The Prophet and the Reformer

by Grow, Matthew J. ; Walker, Ronald W. ;

  39

  Kane to Young, February 25, 1858

  fOllOwing his letter of February 17 to Young, Kane continued to travel

  towards Salt Lake City. On February 18, he wrote to Elizabeth that her “true

  love” was safe: “All there was to fear is now gone through and exists only as

  a story to repeat to you and be remembered for the children and grand chil-

  dren.” He pledged to come “home a healthier and a happier man for your

  companion than you have ever known.”1 Raging snow storms, however, soon

  slowed Kane’s progress. As he wrote to James Buchanan in early March,

  On the morning of the 20th violent snow storms set in, and before the

  day ended, I was assured by those most competent to speak upon the

  subject that it was evidently not limited in its range. With the close of

  the 21st there was no longer room to doubt that all the passages of the

  Wahsatch range were so blocked up as to render any military move-

  ments for the time out of the question. I was thus reconciled to the

  extreme slowness of my own advance. I halted one day at Cedar City

  to change mules and men and rest myself, but using the best dispatch

  and travelling both night and day—no matter what track was followed,

  so encumbered proved the way, that it was matter for congratulation

  that I was able to reach Great Salt Lake City on the 25th.2

  Hoping to arrive at the Mormon headquarters before the outbreak of hos-

  tilities, Kane’s party drove the final 250 miles in 5 days—almost express

  speed, especially for a party with a carriage. Kane and his Mormon

  1. Thomas L. Kane to Elizabeth W

  . Kane, February 18, 1858, Kane Collection, BYU.

  2. Kane to James Buchanan, March 5, 1858, Kane Collection, BYU.

  240

  the prOphet And the refOrmer

  companions hardly slept during the last several nights on the road. It was

  hard and relentless travel, day and night. As Kane approached Salt Lake

  City, he sent Young the following short note, announcing his imminent

  arrival and asking for a meeting. Kane included the text of this note in a

  letter to Buchanan on March 5, 1858.3

  Source

  Kane to Young, February 25, 1858, in Thomas L. Kane to James

  Buchanan, March 5, 1858, Kane Collection, BYU.

  Letter

  My dear Governor:

  Your friend of old times is now within an hour’s march of your dwell-

  ing where he asks you to name an early hour for the interview which he

  has travelled so far to seek: and, so near you, having no more occasion

  for the name of his colored servant Osborne,4 signs himself

  Yours truly

  Thomas L. Kane

  3. Kane to B

  uchanan, March 5, 1858.

  4. On Kane’s pseudonym, see Kane to Young, February 17, 1858.

  40

  Young to Kane, February 25, 1858

  After he received Kane’s February 25 letter, Young scheduled a meeting

  with Kane and church leaders for that evening. The leaders gathered at seven

  o’clock in preparation for the eight o’clock meeting.1 Apostle Wilford Woodruff

  recorded the attendance of the First Presidency composed of Young, Heber

  C. Kimball, and Daniel H. Wells; five apostles, including himself, Orson

  Hyde, John Taylor, Amasa Lyman, and Charles C. Rich; and Albert Carrington

  and Joseph A. Young. Woodruff described Kane as “vary pale and worn down

  having travelled night and day.” According to Woodruff, Kane, with “great dif-

  ficulty in speaking,” addressed the group:

  Govornor Young and Gentlemen I Come as an ambassador from the

  Cheif Execative of our Nation and am fully prepared and duly autho-

  rized to lay before you most fully and definately the feelings and views

  of the Citizens of our Common Country and of the feelings of the

  execative towards you relating to the present position of Officers of this

  territory and the armey of the United States now upon your Borders.

  And after giving you the most satisfactory evidences in relation to mat-

  ters Concerning you now pending I shall then Call your attention and

  wish to enlist your sympathies in behalf of the poor soldiers who are

  now suffering in the cold & snows of the mountains and request you to

  render them aid and Comfort and to assist them to Come here and to

  bid them a Hearty welcome into your hospitable valley.2

  1. Church H

  istorian’s Office Journal, February 25, 1858, CHL.

  2. Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, February 25, 1858, 5:168–170.

  242

  the prOphet And the refOrmer

  Kane described his conciliatory approach in a letter to President Buchanan

  in early March, writing that he had advised the Mormon leaders to “think

  of our soldiers who are among the snows outside of these mountains” and

  “take immediate measures to insure their safety, supply their wants, and

  bid them all a cordial welcome to your hospitable valley.”3

  Following his speech to the entire group, Kane requested a private inter-

  view with Young and the two spent “30 minutes in secret session.”4 At some

  point, Kane prepared a description of their meeting, written in the voice of

  Young. According to this document, Kane offered Young the “personal apol-

  ogy of Mr. Buchanan” and agreed with the Saints’ assessment that the actions

  of the federal government had “been so precipitate as to be legitimately open

  to misconception.” Kane likewise concurred that it had been “grave omission”

  that Young had not been officially notified about the appointment of his suc-

  cessor. However, Kane reasoned, “it ought never to be too late between per-

  sons of honor and good intentions to remedy a mere misunderstanding,” and

  he urged Young to “accept his assurance of the fact that no disrespect had at

  any times been contemplated or intended” by Buchanan.5

  In a statement six months later to Woodruff, Young recounted that

  he rebuffed Kane’s attempts to satisfy him of Buchanan’s intentions and

  declared, “I should not turn to the right or left or persue any Course ownly as

  God dictated me.”6 Kane likewise wrote to his father that Young had criticized

  Buchanan’s “injudicious and hasty” actions and called the President a “man

  of straw” whose actions toward the Saints revealed that “he can act in blind

  conformity to the prejudices of others, if they are not to be believed his own.”7

