The Prophet and the Reformer
Page 19
Whereupon the Country takes the impression that Mormon stock must
near par; since Whigs [p. 9] and Democrats are bidding for it—up and
up one against the other. How high will it go?—Who’ll hurrah loudest
at Washington for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young—General Scott or
Governor Cass!27
Here ends your matter. But I have reached my third sheet, and will
add a line upon my own. Let me say that I look an unfavorable impres-
sion of Mr. Fillmore with regret. I first knew him when
Democrat and Whig, two Free Soilers together. I liked him, and liked
his course to you, which only the interference I signalized in my last
letter hindered, I thought, from being still more wise and fair. He had
said flattering things of me, too, to mutual friends;—and all that sort of
thing.28 Yet as a gentleman he left no alternative. To reflect on his breach
of confidence, however discreetly, yet decidedly, I was compelled.
It is therefore with sincere pleasure, that I am authorized to return
to friendly relations. Considering courteous intercourse at an end
25.
The Republic stated, “How far the fact that, so far from being ‘an abusive Whig,’ the Governor of the Mormons’ ‘predilections, when in the states, were esteemed decidedly and soundly Democratic,’ may have had the effect of acquitting him of the henious [ sic]
charges which we last week reported, is left to the public to determine.” Frontier Guardian, September 5, 1851.
26. A “palinode” is a “poem in which the poet retracts a view or sentiment expressed in a former poem.” Oxford English Dictionary, 1st ed., s.v. “palinode.”
27. A reference to two likely candidates for the presidency in 1852: Michigan Senator (and former governor) Lewis Cass, a Democrat who had captured the nomination in 1848 but would not in 1852; and Whig General Winfield Scott, who won his party’s nomination in 1852
but lost in the general election.
28. In his letter asking Kane to reiterate his statements on Young’s character, Fillmore could not remember Kane’s “given name,” so he addressed his letter to Kane “as the Son of Judge Kane.” Fillmore to Kane, July 4, 1851.
Kane to Young, Kimball, and Richards, July 29, 1851
121
between us, I sent the article of the Pennsylvanian on the 19th the day
of its appearance, in an envelope, by itself, but having inscribed over
the face: “containg an enclosure from Thomas L. Kane.” A small beer
[p. 10] magistrate might easily have put on dog pouts and dignity at this.
Mr. Fillmore ordered the Editor of the Republic to publish my com-
plete communication to the Pennsylvanian and, by return mail wrote
the letter of which I enclose a copy.
I could not ask more, and I think it my duty to say to you as I do to
all parties who have taken an interest in this controversy, that I am per-
fectly satisfied; and rejoice to know Mr. Fillmore as one less anxious to
remember he is President than prove he is a gentleman.
I have given you your narrative of this affair, contrary to my custom
in such cases, that you may see the necessity of promptly attending to
the request I now make. I want all the papers vouchers and narrative you
can get up on these charges. Unfortunately you leave me not booked up
in ordinary matters, now a days; and I may need some fine morning to
study backwards or be caught at fault on some considerable point.—In
the present case you see I had to give my word in pledge, and rely upon
you to redeem it. If you have a spare Buncombe29 or two in the most
eloquent style of Dr. Richards, they will not come amiss. Hospitality is a
virtue even an Arab can [p. 11] appreciate. I am sorry it was necessary to
lug in so much ad captandum30 including the fireside and Mrs. Young.31
But I had the example of the Jackson Campaign before me to show
nothing else would do. The assaults on Old Hickory’s married life were
at first successful in the highest degree, and it really seemed in some
places that the more his feelings were outraged, the better people were
pleased. But one day, some one spoke of the feelings of Mrs. Jackson;
and from that moment the game was all up. Every one was ready to
sympathize with the woman, the man’s conduct was never questioned
29. In the nineteenth century
, “buncombe” meant “political speaking or action not from
conviction, but in order to gain the favour of electors, or make a show of patriotism, or zeal; political clap-trap.” Oxford English Dictionary, 1st ed., s.v. “buncombe, bunkum.”
30. Latin for “for capturing”; “intended to appeal to, or concerning ordinary people; popu-list.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. “ad captandum.”
31. In its retraction, the Buffalo Courier wrote, “we have been touched by our informant’s picture of Mr. Young’s plain but generous and hearty life in his distant home among the mountains, and revolt at lending any countenance to assaults upon his hospitable fireside which do not spare the character of its mistress, whom friendly and hostile report alike asserts to be a truly discreet and lovely lady.” Frontier Guardian, September 5, 1851.
122
the prOphet and the refOrmer
after.32 In writing to the President too, domestic circumstances, to which
I can thus only advert, enabled me to know well where I was striking.
This letter goes subject to the same restrictions of confidence as its
predecessors.—God bless you all and keep you proud and pure; pure
and proud.
