Quest for Refuge -- Everything God Does is to Aggrandize His Kingdom

The five thousand Saints who staggered out of Missouri in the winter of 1838-39 did not flee further west but turned east to Illinois and a new refuge.² Most collected around Quincy, the largest town on the upper Mississippi, and looked for housing and employment.³ Elders sent to scout the countryside for a new gathering place found the village of Commerce, fifty-three miles north of Quincy and opposite Montrose in Iowa.⁴ On the Iowa side of the Mississippi River they found the barracks of old Fort Des Moines, which could serve as a temporary shelter.⁵ But in February 1839, when the brethren at Quincy discussed the location, they were reluctant to proceed, wondering if it would be wise to congregate again and thus risk further persecution.⁶ For the moment the gathering seemed stalled by the waning enthusiasm of such prominent churchmen as Sidney Rigdon, now released from incarceration, Bishop Edward Partridge, and William Marks.⁷

Meanwhile, Brigham Young and a few apostles still in Missouri were determined that the poor should not be forsaken. Young persuaded the Saints who had found accommodations to assist the destitute,⁸ and a committee was formed, working with characteristic [p.100] cooperation into the spring to bring the exiles to Quincy.⁹ There, on 17 March, Young told the Saints to organize branches of the church and maintain order.¹⁰ By encouraging a new gathering at Quincy Young gained stature in the kingdom for himself and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles he represented.

When Joseph Smith finally joined the Saints in April, the evacuation from Missouri was largely accomplished,¹¹ and they resolved to make a fresh start in the new state. Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal that church members were "determined to build a city wherever their lot is cast."¹² Prospects seemed excellent, for the people of Quincy looked upon the Mormons with sympathy. These Illinoisans went out of their way to find shelter and work for the refugees—happy to serve as well as to have settlers who might strengthen the western part of the state politically.¹³ But Quincy could not provide a permanent location for all the immigrants, and Smith turned his attention elsewhere. He negotiated with several landowners around Commerce, purchasing large amounts of land there and in Iowa.¹⁴ He said that the Saints must hasten to build a city, because "the time is soon coming, when no man will have any peace but in Zion and her stakes."¹⁵

But where was Zion to be, especially if its establishment in Jackson County was to be delayed? Some, such as Alanson Ripley, were still militant and seethed at the violence levied against the Saints and the incarceration of church leaders. Ripley wrote to Smith in early April,

when I reflect upon the cause of your afflictions it is like fire in my bones, and burns against your enemies to the bare hild [hilt], and I never can be satisfied while there is one of them to piss against a wall or draw a sword or spring a trigger, for my sword never has been sheathed in peace; for the blood of D. W. Patten and those who were butchered at Haun's Mill crieth for vengeance from the ground therefore hear it, Oh-ye heavens…that I from this day declare myself the Avenger of the blood of those innocent men, and the innocent cause of Zion.¹⁶

Those more pacific, such as David Foote, explained the expulsion from the promised land by finding that the Old Testament prophet Micah had predicted that Zion would be driven into the wilderness.¹⁷

Still another response was to take refuge in apocalypticism. Eliza R. Snow wrote that

[p.101] the inhabitants of the earth are,…beginning to be in haste to fill up their measure, before the Lord shall come.…The nations of the world can never fill the cup of their iniquity without shedding innocent blood, and the blood of the 'Latter Day Saints' will be required.…The Lord has commenc'd a work that is destin'd to try the sincerity and the strength, yes, and the legality too, of every creed and profession, both political and religious.¹⁸

More typical perhaps was the position of Parley Pratt, who affirmed that Zion must tarry but a short time "until the indignation of a just God has disencumbered the land and made room for the rights of man and the laws of the Lord to be restored." Pratt vented his anger against the American government in a letter to his wife, Mary Ann, in April 1839, saying that the Saints had been "banished" from Missouri only "because they belong to the church." With deep bitterness he protested the injustice. "This is called in this country," he wrote, "a just, impartial, and equitable administration of the laws, of a free and independent Republic—This is liberty!!!!!! American liberty!!!!" With intense resentment he exclaimed, "This is the government established in these modern times as a kind of Sample, a model or pattern for the nations of the earth…O' tell it not in England, nor let the sound be heard in Europe; Lest Britannia Laugh us to scorn,—Lest the daughter of Monarchy Tryumph."¹⁹