  Discouraged by Young’s response, Kane initially protested that Young’s obsti-

  nacy meant the failure of his own efforts. According to Young, Kane “finally

  said if I would dictate he would execute,” and Young assured him “as he had

  been inspired to Come here he should go to the armey and do as the spirit led

  him to do and all would be right and he did so and all was right.”8

  3. Kane to B

  uchanan, March 5, 1858.

  4. Kenny, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:169, entry for February 25, 1858.

  5. Thomas L. Kane, undated manuscript, Thomas L. Kane Papers, APS, as quoted in Poll,

  “Thomas L. Kane,” 127.

  6. Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, August 15, 1858, 5:208–209.

  7. Thomas L. Kane to John K. Kane, March 5, 1858, Kane Collection, Yale.

  8. Kenney,
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, August 15, 1858, 5:208–209.

  Kane to Young, February 25, 1858

  243

  When Kane and Young returned to the larger group, Kane praised the

  Saints for the “great empire” they had built in Utah and for having “bourn

  your part manfully in this Contest.” Kane also gave them an update in national

  politics; when he reported that Buchanan’s cabinet was “more united and work

  together better than former Cabinets have done,” Young remarked, “I suppose

  they are united in putting down Utah.” Kane, however, responded, “I think

  not.” Kane reflected on his relationship with Mormon leaders, telling them, “I

  wish you knew how much I feel at home. I hope I shall have the privilege of

  Breaking bread with these my friends.” Young told Kane:

  I want to take good care of you. I want to tell you one thing and that is

  the men you see here do not look old and the reason is they are doing

  right and are in the service of God and if men would do right they

  might live to a great age. There is but few men in the world that have

  the great amount of Labure to do which I have. I have to meet men evry

  hour in the day. I stand in the streets and do more business in an hour

  than Any presidet, king or Emperor has to perform in a day. I have to

  think for the people Constantly.

  After commenting on the persecution of the Latter-day Saints and express-

  ing his belief that “God will preserve us,” Young told Kane, “Brother

  Thomas the Lord sent you here and he will not let you die. No you Cannot

  die till your work is done. I want to have your name live with the Saints

  to all Eternity. You have done a great work and you will do a greater work

  still.”9

  Other church leaders viewed Kane’s mission with more skepticism. George

  A. Smith regarded Kane as a “warm friend,” but believed he had been duped

  by Buchanan, who had sent Kane to convince the Saints to “not destroy” the

  federal soldiers until Buchanan sent “sufficient reinforcements to them to

  destroy us.” Smith rejected Kane’s conciliatory message: “Bah!”10

  Source

  Young to Kane, February 25, 1858, box 14, fd 12, Kane Collection, BYU.

  9. K

  enney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, February 25, 1858, 5:169–171.

  10. George A. Smith to William H. Dame, February [March] 3, 1858, William H. Dame Papers, BYU.

  244

  the prOphet And the refOrmer

  Letter

  Great Salt Lake City Feb 25/58

  My Dear friend

  Thomas L Kane

  I will not multiply words upon paper but I will be happy to wait

  upon you at my Beehive House11 at Eight o clock this Evening

  My Carriage will be ready to receive you at your present lodgings

  at half past Seven. I cannot Express my joy and surprise at your arrival

  God Bless you

  Brigham Young

  11. The Beehive H

  ouse was one of Young’s main residences in Salt Lake City. Arrington,

  American Moses, 169.

  41

  Young to Kane, March 9, 1858

  fOllOwing his feBruAry 25 meeting with Young and church leaders, Kane

  continued to urge them to display conciliation toward the federal army and

  territorial officials at Camp Scott. In response, Mormon leaders provided fur-

  ther justification for their initial decision not to follow Kane’s advice. Wilford Woodruff, for example, wrote Kane a letter (unfortunately lost) covering “6

  pages of foolscap” and “giving a reason of our hope and faith and the cause

  of our defending ourselves in these vallies of the mountains.”1 In a letter to

  President Buchanan, Kane explained that the Saints envisioned a nightmar-

  ish scenario in which the combination of hostile soldiers and antagonistic

  judges would lead to “Illinois & Missouri over again.” Martial law would be

  proclaimed and the Mormons would be subject to the “drunken, quarrelsome

  and licentious” soldiers. Federal judges would persecute the “prominent men

  with arrests & prosecutions without end,” and try them “with juries composed

  of enemies, and finally would call on the soldiers to see every man hanged the

  Saints loved.” From Young’s perspective, such fears were not irrational; he

  did not know what was in Johnston’s orders from Buchanan and would later

  complain vociferously that the military officers and federal judges worked to

  install an anti-Mormon regime in Utah over the next few years. To assuage

  the Mormons’ concerns, Kane promised a pardon to “Young himself, and his

  immediate friends” and gave his word of “honor as a gentleman” that the army

  would not impose martial law. Kane gradually sensed a thaw in the Saints’

  attitudes; Young became more “frank and confidential . . . more independent

  of the fear that I would misconstrue them [his statements] myself or misrep-

  resent them to others.”2

  1. K

  enney, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, March 4, 1858, 5:173.

