The Prophet and the Reformer

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

  mother, his noble hearted wife, and their beloved little ones, and his

  brother and friends; and say to him that I trust his roughing it in camp

  life among the mountains has freed his mind from all sombre shadows

  caused by physical ailment.1

  To Hooper, he wrote, “We have one Friend there who, we are well assured, is

  doing all he can in favor that Congress deal justly by Utah; and we are well

  aware that his efforts are attended with much influence in the right quarters.”2

  In this letter, Young indicated to Kane that the federal troops were on the

  verge of removal.3 Two weeks earlier, he assured a local bishop that “most

  or all of the troops will ere long be removed to points where they may be

  of some use, if there are any such places in a Republican Government.”4

  1. Y

  oung to Cannon, January 4, 1860, BYOF. Kane had been performing surveyors’ work in the Allegheny Mountains in western Pennsylvania, where he would later found the town of Kane, Pennsylvania.

  2. Young to Hooper, January 5, 1860, BYOF.

  3. After Washington chastised Johnston for allowing his troops to participate in Cradlebaugh’s posses, Johnston wrote several letters denouncing the Mormons for alleged crimes, and he unsuccessfully sought a leave of absence. “I have . . . no hopes of escaping from this infer-nal region—it is to me worse than any imagined horrors of Siberian exile,” he complained.

  Roland, Albert Sidney Johnston, 236.

  4. See Young to Warren Snow, March 9, 1860, BYOF.

  Young to Kane, March 22, 1860

  353

  To Hooper, Young wrote, “rumors indicate that Camp Floyd is anticipat-

  ing a speedy and very welcome change from an inactive condition to more

  pleasant localities beyond our borders.”5 Orders for removal were in place

  by early April.6

  Young also informed Kane about the continuing tensions between

  the local probate courts and federal courts in Utah. In spite of the com-

  plaint of the federal judges, the probate courts continued to try criminal

  cases. The side-by-side judicial system of federal and territorial courts that

  had become a source of tension reflected actions in other western terri-

  tories. Indeed, the territories of Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, and

  Washington also gave special powers to territorial courts because federal

  courts were seen as inconvenient, inefficient, and hostile to local interests.7

  To stop the practice in Utah, several federal judges had lobbied Congress

  to pass a bill that would limit the power of the probate courts.8 Soon after

  Young wrote this letter, Judge Delana Eckels released five men imprisoned

  by a probate court.9

  Source

  Young to Kane, March 22, 1860, Brigham Young Letterbooks, box 5, vol.

  5, 433–434.

  Letter

  G. S. L. City, March 22. 1860

  Col. Thomas L. Kane,

  Philadelphia Pa.,

  Dear Friend:—

  I have no unanswered letter from you calling for a reply, not hav-

  ing received one of later date than July last; but I cheerfully embrace

  an opportunity for forwarding a few lines by trusty private conveyance.

  5. S

  ee Young to William Hooper, March 22, 1860, BYOF.

  6. Young to Horace Eldredge, April 12, 1860, BYOF.

  7. Earl S. Pomeroy, The Territories and the United States, 1861–1890: Studies in Colonial Administration (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969), 59–60.

  8. James Allen, “The Unusual Jurisdiction of Probate Courts in the Territory of Utah,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 2 (Spring 1968), 137–138.

  9. Young to Eldredge, April 12, 1860.

  354

  the prophet and the reformer

  I learned, by letter from our friend George Q. Dec. 13, that you had

  returned from your inland excursion with a largely increased stock of

  health, which you trusted would last you through the present run upon

  it, with which trust it affords me pleasure to join my wishes that your

  health and spirits may prove adequate for each cherished undertaking,

  for I feel assured that none but an honorable enterprise will engage your

  efforts.10

  The old proverb that “large bodies move slowly” is signally veri-

  fied in the motion of the troops in Utah, for they still remain inactively

  resting in Camp Floyd; and also in the action of the “powers that be” in

  regard to ordering their movements, for as yet no order to that effect has

  transpired here. Still I feel that the hands of the clock are moving, and

  that too in the right direction.11

  These slow movements are, probably, not much to be wondered at,

  for the whole affair is doubtless, [p. 2] to all rightly informed men of

  intelligence and love of rights, a matter of deep chagrin and difficult

  management, especially as the troops were not promptly withdrawn

  upon the first flush of the reaction. The outside pressure is also more

  or less kept to its bearing by the base misrepresentations of such men

  as Garland Hurt, Judge Cradlebaugh, and Camp Floyd letter writers.

  It is a sad index of the times that such men are listened to and appear

  to be allowed an influence in governmental affairs; though the moving

  cause in these events runs in a far deeper channel, but one by no means

  more commendable and far more potent than the first named indicating

  straws upon its surface.

  The Probate Court for this County is in session, and within a few

  days has tried six persons indicted for larceny; three were cleared, and

  three sentenced to the Penitentiary.12 The whole six are residents of

  this Territory, and the action of the Court proves conclusively the dis-

  position in Utah to mete out justice, when not hindered by the unlaw-

  ful interference of chief and associate Justices. Such would be the case

  10. C

  annon wrote Young that Kane had “brought down a stock of health from the Mountains that would last him through the Winter.” Cannon to Young, December 13, 1859, BYOF.

