The Prophet and the Reformer
Page 29
8.“The Latest News,” New York Tribune, June 27, 1856.
9. MacKinnon, At Sword’s Point. 55.
10. John Bernhisel to Young, July 17, 1856, BYOF.
11. George A. Smith to Young, June 30, 1856, BYOF.
Young to Kane, April 14, 1856
193
advised them to not present officially the statehood application, as it would be
certainly be defeated.12 Douglas and other congressmen suggested that the pre-
sentation of the Mormon application for statehood would backfire, resulting “in
the abolition of our Territorial Government, the division of the Territory, and the annexation of it to the adjacent Territories for judicial purposes.”13
The Mormon delegates thus decided to not submit the application to
Congress. In August, Young wrote to the delegates, “We absolutely do not care
about the result. Although our admission would be desirable in many respects,
still we are in no fret, so to speak, about it for we know that it will all be right whether we gain our admission or not, into the Union.” Young’s millennialism and observation of sectional politics convinced that him the “the objects for
which this union was formed are fast failing.” Statehood for Utah would grant
the Mormons’ “independent sovereignty” which “would place us upon a better
footing when the fabric splits asunder and may have a tendency to ward off the
days a little longer.” Indeed, he wrote, “Young America (and old too, as to that
matter) are going to destruction at rail road speed—and it behooveth us to be
prepared for the great events shortly to come to pass.” Nevertheless, he retained
hope that the political atmosphere might soften after the presidential election.14
Source
Young to Kane, April 14, 1856, box 15, fd 3, Kane Collection, BYU.
Retained copy is in Brigham Young Letterbooks, box 2, vol. 2,
693–697, CHL.
Letter
Utah Territory.
Great Salt Lake City April 14th 1856.
Col. Thomas L. Kane.
My dear Friend,
Permit me again a few moments, to direct your mind to your old
friends in the mountains, and as usual, to again tax the friendship of our
valued, and much esteemed friend Col Kane.
12. T
aylor, Smith, and Bernhisel to Young, July 12, 1856, BYOF.
13. Bernhisel to Young, January 17, 1857, BYOF.
14. Young to Smith, Bernhisel, and Taylor, August 30, 1856, BYOF.
194
the prOphet And the refOrmer
Utah, (alias Deseret) is coming by her Delegates, with Constitution,
Memorial, and Census papers, showing a population of nearly 80,000 in
their hands to knock for admission into the Union as a Sovereign State.15
The Convention, after a session of Ten days, during which time they
formed, and adopted a Constitution, Memorial, elected Delegates &c;
adjourned on the 27th ultimo.
The doings of the Convention in pursuance of Law, were submitted
to the people on the 7th instant for their approval, or rejection, and were
unanimously adopted so far as we have heard from the returns.
Col George A. Smith, and Hon John Taylor, were chosen dele-
gates.16 What think you, will our application be favorably received, and
acted upon? Shall we gain [p. 2] admission into the Union this session
of Congress, in time to vote for President of the United States next
November? May we rely upon your aid, and influence in effecting this
desirable object? We confidently trust, that we may, therefore have
taken the liberty of instructing our delegates to counsel, and co-operate
together with you, and our worthy delegate Dr Bernhisel, in regard to
this important matter.17
We strongly desire to become a state. We consider, that we possess all
the elements, ability, power, and claims requisite for State Government.
If we have been sufficiently scolded, thumped, thrashed, and beaten for
youth and infancy; let us emerge from the leading strings, and assume
our place among this family of nations.
Though an applicant for Union with “Uncle Sam’s,” and expect to
stand as thirty second to the old gentleman if he accedes to our wishes,18
15. T
aylor informed Young that Kane “thinks it would have been better not to have men-
tioned numbers” in the statehood application, as the population of Utah fell short of the ratio of representation (the number of citizens represented by each congressman and the guide often used to determine whether a territory had enough inhabitants for statehood), which was then 93,420. On the other hand, the Deseret News maintained that opponents argued that the Saints were minimizing their numbers to appear less of a threat. According to the Deseret News, Judge William Drummond estimated the population at approximately 100,000 in 1856. Meanwhile, the New York Times stated that Utah’s population was no more than 77,000. See Taylor to Young, April 16, 1856, BYOF; Deseret News, March 12, 1856; and New York Times, June 3, 1856.
16. On the convention and the selection of the delegates, see Young to Bernhisel, April 9, 1856, BYOF, and Deseret News, April 2, 1856.
17. George A. Smith and Taylor arrived in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 1856. Taylor shuttled back and forth between Washington and New York, where he edited The Mormon. See Smith to Young, June 17, 1856, BYOF; Taylor to Young, July 12 and October 17, 1856, BYOF.