  2. Kane to Buchanan, ca. March 15, 1858, Kane Collection, BYU.

  246

  the prOphet And the refOrmer

  On March 8, Kane left Salt Lake City to travel through deep snows toward

  Camp Scott, accompanied by about a dozen “Be’hoys”—local talk for “Brigham’s

  Boys,” a group of experienced frontiersmen that included such men as Robert

  Burton, Howard Egan, Ephraim Hanks, William Kimball, and Porter Rockwell.

  Young’s stance toward the army changed abruptly as Kane left. That day, news

  reached Salt Lake City “of a massacre of the Saints” in Oregon Territory at the

  Mormon settlement at Fort Limhi along the Salmon River (in present-day

  Idaho). On February 25, a force of northern Shoshones and Bannocks (incited

  in part by a mountain man and possibly a government contractor buying cattle

  for the Utah Expedition) raided the settlement, killing two men and wounding

  others. Messengers raced to Utah to raise a force to rescue the remainder of

  the Mormons.3 The Church Historian’s Office Journal for March 8 states, “Col.

  T. L. Kane left G. S. L. City for Fort Bridger to visit the U.S. Army. Gov. Brigham Young furnished him an escort of [blank] men An express arrived in the morning with intelligence of the attack upon the Salmon River Settlement.”4

  The connection between these two events—Kane’s departure and the

  reception of news about the attack on Fort Limhi—led Young to send Kane

  the following letter. Young’s letter, which he entrusted Kane to deliver to

  Johnston, offered the army substantial supplies—a herd of 200 cattle and

  15–20,000 pounds of flour—as an olive branch to military leaders. In a let-

  ter to Buchanan, Kane portrayed Young’s letter as an indication of Young’s

  strength against more militant Mormons; the message of the letter was “Go

  on. Things have not changed. I am still strong enough and confident enough

  of my power to wish and work for peace.”5 Nevertheless, the letter represented

  a shift in Young’s thinking. Whereas Young had initially spurned Kane’s sug-

  gestion that the Saints send supplies to the federal army as an overture for

  peace, he now adopted Kane’s plan as his own.

  Young’s letter was delivered to Kane by his seventeen-year-old son Joseph


  A. Young and another Mormon courier, George Stringham. Kane noted that he

  received this letter on March 9 at 7:00 a.m., that he submitted it to Johnston at

  Camp Scott on March 14 at 4:00 p.m., and that Fitz-John Porter, Johnston’s adju-

  tant, returned the letter to him at 7:00 p.m. that same day.6 Johnston declared

  that he would not receive assistance from the rebellious Mormons, though

  3. B

  igler, Fort Limhi.

  4. Church Historian’s Office Journal, March 8, 1858, CHL.

  5. Kane to Buchanan, ca. March 15, 1858, BYU.

  6. Notations by Kane on Young to Kane, March 9, 1858.

  Young to Kane, March 9, 1858

  247

  Governor Cumming saw the proposal as a genuine gesture for peace.7 Two

  days later, in both a letter and a lengthy meeting, Kane urged Johnston to recon-

  sider his rejection of the supplies.8 In Young’s view, the offer of supplies was a major concession to the army. By contrast, Johnston saw it as a cynical ploy to

  embarrass the army and believed that the only proper overture of peace from the

  Mormons would entail capitulation to federal power. Johnston lectured Kane that

  the Mormons held the key to peace and that “Young should consider the calami-

  ties he is bringing upon his people, in pursuing a course of open opposition.”

  In response, Kane argued that Young desired peace, but had to conciliate more

  bellicose Mormons. Kane complained that Johnston’s rebuff of Young’s proposal

  “would prejudice the object of his [Kane’s] mission,—and indicate no desire

  for peace on our side.”9 Kane soon expressed similar sentiments to President

  Buchanan, insisting that the refusal to accept the supplies was a “grave mistake”

  which would be interpreted by Young as a “Declaration of War to the knife.”10

  Source

  Young to Kane, March 9, 1858, Kane Collection, BYU. Retained copy is in

  Brigham Young Letterbooks, box 4, vol. 4, 86, CHL. The letter was printed

  in Message from the President of the United States to the Two Houses of Congress at the Commencement of the Second Session of the Thirty-Fifth Congress, “Report of the Secretary of War” (Washington: James B. Steedman, 1858), 87–88.