  11. The army stationed at Camp Floyd began its “rapid deactivation” in the summer of 1860; the process accelerated with the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, and the last detachment left on July 27, 1861. See E. B. Long, The Saints and the Union (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1981), 18; Moorman and Sessions, Camp Floyd and the Mormons, 274–276.

  12. See also Young to Hooper, March 22, 1860, BYOF; “Criminal Prosecutions,” Deseret News, March 21, 1860, 4; Hosea Stout, diary, March 23, 1860.

  Young to Kane, March 22, 1860

  355

  in all our counties, were the Probate Courts not unwarantly coerced

  by the District Courts, or did the District Courts [illegible word] with

  them to subsume the ends of justice [p. 3] independently of gunpowder

  and bayonets when they are far worse than useless. However, ere long

  we will beat our “swords into plow shares and our spears into pruning

  hooks.”13

  You will enquire, “have I written as I wish to? No. You will ask, “can

  I not write as I wish to? No. If I could see you, I could tell you.

  You are in my thoughts daily, and I trust that I shall yet speak face

  to face with you

  According to common usage I would say “my best respects to you,

  your dear wife, mother and family; but I will say, may the blessings of

  the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob rest upon you and your father’s

  house, forever and forever.

  Most truly your Friend

  P.S. Br. Charles B. Robbins,14 son of Elder John R. Robbins of Tom’s

  River N. J., has kindly proffered to deliver this letter to you.

  Brigham Young

  13. Isaiah 2:4.

  14. John Robbins had been serving a mission in his home state of New Jersey. His son Charles was traveling to New Jersey to assist him in coming across the plains. See “Charles Robbins,” Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, vol. 2, 74–75; Young to Hooper, March 22, 1860, BYOF; and Young to John Robbins, March 22, 1860, BYOF.

  61

  Kane to Young, April 25, 1860

  thouGh the onComInG sectional crisis dominated national concerns in

  1860, Mormon affairs continued to occupy some congressional attention.

  In the year before the Civil War, Kane corresponded with Young and worked

  with Mormon representatives in pursuit of two principal objectives: to block

  proposed anti-polygamy legislation and to obtain Utah statehood. During the

  1850s, opponents of Mormonism had tried on several occasions to ban polyg-

  amy; Republican Representative Justin S. Morrill of Vermont, for example,

  introduced anti-polygamy legislation in 1856.1

  Southerners, concerned with creating a precedent for federal interven-

  tion with slavery, had killed the initial anti-polygamy bills. Morrill tried

  again in February 1860, when he proposed legislation that would criminal-

  ize polygamy in U.S. territories; penalties included fines up to $500 and

  two years’ imprisonment. George Q. Cannon observed that the bill threw

  Democrats into a quandary. If they voted for it, they “establish a precedent”

  which might later be “brought against [their] doctrine of non-intervention

  [of slavery in the western territories] by Congress.” A vote against the bill,

  however, would be fodder for their political enemies, as “they might be

  called Mormons!” “To dodge this issue,” Cannon wrote, congressmen intro-

  duced a variety of amendments, including attempts to divide Utah terri-

  tory (the most popular proposal) or to govern it by a “council of thirteen

  selected by the President instead of the Legislature.” By dissolving Utah into

  other territories and making the Mormons a minority in each, Democrats

  believed that they could maintain their political position on popular sov-

  ereignty without opening themselves to the charge of defending Utah’s

  1.“The Latest N

  ews” and “Thirty-Fourth Congress,” New York Tribune, June 27, 1856, 5.

  Kane to Young, April 25, 1860

  357

  plural marriage system.2 Recognizing the Democratic participation, Utah

  territorial delegate William Hooper stated that while he had hoped that the

  Democrats would oppose the anti-Mormon legislation, “it appears they will

  only try and outherod herod by Substituting if possible some Measure More

  objectionable.”3

  Hooper and Cannon sought Kane’s assistance in lobbying against the

  legislation. According to Cannon, Kane had a “long, pleasant and satisfac-

  tory interview” with Buchanan in mid-March. Kane believed he would have

  to persuade Buchanan of the “danger there would be of another difficulty if

  certain measures were persisted in,” including the “dismemberment of the

  Territory” and the banning of polygamy. Kane, however, was “agreeably disap-

  pointed” as Buchanan “launched out immediately, and scarcely left him any-

  thing to say.” Buchanan feared that the anti-polygamy bill “might pass both

  Houses,” but the President “did not want us disturbed, nor any cause of trou-

  ble given us, and would use his influence with his friends to have unfriendly

  and unjust legislation arrested.” Buchanan recognized that presidential poli-

  tics might complicate matters, as “every prominent man nearly has his own

  pet scheme to carry out, with the hope of getting a boost at Charleston,” a ref-

  erence to the upcoming 1860 Democratic national convention.4 Earlier that

  month, Buchanan had similarly indicated to Hooper that he wanted “peace,

  quiet and happiness to reign within Utah borders and was disposed to con-

  ciliate as much as possible,” perhaps by nominating non-polygamous Saints

  for territorial positions.5 Kane also assisted Hooper by writing a portion of

  his congressional address to oppose the legislation.6 Nevertheless, Morrill’s

  bill overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives, by 149–60.7 In this