18. At the time, there were 31 states.
Young to Kane, April 14, 1856
195
and is willing to consummate our happiness, still we entertain no fears
of
much soever it may excite their envy, jealously, hatred, and strenous
opposition to yield unto us our just-rights, and receive us upon an equal
footing with the older members. We expect, it will give some of them
the heart ache a little, as we are young, and fair, and will naturally expect
to [p. 3] enjoy, at least a portion of the old gentleman’s attention for
a while, but they have had their days of youth, and should be willing
to make a little allowance for us, besides, there is no use in trying to
curtail him in his privileges, for every body knows that he will marry,
let who will stand at the door. He was never known to refuse long at a
time, and we are not the first companion in arms, that he has fought for,
and bought with his money for that very purpose, when they should
get big enough. Well, though young, we feel that we are big a plenty,
and have waited long enough. The compact is complete on our part, let
him ratify, and accept it as in duty bound.19 Our constitution is silent
upon the subject of slavery, leaving that question where Congress has
left it with the People, but neither our climate, soil, productions, nor
minds of the people are congenial to African slavery. Our past experi-
ence in this Territory exemplifies the fact that it cannot exist with us as
an institution.20
Many have emigrated to this Territory from the South bringing
their slaves with them, but in a few years all were scattered and gone,
not even the slaves themselves, though free to do so, remaining in the
Country. They have never been molested by law, and still there are not
one in ten now in this Territory either bond, or free that have been
brought here as slaves.21 [p. 4] This therefore, may be relied
on by our
friends, that while all men are free to come here, either with, or without
slaves their rights will be protected, but their own interest would induce
19. F
or similar comments, see Young to George A. Smith, May 29, 1856, BYOF.
20. As early as October 1849, Young wrote to Bernhisel that a non-slaveholding clause in a proposed statehood constitution was “a subject pertaining to the people themselves who are citizens of the Territory incorporated.” However, Young and his associates were “not strenuous upon this question, therefore, waive if for the good of the General Government.” See Young to Bernhisel, October 14, 1849, BYOF.
21. The number of slaves living in Utah was disputed. Almon Babbitt boasted to southern politicians that there were nearly 400 slaves in the territory. The actual number was probably no more than 50. See Ricks, “A Peculiar Place for the Peculiar Institution,” 65–66.
196
the prOphet And the refOrmer
them to leave their slaves elsewhere, being an unprofitable investment
in Utah.
It is our object, and wishes to leave our Legislature free to enact all
such laws, as the nature of the case may require upon that subject. We
now have a Law probably as suitable to our circumstances upon that
subject as one could be made, and under which, that institution does
not seem to flourish.22 This may be taken as an indication of the true
state of the case, and should prove satisfactory to all parties, when the
subject of adopting slavery was voted upon in the Convention; there
were few found in its favor.
We have retained the name of Deseret in our constitution, which we
trust may be allowed to remain, although not sine qui non
us,> rather than not gain our admission, and if depending upon that
point alone, we would yield and enter the Union as Utah.23
Our friends, Bros George A. Smith, John Taylor, and Dr Bernhisel
will confer with you in relation to our application, when, receiving your
cordial, and effective aid, will add, but another deep obligation to the
record of the past, for all of which, may the God we serve bless you
forever.24 [p. 5]
Permit me to congratulate you upon the safe return of your brother
Dr Kane. I have read with deep interest, sketches of his travels, and dis-
coveries; his perils and escapes, and look anxiously forward to the time
when I can have the pleasure of perusing them more in detail. I trust that
his ambition in exploring the Artic regions is satisfied, though a praise-
worthy motive prompted him, of which he has nobly acquitted himself.
I think that the world must be pretty well satisfied by this time, that
successful channels for commerce & trade do not lie in that direction.25
22. F
or the 1852 territorial legislation on slavery, see Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials Passed by the First Annual, and Special Sessions, of the Legislative Assembly, of the Territory of Utah (Salt Lake City: Brigham H. Young, 1852), 80–82.
23. In 1850, Congress incorporated the territory with the name of Utah (one politician said that “Deseret” sounded too much like “desert”). However, the territorial legislature continued to petition Congress using the terms “Provisional Government” and “Deseret.” See Bernhisel to Young, March 21, 1850, BYOF; Memorial, March 3, 1852, BYOF; and John Taylor and George A. Smith to Young, August 18, 1856, BYOF.
24. Smith attempted to visit Kane in June 1856; however, he learned upon arrival that Kane had traveled to western Pennsylvania. See Bernhisel to Young, July 17, 1856, BYOF, and George A. Smith to Young, June 30, 1856, BYOF.
25. Kane’s brother Elisha had returned from his second Arctic voyage in October 1855 to substantial acclaim. At this time, Thomas was helping prepare a book about Elisha’s Arctic
Young to Kane, April 14, 1856
197
To the benefit of Geographical Knowledge, and of science only must
accrue the benefit arising from the hard earned trophies of suffering and
death expended in those dreary regions.