Your friend
Thomas L. Kane
Brigham Young
Heber C. Kimball
Willard Richards
Independence Hall
Philadelphia, July 29. 1851.
32. In 1791, Andrew J
ackson married Rachel Donelson, who had separated from her first
husband and only obtained a divorce two years later, when a jury granted her first husband a divorce on the grounds of her desertion and adultery. Jackson and Donelson remarried in 1794. The irregularities of Jackson’s marriage figured prominently in his electoral campaigns, particularly his victorious presidential campaign of 1828; Rachel Jackson died a month following this election. Robert V. Remini, “Andrew Jackson,” in Garraty and Carnes, American National Biography, 11:732–737.
19
Young, Heber C. Kimball, and
Willard Richards to Kane,
September 15, 1851
BefOre they received Kane’s July 29, 1851 letter, Young, Heber C. Kimball,
and Willard Richards, the First Presidency, wrote to Kane on September 15,
1851, alerting him that four of the recently appointed territorial officials were
preparing to return to the east. Subsequent letters from Richards, as well as
the arrival in the east of Jedediah M. Grant, a trusted Saint and the mayor of
Salt Lake City (who likely delivered the September 15 letter to Kane),1 gave
Kane details of the clash between the Saints and the officials. In their report
to President Fillmore, Perry Brocchus, Lemuel Brandebury, and Broughton
Harris (the fourth departing official, Indian subagent Henry Day, did not
contribute to the report) portrayed the Saints as seditious polygamists who
had obstructed their attempts to fulfill their official duties. Brocchus, the official Kane endorsed in his April 7, 1851 letter to Young, became the leader in
their dispute with the Saints. The officials particularly directed their veno
m at
Young, who they claimed ruled as an absolute dictator in Utah, “without a rival
or opposition, for no man dared question his authority.”2
1. The back of the letter indicates that it would be delivered by either G
rant or Ezra T. Benson.
2.“Report of Messrs. Brandebury, Brocchus, and Harris to the President of the United States,” December 19, 1851, in Message From the President of the United States, January 9, 1852, 32d. Congress. 1 session, Ex. Doc., Number 25, House of Representatives. For the “runaways”
controversy, see Walker, “The Affair of the ‘Runaways’,” and Ronald W. Walker and Matthew J. Grow, “ ‘The People Are Hogaffed or Humbugged’: The 1851–52 National Reaction to Utah’s ‘Runaway’ Officers,” Journal of Mormon History 40.1 (2014): 1–52.
124
the prOphet and the refOrmer
Brandebury arrived first in Utah, on June 7, and claimed that Young refused
to meet with him and had reportedly declared that “none but Mormons should
have been appointed to the offices of the Territory, and none others but d—d
rascals would have come amongst them.” Following Harris’ arrival, the offi-
cials attended a July 24th celebration, commemorating the fourth anniver-
sary of the Saints’ arrival in the Salt Lake Valley, in which Young and other
Mormon leaders allegedly disparaged the United States and its government.
The officials were particularly offended with the declaration of Mormon mili-
tia leader Daniel Wells that Zachary Taylor, the recently deceased president,
was in hell. They added that Young reiterated the declaration about Taylor in
early September and his counselor Heber C. Kimball laid his “hands on the
shoulder of Judge Brocchus, added, ‘Yes, Judge, and you’ll know it, too; for
you’ll see him when you get there.” Young clarified that he was not opposed to
the federal government, but the “corrupt scoundrels at the head of it.”3
Besides the general allegations of the Mormons’ rebellious rhetoric, the
officials charged Young and other leaders with several specific violations
of federal law. They alleged irregularities in the Mormon participation in
a recent census as well as the elections held to select territorial legislators.
Furthermore, according to their account, Young had neglected to appoint
appropriate legal officers, allowed the intimidation of California emigrants,
and had refused to prosecute the murderers of two non-Mormons in Utah.
In addition, the officials stated that Young had used $20,000 appropriated by
Congress for the erection of public buildings to pay church debts. Harris thus
refused to give Young an additional $24,000, which Congress had designated
for the expenses of the territorial legislature and other territorial business. The officials complained that Young treated them as “mere toys” and saw them
as “offensive intruders, rather than coordinate branches of the Government.”
Furthermore, they wrote that polygamy “is openly avowed and practiced in the
Territory.”4
Tensions between the federal officials and Mormon leaders reached crisis
point at a church conference on September 6, in which Brocchus delivered
a long-winded discourse, ostensibly to petition for the Saints to contribute a
block of marble for the Washington Monument. In his recounting, Brocchus
saw the occasion as an “appropriate one to disabuse the minds of the Mormon
3.“R
eport of Messrs. Brandebury, Brocchus, and Harris, to the President of the United
States.”
4.“Report of Messrs. Brandebury, Brocchus, and Harris, to the President of the United States.”
