The Prophet and the Reformer
Page 59
and to authorize the president to use the military if needed for enforcement.2
1. Elizabeth W
. Kane, journal, March 20, 1870, BYU.
2. “A bill in aid of the execution of the laws in the Territory of Utah, and for other purposes,”
United States 41st Congress, 1869–1870, 2nd session, H. R. 696; Bitton, George Q. Cannon, 164. See also See Kelly Phipps, “Marriage and Redemption: Mormon Polygamy in the
Congressional Imagination,” Virginia Law Review, vol. 95, no. 2 (2009): 456–464.
Kane to Young, March 20, 1870
411
That same month, Senator Aaron H. Cragin, a Republican from New
Hampshire, introduced similar legislation in the Senate.3 In defending his
bill, Cullom asked the House:
Are we to have any legislation that will effectually crush out this bold
and defiant iniquity, or are we to go on as we have been for over thirty
years, allowing the practice of bigamy and polygamy to flourish in viola-
tion of human and divine laws, cloaked by the title of “Latter-day Saints”
and a pretended system of religion?4
Cragin argued that his bill “will arm the courts with authority and power
to protect the good American citizen and punish the guilty perpetrators
of fraud and crime, and greatly aid in removing a barbarism which out-
rages the moral sense of Christendom and disgraces the age and nation
in which we live.”5 When she learned of one of these bills, Kane’s wife
Elizabeth noted in her diary, “There is a Bill before Congress to abolish
Polygamy in Utah. How glad I am that Tom is not Governor!”6
Young was aware of the proposed legislation long before he received Kane’s
letter; a copy of Cullom’s bill arrived in Salt Lake City on January 3 and was
published in the Deseret News two days later.7 Young fumed to William Hooper, the territorial congressional delegate, that it was “difficult to conceive how
men can become so recreant to every principle of manhood as to even conjure
up such a document.”8 In Young’s view, the proposed legislation would deny
religious Latter-day Saints basic rights of citizenship. On January 12, over five
thousand Latter-day Saint women protested against the legislation in a “Great
3. “
A bill to provide for the execution of the law against the crime of polygamy in the Territory of Utah, and for other purposes,” United States 41st Congress, 1869–1870, 2nd Session, S. 286. Cragin’s bill sought to abolish trial by jury for all polygamy cases, place the territorial militia under the control of the territorial governor, strip church officials of the right to perform marriages, tax all church property in excess of $20,000, and require the church’s trustee-in-trust (Young) to draw up a full annual report of the church’s financial operations.
4. Enforcement of Laws in Utah. Speech of Hon. Shelby M. Cullom, of Illinois, Delivered in the House of Representatives, February 17, 1870 (Washington: F. & J. Rives & G. A. Bailey, 1870), 14.
5. Execution of the Laws in Utah. Speech of Hon. Aaron H. Cragin, of New Hampshire, Delivered in the Senate of the United States, May 18, 1870 (New York: F. & J. Rives & G. A. Bailey, 1870), 22–23.
6.Elizabeth W. Kane, journal, February 10, 1870.
7. Historian’s Office Journal, January 3, 1870, CHL; “A Bill,” Deseret News, January 5, 1870.
8.Young to William Hooper, January 11, 1870, BYOF.
412
the prophet and the reformer
Indignation Meeting” in the Salt Lake Tabernacle; other women and men met
in smaller gatherings to voice their outrage.9 Nevertheless, Young claimed that
he welcomed the legislation, for it brought the “Holy Religion very generally
before the literary minds . . . and will have a salutary effect in removing preju-
dice from thinking minds who have investigated the subject.”10 Young usu-
ally chose to see the bright side of imposing events, viewing them as another
manifestation of the workings of Providence.
Source
Kane to Young, March 20, 1870, box 15, fd 4, Kane Collection, BYU.
Letter
Kane March 20th 1870
H. E. Governor Young;
My dear Sir;
Severe indisposition has delayed my answering your letter of the
14th February received by me on my return from the East more than
a fortnight since.11 I presume I am too late to give the subject it relates
to practical attention, and as I do not live among the money dealers
I can hardly offer information or advice which would be of much service
to you.
My seizure was no doubt the result of the bad news (from
Washington) about your people. I am going down to that place if I am
strong enough tomorrow. I do not regard the present condition of affairs
as any longer directly menacing: for if the result in the House disap-
points my expectations I can kill the Bill in the Senate.
But I have had confidentially disclosed [p. 2] to me a state of facts
which gives me grave and most serious concern: for the future. Things
must be bettered or they will grow worse. The very existence of your
Community is in peril, and will be until Deseret is admitted into the
9. “M
inutes of a Ladies’ Mass Meeting,” Deseret News, January 12, 1870, 8; Proceedings in mass meeting of the ladies of Salt Lake City, to protest against the passage of Cullom’s Bill, January 14, 1870 (Salt Lake City: 1870).
