willard Richards, July 29, 1851
in July 1851, the Buffalo Courier, a Democratic paper from President Millard Fillmore’s hometown, lambasted Fillmore’s appointment of Brigham Young
as governor. The paper complained of Mormon abuse of California emigrants,
collusion with American Indians, disloyalty to the federal government, and
rumors of Young’s polygamy. In response, Fillmore, a Whig, wrote Kane a
public letter which shifted the burden for Young’s appointment onto Kane,
who had affirmed Young’s “moral character and standing.” The president con-
tinued, “You are a Democrat, but I doubt not will truly state whether these
charges against the moral character of Governor Young are true.”1
Kane promptly wrote two letters to Fillmore, one public and one marked
“personal.” In the first, Kane briefly praised Young’s abilities and defended
his “irreproachable moral character,” of which Kane spoke “from my own inti-
mate personal knowledge.” In the personal letter, Kane responded at length to
the specific accusations against Young, defended the Saints against charges of
mistreating emigrants, and cited the Mormon Battalion as proof of the Saints’
loyalty to the nation. As further confirmation of the Saints’ loyalty, Kane sent
a copy of a patriotic letter Young had sent to President James Polk in August
1846. Kane also denied allegations of plural marriage, blaming the rumors on
lies told by the “poor ribald scamp” William Smith, Joseph Smith’s brother,
whom the Saints had cut off “for his licentiousness.” Furthermore, Kane con-
tinued, “Young is a hard-working, conscientious, well-tried man, whose erotic
inclinations may fitly match those of the Utah Church Patriarch, a venerable
1. M
illard Fillmore to Kane, July 4, 1851, in Frontier Guardian, September 5, 1851. The original is in the Gilder Lehrman Collection.
Kane to Young, Kimball, and Richards, July 29, 1851
113
octogenarian and long-respected Presbyterian elder.” Finally, he poignantly
described the suffering of Young’s wife over “every fresh piece of nastiness.”
Kane authorized Fillmore to “make what use you please” of his personal let-
ter.2 In the featured letter, Kane apologized to Young for the references to his
wife, but cited the example of Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign.
“The assaults on Old Hickory’s married life were at first successful in the
highest degree,” Kane explained, but “one day some one spoke of the feelings
of Mrs. Jackson; and from that moment the game was all up.”3
On July 15, the Republic, a Whig newspaper closely associated with the Fillmore administration, excerpted portions of Kane’s letters to defend Fillmore. Kane
considered this article “vulgar” as it had “garbled” his letter and only included
portions useful for “making Whig capital.” Whereas Kane had directly refuted
the allegations, the Republic twisted his words to suggest that Kane had “admitted by implication the spiritual wife slander and that of leaguing with the Indians.”
Even so, Kane feared the Republic’s tepid defense of the Mormons would associate the Saints with Whigs and cause “all the petty Democratic papers glad to
cater to the bigotry, political and religious, of their readers” to slur the Saints. The
“superior journals” would inevitably follow suit: “Good bye, in short, to all the
advantages of the Neutral Position.” The incident also cast Kane as a “mere sham
Democrat guilty of premediate collusion” with Fillmore and the Whigs.4
Two days letter, on July 17, the Buffalo Courier retracted its charges, citi
ng a “communication from a friend at the East,” who had convinced the editors
that the allegations lacked merit. The Courier disassociated Mormonism from Whig politics: “so far from being an abusive Whig, Mr. Young’s political predilections when in the States were esteemed decidedly and soundly Democratic.”
Two days after the Courier’s retraction, the Pennsylvanian defended Kane, “who vindicates the Mormons, not as a partisan, but as their known, their eloquent,
and their most disinterested friend.” The Pennsylvanian also appealed to “one of the fundamental articles” of the Democratic Party, namely the “freest toleration in regard to every religious belief.” Finally, the Pennsylvanian published a letter from Kane which complained that the editor of the Republic had mis-used his personal correspondence with Fillmore. Following this complaint,
the Republic, under orders from Fillmore, printed an apology to Kane.5
2. Kane to F
illmore, both letters dated July 11, 1851, in Frontier Guardian, September 5, 1851.
3. Kane to Young, July 29, 1851.
4. Kane to Young, Kimball, and Richards, July 29, 1851.
5. The articles from the Republic, Buffalo Courier, and the Pennsylvanian were reprinted in the Latter-day Saint newspaper, the Frontier Guardian, September 5, 1851.
114
the prOphet and the refOrmer
In the following letter to Young and his counselors in the First Presidency
on July 29, 1851, Kane explained this confluence of retractions and posi-
tive statements. Following the Republic’s article on July 15, with its threat to Mormon neutrality, Kane immediately swung into action. He first wrote
his letter to the Pennsylvanian, whose editor introduced it with “about the best toned squib we have yet had for Mormons.” At the same time, he “had
the screws put” on the Buffalo Courier to publish its retraction, which Kane penned. The timing worked perfectly, as the Courier issued its retraction “just two days before the Pennsylvanian’s, the second day only after the Republic’s
Article; and therefore just in time to escape the charge of being influenced by
either.” The entire episode had placed the Mormons in a position to be courted
The Prophet and the Reformer Page 17