Young, Kimball, Richards to Kane, Sept 15, 1851
125
people of the false and prejudicial opinions they entertained towards the
people and Government of the United States”; he claimed that he carefully
avoided any mention of the Saints’ religious practices. Nevertheless, accord-
ing to the officials, Young “denounced the speaker with great violence, as
‘profoundly ignorant, or willfully wicked’—strode the stage madly—assumed
various theatrical attitudes” and declared “that if there was any more discus-
sion, there would be pulling of hair and cutting of throats.” By the end of
the month, Brocchus, Brandebury, Harris, and Indian subagent Henry Day,
claiming they feared for their lives from the incensed Saints, had left the
territory.5
The Saints portrayed the conflict quite differently. According to John
M. Bernhisel, the officials were “all respectfully and hospitably received,”
but soon soured on Utah when they “found the California prices which
prevail there, and the expenses of living under them, incommensu-
rate with their salary.” They insisted that Young had attempted to mend
fences after his face-off with Brocchus during the conference. In a letter to
President Fillmore, Bernhisel defended the Saints’ patriotism, denied the
officials’ allegations about the July 24th celebration, and accused Brocchus
of brazenly offending the Saints by questioning their patriotism in his dis-
course. Indeed, Brocchus had suggested to the Saints “that if they would
not offer a block of marble in full fellowship with the people of the United
States, as brethren and fellow-citizens, they had better not offer it at all,
but leave it unquarried in the bosom of its native mountain.”6 In addition,
Brocchus had provoked the Saints by rebuking Mormon women for their
lack of morality by entering into plural marriages. Recalling the meeting,
Young later remarked that the “sisters alone felt indignant enough to have
chopped him in pieces.” (Young assessed Brandebury somewhat more
sympathetically, calling him a “tolerably good man” who “would have done
well, if he had only had sense enough to know that he could not obliterate
‘Mormonism.’”)7
In a letter to Fillmore two weeks after this letter to Kane, Young defended
his actions and criticized the officials for their late arrival, general incompe-
tence, and unwillingness to participate in local affairs. His supervision of the
5.“R
eport of Messrs. Brandebury, Brocchus, and Harris, to the President of the United
States.”
6. John M. Bernhisel to Millard Fillmore, December 1, 1851, in Message from the President of the United States, January 9, 1852, 32d Congr. 1st sess, H.R., Ex. Doc., 25.
7. Arrington, American Moses, 229–230.
126
the prOphet and the refOrmer
census and the territorial elections, if they had not fulfilled every legal nicety, had been honest. In addition, he wrote, “no people exists who are more friendly
to the Government of the United States than the people of this Territory.” The
officials’ actions were thus “illegal, wholly unauthorized, and uncalled for by
any pretext whatever.” Young asked that future officials “be selected as will
reside within the Territory, or have a general and extended knowledge of men
and things as well as of the elementary and fundamental principles of law and
legislation.”8 Mormon leaders also wrote that they had appropriately used the
government’s funds.9
In addition, Willard Richards gave Kane the Saints’ point of view in
letters.10 With the officials g
one, Richards stated, peace reigned in Utah;
“there is no difficulty here.” He blamed the controversy on Brocchus, who
had hoped to be elected as Utah’s congressional delegate. Richards wrote
that Brocchus “out of malice for the loss of an office which he never had,
and never can have, or from some other cause equally fallacious doffed the
dignity of the ermine, and, by a Stump speech, insulted the citizens of the
Territory, beyond the endurance of a Christian people.” Brocchus thus man-
ufactured the crisis in order to create “a sufficient excuse for him to desert
his post, and to take with him all the hireling sycophants he could muster.”
He had then left Utah to “run back to the Capital, filling the Country with
falsehood as he goes.”11
In addition to these later letters, Richards likely drafted the featured
letter from the First Presidency. Toward the end of the letter, he wrote
in the first-person voice—“I” rather than the “we” of the remainder of the
letter—about his position as the church’s historian.
Source Note
Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Willard Richards to Kane, September 15,
1851, Kane Collection, Box 15, fd 2, Kane Collection, BYU.
8. Y
oung to Millard Fillmore, September 29, 1851, in Message from the President of the United States, 28–32.
9. Richards to Kane, February 29, 1852, BYOF.
10. Richards to Kane [ca. January 29, 1852], BYOF.
11. Richards to Kane, February 29, 1852.
Young, Kimball, Richards to Kane, Sept 15, 1851
127
Letter
Great Salt Lake City Septr 15. 1851
To our Dear Friend, Colonel Kane:
Our Friend, a title, than which we can give no greater; we would give
no less; we received it with pleasure, we impart with delight, and may
the reciprocity grow brighter and brighter unto the day of Perfection.
The Doct: penned a line on the 31st of August or rather early on 1st
Sept. to forward by Dr Bernhisel; but, by delay of the messenger, or the
Doct: on the track too early, it laid over, and is here enclosed; a scrap of
little consequence, only as a remembrancer.12