  letter to Young, Kane highly praised both Cannon, who carried the letter to

  Utah, and Hooper.8

  2. C

  annon to Young, March 26, 1860, BYOF. The idea of running Utah by a federally

  appointed group of councilors had been suggested by the so-called “runaway” officers in 1852. Benjamin D. Harris, Lemuel G. Brandebury, and Perry E. Brocchus to Millard Fillmore, January 31, 1852, Miscellaneous Letters of the Department of State.

  3. Hooper to Young, March 27, 1860 and April 8, 1860, BYOF.

  4. Cannon to Young, March 26, 1860, BYOF.

  5. Hooper to Young, March 12, 1860, BYOF.

  6. Cannon to Young, March 26, 1860, BYOF.

  7. U.S. Congress, House Journal, 36th Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 1860, 663.

  8. Cannon arrived in Salt Lake City on August 13, 1860 and was soon ordained an apostle by Young. Bitton, George Q. Cannon, 103–104.

  358

  the prophet and the reformer

  Source

  Kane to Young, April 25, 1860, box 40, fd 13, BYOF.

  Letter

  Away from home at a roadside tavern in McKean County

  Pennsylvania, April 25. 1860

  My dear friend:9

  I am pleased indeed to be able to evade the prying post office and

  speak to you through Mr. Cannon, saying by this simply that I have

  communicated with him without reserve, and feel I can trust the fidelity

  with which he will repeat my thoughts and words. He is incapable of the

  suggestio falsi, as lawyers wd. say: there is only one suppresio very,10 or

  extenuation of the truth, which I imagine he may be guilty of, and that

  I can counteract by devoting to it this letter.

  Your “friend” thanks you indeed for the relief which Cannon’s pres-

  ence has been to an overburdened mind. Of course you, who believe

  so heartily that there is an overruling Providence for all things, will not

  agree with me; but it is my candid opinion that without him matters wd.

  not as far as you are concerned, be at all as well off as they are. I mean

  what I say; and desire to be excused the use of eulogistic adjectives.

  He is so ready in his appreciation of the points of a position, and [p. 2]

  masters them so thoroughly:—for a young man too11 (and one of ready

  zeal) he possesses such a rarely balanced judgment!

  I think him singularly well fitted for the conduct of public business.

  You will not understand me as intimating that you shd. remove your

  present delegate; on the contrary, I think the joint team of Hooper &

  C. has certainly been stronger than either wd. have been alone this win-

  ter.12 Capt. Hooper’s course has been most creditable to him. I do mean

  9.

  Kane identified “Governor Young” as the recipient of this letter on the bottom of the page.

  10. The firs
t term is Latin for “false suggestion,” a “representation of untruth.” The second term is Latin for “suppression or concealment of the truth.” See Alexander Burrill, A New Law Dictionary and Glossary (New York: John S. Voorhies, 1851), 954, 959.

  11. Cannon was then 33 years old.

  12. Young similarly commended Hooper’s efforts: “You have not written a word here nor done a thing there, so far as we know, but what is highly acceptable.” Young to Hooper, April 26, 1860, BYOF.

  Kane to Young, April 25, 1860

  359

  to say that, if you shd. have a charge to make hereafter, or cannot spare

  both—you need have no hesitation whatever in that even to designate

  your man. You may insure yourself, as you would me, an easy mind. With

  G. Q. Cannon at Washington, your affairs will never suffer there.

  I experience the old difficulty how to discriminate when I would

  send messages of love to the good men and women of Utah. My wife

  is in Philadelphia, near 500 miles away from me, and I might model a

  phrase to acknowledge in her place your beautiful [p. 3] present of a

  gold ring and pin.13 But I would thank you in another tone of feeling

  for the human Love which I find you all of you continue to exhibit for

  me. It is a blessing for which I shd. be thankful that I am still entitled to

  claim it. Tell my friends every one that I value their affection as much as

  ever, and hope that, understanding this, no one will neglect to cultivate

  & cherish it. I remain as of old

  Your friend and true well wisher

  Thomas L. Kane

  13.

  When the Kanes experienced a financial crisis during the Civil War, Elizabeth wrote to her husband that if she did not have sufficient funds, “I shall melt those Mormon brooches and ring. We couldn’t wear them, and may as well use them.” Elizabeth Kane to Thomas Kane, November 1, 1861, Kane Collection, BYU.

  62

  Young to Kane, April 26, 1860

  In thIs letter, Young introduced Captain Walter M. Gibson, a recent

  Latter-day Saint convert and adventurer with an intense interest in Pacific col-

  onization, to Kane. In June 1858, the New York Times reported that Gibson had submitted a plan to Utah territorial delegate John M. Bernhisel “for the emigration of his constituents in Utah, to the island of New-Guinea, in the Indian