Other Saints looked to the government for redress. Sidney Rigdon went to the governor of Illinois with a proposal for a joint condemnation of the Missourians by all the state legislatures in the Union.²⁰ He also called for an investigation by Congress of the recent war in Missouri.²¹ Joseph Smith planned a personal mission to Washington, D.C., to set forth the facts of the expulsion and to ask the federal government for compensation for their property losses.²² In the spring of 1840, Smith, Rigdon, and Elias Higbee went to the nation's capital, armed with affidavits intended to prove that the Saints had been victims of religious persecution.²³ But the petitions and pleadings fell on deaf ears, as neither the president nor Congress would intervene to help the Mormons. Smith called personally on President Martin Van Buren, who exclaimed, "What can I do? I can do nothing for you! If I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole state of Missouri."²⁴ Smith later wrote bitterly of Van Buren that he is "so much a fop or a fool, for he judged our cause before he knew it, we could find no place to put truth into him." Smith remarked that "we do not intend that he shall have our vote."²⁵ The [p.102] prophet hunted up congressmen and senators, hoping that they might do something for his people.²⁶ But efforts failed in the Senate when representatives of Missouri maintained that the Saints had defied the law and waged war on the state. Missourians exhibited evidence presented at the preliminary hearing before Judge King²⁷ and convinced the judiciary committee of Mormon wrong-doing.²⁸ The Mormon emissaries were told that the affair was a matter for the state to settle and that they should appeal to the local courts.²⁹ Despite this the Saints hoped for a change of attitude. As late as May 1840, Elias Smith, representing the high council at Montrose, Iowa, wrote to Elias Higbee in Washington that the Saints still expected redress at the hands of the federal government. "You are not to give in an inch," he said, "on any position that has been taken, especially in relation to our damages.…Our rights we want and must have of the Government of the United States; and nothing short of that can be received." Elias Smith, like the prophet, blamed the "Golden Humbug firm of Van Buren & Co whose aim has been to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the laboring class."³⁰

It was unrealistic for the Saints to expect the federal government to intervene in the 1840s on behalf of an unpopular minority when the Democratic party advocated states' rights.³¹ Martin Van Buren was understandably reluctant to risk further civil war in Missouri in an unpopular cause. Even Andrew Jackson, Van Buren's predecessor whom Joseph Smith viewed as a champion of minorities, preferred to compromise with South Carolina on the tariff question even though he believed resistance to federal law by armed force was treason.³² And when the abolitionists, a small minority like the Mormons, were mobbed between 1834 and 1836, Jackson had encouraged the attacks, saying that citizens in every state should frown on any proceedings within "her borders likely to disturb the tranquility of their political brethren in other portions of the union." He stated flatly: "each state has the unquestionable right to regulate its own internal concerns according to its own pleasure."³³ Such a man would not have intervened in Missouri in 1840 any more than Van Buren, especially since Missouri state officials were judged to be the upholders of law and order and the Saints in rebellion.

When Mormon leaders were told that they should seek redress in Missouri courts, they found the suggestion outrageous, since their old enemies in Daviess County were still in control.³⁴ George Adams summarized their feelings when he wrote that this was "the worst [p.103] insult we have ever received."³⁵ The Mormons' inability to gain concessions deepened their alienation from American society and government. They were convinced that the leaders of the federal government who had refused to respond to their pleadings were culpable. Smith even advocated that those who would not intervene to protect the rights of citizens should be declared eligible for capital punishment.³⁶ He declared that the nation was on the verge of destruction: "my heart faints within me when I see, by the visions of the Almighty, the end of this nation, if she continues to disregard the cries and petitions of her virtuous citizens, as she has done and is now doing."³⁷ Ironically, however, Smith was speaking of an interventionist United States government that did not exist until the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Reconsidering his chiliastic expectations, the prophet in July 1840 gave a panoramic view of what seemed in store for the Saints and the nation. He said the elders would have to redeem the nation, because it had failed in its divinely ordained mission. Smith told the congregation that Zion, the place of refuge, might be in South as well as North America, or anywhere the Saints might gather. The redemption of Zion, then, "is the redemption of all N[orth] & S[outh] America." The Saints must build up twelve stakes, scattered abroad, and they will have peace while doing so, although the "Nations of the earth will be at war." He said that "we may plead at the feet of Magistrates and at the feet of Judges, at the feet of Governors and at the feet of senators & at the feet of Pre[s]idents for 8 years it will be of no avail. We shall find no favor in any of the courts of this government." Smith told his people they would build a temple with a great watchtower on top to know if the enemy was advancing "as a thief in the night." God's servants would then be scattered abroad to "wake up the Nations of the earth." Then "this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction." Then the Lord will call "all my servants who are the strength of the Lord's house…[to] come to the Land of my vinyard and fight for the Lord."³⁸