10. Young to Heber Young, April 20, 1870, BYOF.
11. Young to Kane, February 14, 1870.
Kane to Young, March 20, 1870
413
Union.12 This is a more important direction for your energies than mak-
ing, buying, or selling railroads or any other values. Looking at it from
the lowest point of view your Securities will have a higher value after
you have achieved your Independence and have the making of your
own Laws.
You must let me say to you candidly that after the alarm of last Spring,
it was very wrong to let this new danger be sprung upon me without
notice; calling for an expenditure of my personal influence—which I do
not begrudge—but which it is your interest I should husband wisely.
After the emergency is over, I expect to be moved to write you a few
very plain words, not upbraiding you or any of [p. 3] my friends around
you, but cautioning you lest in the too eager pursuit of riches, you forget
wherein resides the true strength of a great people.
I do not send messages of regard to your brave sons: assuming that
you will respect this as a Strictly Private Letter: to yourself only.
With unabated—with continued anxious affection for you and
all yours
I remain
Thomas L. Kane
12. Other outsiders also saw imminent threats to the Latter
-day Saints. One correspondent
suggested to Brigham Young that he “find a peacable spot of land among some other nation, say China or Rutia [Russia] or South America or England or Spain . . . where peacible possession can be had without fear of being molested.” H. J. Harwood to Young, April 4, 1870, BYOF. Daniel H. Wells brushed such concerns off and was “far from thinking that a change of location is the only alternative left.” Wells to George E. Smith, March 25, 1870, BYOF.
76
Kane to Young, June 18, 1870
in this letter, Kane informed Young that his mind was “greatly relieved”
regarding the political threat posed
by the Cullom Bill. Shortly after Kane’s
March 20, 1870 letter to Young, Utah delegate William Hooper distributed a
memorial of protest signed by many Latter-day Saints to Congress and delivered
a speech asserting the Saints’ rights to practice plural marriage, stating that the Constitution ensures “the full and free enjoyment of our religious faith.”1 A few
days after the speech, Hooper informed Kane that the legislation had passed
the House “only partially amended,” but that he hoped it would be “killed in the
Senate.” Hooper stated that his speech “was listened to with marked attention
doubtless from curiosity to hear what I had to say upon a subject so sensational
as the one in question.” Hooper had also met with President Ulysses S. Grant,
whom he “found quite disposed to talk on Utah affairs.”2
Kane apparently turned down a chance to lobby Grant himself, as he and
his wife Elizabeth declined an invitation from First Lady Julia Dent Grant to
visit the White House in early April. Elizabeth noted that
the Mormons sorely wanted Tom’s influence but then—it’s rather
absurd to write down what was yet a feeling sufficiently genuine to
affect my decision—I thought Tom might overbear by his personal
influence the action the Legislature was disposed to take. I have an idea
that sometimes God allows us to turn Him from His purpose where
our hearts are so set on a thing that we ask it without a reference to
His wiser judgment of what is right, and that we are punished by the
consequences of our granted prayer.3
1.
W. W. Hooper, The Utah Bill: A Plea for Religious Liberty (Washington: Gibson Brothers, 1870), 31.
2. Hooper to Kane, March 26, 1870, Kane Collection, BYU.
3. Elizabeth W. Kane, journal, April 4, 1870, BYU.
Kane to Young, June 18, 1870
415
Shortly after the Kanes declined to visit the Grants, Hooper told Kane on
April 7, “I fear unfavorable action by Senate Committee.” Kane, too, was con-
cerned. Hooper told him on April 18:
I am pained to find you view matters from so dark a stand point as you
expressed. I am aware my dear friend that the prospect is dark but I yet
believe all will be well and that Congress and the President will hesitate
before they make into a law the aggressive bill proposed.
Hooper believed that “the press is ready to commence again its opposi-
tion as soon as we can ascertain when the Senate will probably act.”4 More
pessimistically, Hooper reported to Young that there was “no reason in
the minds of the lawmakers” and that “deaf ears are turned when an effort
is made to explain or plead the flagrancy of the law proposed.”5
Nevertheless, by mid-June, after Kane had returned from a fishing trip
with Grant and several leading politicians, Kane believed that the threat of
Senate passage of the Cullom Bill had passed. Hooper agreed, telling Young
in June that the crisis had passed.6 By the end of July, Young told a corre-
spondent that the opposition was “weakening down in their operations.”7
Source
Kane to Young, June 18, 1870, box 40, fd 14, BYOF.
Letter
Kane, June 18. 1870.
My dear friend:
Our fishing party on the Sinnemahoning8 gave me an interesting
long day with the President last week. Cameron, Howe, Edwards, and
4. H
ooper to Kane, April 7, 1870 and April 18, 1870, Kane Collection, BYU.
5. Hooper to Young, April 24, 1870, BYOF. See also Richard D. Poll, “The Political Reconstruction of Utah Territory, 1866–1870,” Pacific Historical Review, vol. 27, no. 2 (May 1958): 113–115.