We would then say, let the past suffice human energy, human exis-
tence has been taxed sufficient in their exploration; the contribution
to Knowledge may be considerable, but-not-commensurate with the
sacrifice.
Wishing yourself and family, health, Prosperity, and peace, and the
full enjoyment of every Social Virtue, and blessing.
I Remain
Very Truly Your Friend
Brigham Young
exploits. Elisha Kane
’s Arctic Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Seaerch of Sir
John Franklin, 1853, ’54, ’55 (Philadelphia: Childs & Peterson, 1856), became a runaway best-seller upon its release in September 1856. Thomas’s wife Elizabeth resented that his devotion to Elisha worsened their financial problems and Thomas’s health: “Tom is so busy on E[lisha]’s book that he can’t do anything else. E[lisha] will probably be renowned in the story of this generation, while Tom will not be known. Yet Tom perfectly unselfish, never requiring a service from any one, but always working for others, never spending either time or money on his own gratification—only wanting money to spend in doing good, bearing sickness so patiently, and working for others through it—a model of complete self denial, self abnegation—is as superior to E[lisha] as light to darkness.” Elizabeth W. Kane, journal, March 2, 12, 1856, Kane Collection, BYU.
32
Young to Kane, January 7, 1857
the presidentiAl electiOn of 1856 turned out badly for the Mormons.1
The newly organized Republican Party, with explorer John C. Frémont as its
standard bearer, wanted to end the expansion of slavery in the territories and
to increase federal power to do it. Republicans pointed to what had taken place
in Kansas territory after the passage of the 1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act that gave
Kansas the right to decide the slave question itself. The result had been rival
legislatures, rival governors, and rival capitals as pro-slave and anti-slave fac-
tions wrestled for control; Horace Greeley and the New York Tribune famously called it “Bleeding Kansas.”2
The Democrats and their presidential candidate, James Buchanan, wanted
to preserve the Union at all costs, which for them meant keeping the ques-
tion of slavery out of Congress and letting the territories make their own
decision about slaves. A third political party—the American Party—fielded
Millard Fillmore, who had been receptive to Mormon requests when serving
as president in the early 1850s. The American Party hoped to steer a mid-
dle course and appeal to the old-line Whigs, who no longer functioned as a
national party.
For the first time, the “the Mormon question” became a part of presidential
politics. Because the Mormons and the Democrats (increasingly members of
a southern-based party) both supported local decision-making, they appeared
to be natural allies—a possibility that alarmed the Republicans. They feared
that if Utah were admitted into the Union, Utah’s two senators and its con-
gressman would support the south on local sovereignty and the expansion of
1.R
onald W. Walker, “Buchanan, Popular Sovereignty, and the Mormons: The Election of 1856,” Utah Historical Quarterly (Spring 2013), 81:108–132.
2. See Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas.
Young to Kane, January 7, 1857
199
slavery. Kane, realizing the danger of Utah’s statehood bid becoming involved
> in sectional politics, warned Young to stay away from these troubled waters. As
a result, Utah’s proposed constitution for their new state said nothing about
slavery. Nor did George A. Smith and John Taylor raise the topic during their
discussions with national leaders.
Republicans saw a political opportunity in the shared interest of the
Democrats and Mormons in popular sovereignty—and one that agreed with
their moral ideas. Republicans hoped to convince Americans that a vote for the
Democrats would also be a vote for the Mormons and their hated polygamy
and theocracy. A plank in the party’s platform declared, “it is both the right
and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin
relics of barbarism—Polygamy and Slavery.” When these words were read at
the party’s presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia, the delegates
roared with “rapturous enthusiasm.”3
The enthusiasm continued. According to nineteenth-century historian
Edward Tullidge, “every campaign where John C. Frémont was the standard
bearer of the party, there could be read: The abolishment of slavery and polygamy; the twin relics of barbarism.”4 An Indianapolis, Indiana, rally had “Brigham Young, with six wives most fashionably dressed, hoop skirts and all, each
with a little Brigham in her arms.” The Indianapolis parade, attended by a
reported 60,000 people, had the fictitious Young holding a banner inscribed,
“ ‘Hurrah for the Kansas-Nebraska bill—it introduces Polygamy and Slavery.’ ”5
Republican orators like New York Senator William H. Seward claimed that
slavery and polygamy worked together. To allow either Utah into the Union as
a polygamous state or Kansas as a slave state “will bear heavily, perhaps con-
clusively, on the fortunes of the entire conflict between Freedom and Slavery,”
he said.6
The nation’s newspapers ran one anti-Mormon article after another.
The New York Herald, perhaps the country’s most popular newspaper,
wrote: “Humanity shudders at the degradation, the disgrace and suf-