6. Hooper to Young, June 19, 1870, BYOF.
7. Brigham Young to Joseph Young, July 30, 1870, BYOF.
8. Sinnemahoning Creek runs through Cameron and Clinton counties in Pennsylvania.
416
the prophet and the reformer
Robinson of the Senate, and the member from Massachusetts bearing
the name of your respected delegate accompanied him.9 Without enter-
ing into details, I can faithfully say, that my mind is greatly relieved.
I have been for some time under appointment to be heard by the
Senate Committee on Territories, but have designedly postponed appear-
ing before them, having no wish to expedite their action. I will now go
down before the month is out: you may then expect to hear from me again.10
Writing as I do with hopefulness, you will11 [p. 2] not be discouraged
by my repeating the closing paragraph of a letter, which I wrote two
months ago, but have since held on hand: Remember that in any event,
at any and all times my house is open to you. The stereoscopic print
which I enclose may assist you to realize how completely its retirement
is protected by the forest. My men around are in great part my old fol-
lowers, and as far as this world goes, are devoted to me.12 I have spoken
with our Governor: my influence with him is sufficient to protect you
against a demand from the Governor of another State long enough for
us
need give no notice to receive the welcome of affection
from your attached friend
Thomas L. Kane
[p. 3] You may have heard that it was in my plans to go abroad. Rest
assured that I will remain here as long as I can be of service in the
defence of your rights.
K.
9. The party returned from their excursion on S
aturday, June 11, 1870. Republican Senator
Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania led the expedition. The guests included Republican Senators Timothy Howe of Wisconsin, George Edmunds of Vermont, Thomas James Robertson of
South Carolina, and Representative Samuel Hooper of Massachusetts (1861–1875). Several local Pennsylvanian businessmen and politicians joined the fishing excursion. See “The President’s Fishing Party,” Patriot, June 13, 1870, 1.
10. The Senate Committee on Territories had attempted to strengthen the Cullom Bill. See
“The Mormons and the Cullom Bill,” Jackson Citizen, May 10, 1870, 2.
11. Kane wrote “Governor Young” at the bottom of the first page.
12. Kane referred to his Civil War soldiers, the Bucktails.
13. Pennsylvania Governor John W. Geary, a Republican, had been Kane’s commanding officer during the battle of Gettysburg. James A. Rawley, “John White Geary,” American National Biography, vol. 8, Garraty and Carnes, eds., 819–821.
77
Young to Kane, August 16, 1870
When he delivered the following brief letter to Kane, John W. Young also
proposed that the Mormons’ long-time defender become more involved with
them.1 On October 4, 1870, Elizabeth Kane recorded in her journal, “Brigham
Young’s son John W. left us yesterday bearing back with him Tom’s refusal to
succeed Young.” She felt conflicted about the decision:
I don’t know exactly how I feel about it. Tom is a born leader of men,
and might perhaps have again saved this people, bringing them back
from their errors. I grieve for them, so soon to be as sheep without
a shepherd, and feel sorry for the old man who will be seventy next
spring, and who feels like Josiah that peace only remains with the peo-
ple until his death. I think he would be glad to beli
eve that Tom would
unwind the tangled skein he leaves, and lead his people back to the
trodden ways. There is a germ of truth in their protest against the sins
of our modern life and I hope it will bear fruit while the errors die.2
At the time, Young held no political offices. Elizabeth’s words seem to sug-
gest an offer of ecclesiastical office. No other document, however, suggests
that Young considered Kane as a possible successor to his ecclesiastical
positions, a notion which seems implausible.
Perhaps John W. Young was suggesting that Kane might take hold of some
of Young’s business affairs. Young was struggling with the unpaid bills caused
1. The envelope, addressed to Kane in Kane, McK
ean County, Pennsylvania, states that it was
delivered by “Jno. W. Young Esq.”
2. Elizabeth W. Kane, journal, October 4, 1870, Kane Collection, BYU.
418
the prophet and the reformer
by the failure of the Union Pacific Railroad to meet fully its obligations to
him. “I have to endure an excessive teaze & worry, day after day, which, while I am without the means of paying is very annoying,” Young wrote.3 As these
financial embarrassments weighed heavily on him, Young resigned as presi-
dent and director of the Utah Central Railroad.4 He also tendered his resigna-
tion as president of the church’s Perpetual Emigration Fund, which financed
the immigration of European converts. The fall of 1870 was one of the most
unpleasant in Young’s career. His worries included not only financial prob-
lems but also the criticism of federal judges and the followers of dissident
William S. Godbe, who was demanding the church’s reform.5
Whether Young was seeking Kane’s help with church or business affairs,
the conversation shows how much esteem the Mormons had for their
Philadelphia friend. In December 1870, Apostle Joseph F. Smith also expressed
the Saints’ view of Kane, commenting that he “had lived long enough, to know
there was only one man outside the church”—Kane—whom he “would trust