In Martha Jane Coray's account of this discourse, there is no indication against whom the servants of the Lord's house would fight. Parley P. Pratt interpreted Smith to mean that when the government of the United States had "come so near dessolation as to stand as it [p.104] were by a single hair," God's servants would gather for "the strength of the Lord's house 'a mighty army."'³⁹…And this is the redemption of Zion—when the Saints shall have redemed that government and reinstated it in all its purity & glory." Pratt saw this military action as a way of gaining control of the government for its purification, whereas Coray's version of the speech does not convey that idea clearly since the resort to arms comes after redemption in her sequence.⁴⁰ In his account Pratt relished the idea that the Saints would be on the side of the Constitution and their enemies against it. He failed to perceive that a seizure of power by the Mormon elders through military means, however benign their intentions, might not ever be pleasing to the American people, whatever the circumstances.

Nauvoo had become a boom town by the time Joseph Smith returned from Washington, D.C., in the spring of 1840, but he was not especially satisfied with the progress. He had made heavy investments in land, and to keep the church solvent the lots had to be sold quickly to large numbers of Saints. Accordingly, Smith stressed upon his return that everyone should hurry to the gathering and build a temple where converts might worship during the final dispensation.⁴¹ In June 1840, a new newspaper, the Times and Seasons, caught the booster spirit, proclaiming that "for immigration and growth, this place must assuredly take the lead of all other places that ever came under our observation." The editor affirmed with enthusiasm,

We behold, amidst all these sceneries, the saints comfortably situated, with already about 250 houses put up by their own hands.…There has been…several commodious framed houses built; and several more now in lively operation. Also several large stone buildings now in contemplation to be erected this season, one of which is designed as a place of worship; also a large and splendid brick building, the foundation of which is already laid, intended for a public house. A saw mill has been erected here.…A grist and saw mill is now erecting upon an improved plan, to be carried by water power.…This place is bound, according to the common source of things, to become a great depot of commercial and mechanical operations.⁴²

In January 1841, the editor observed that there were 3,000 inhabitants in the city, with more being added daily.⁴³ Many newcomers were immigrants from England, generally from the poorer dasses.⁴⁴ By November even non-Mormons were impressed at how fast the city was growing. One visitor described how "several hundred new houses erected within the last few months attest to the passing traveller the [p.105] energy, industry, and self-denial with which the community is imbued."⁴⁵ Another warned, however, that although the city continued to grow in 1842, it was composed mostly of log huts and cabins, and insufficient land was under cultivation to feed the masses flocking to the area.⁴⁶

As in Missouri, the rapid gathering saw Mormons squeezed into every corner of Hancock County⁴⁷ and into Lee County, Iowa. Growing dissatisfaction among some non-Mormons followed. At Houston, as early as March 1840, a notice was tacked to the schoolhouse door warning "all those who claim the name Mormon" to "depart from this neighborhood." The Saints were told that their "false doctrines" were not wanted in the community and that hundreds were ready "to assist in ridding this part of the county of such vile trash."⁴⁸

But such expressions of outright antagonism were rare and ineffectual.⁴⁹ What was more potent in spreading antipathy was the threat of the economic power of the kingdom. When Smith and several Elders journeyed fifteen miles south to the outskirts of Warsaw to survey a site for the town of Warren, there was increasing opposition from businessmen and land speculators in the town. Those opposed were led by Thomas Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, who maintained that the arrival of so many Mormons had prevented other capitalists from investing in the area.⁵⁰ According to an unnamed correspondent writing in 1844, Sharp "made himself the organ of a gang of town lot speculators…who are afraid that Nauvoo is about to kill off their town!"⁵¹ Feelings were bitter when the citizens of Warsaw began charging high rents and inflated prices for commodities of the Mormons who had come to settle.⁵² Smith had to cancel immigration to Warsaw for a time but remarked that "the first thing toward building up Warsaw was to break it down, to break down them that are there."⁵³ These intentions were not lost on the leading men of the city, including Calvin Warren to whom Smith made his remark. Soon Warren and the others were some of the most relentless enemies of the prophet and Saints.⁵⁴

In Iowa in 1841 there was acute hostility to Mormon expansion. One of the Gentile leaders was David Kilbourne, town father, store owner, and land speculator at Montrose,⁵⁵ who protested in an Iowa newspaper that in March Alanson Ripley visited the town "with compass and chain and strided through gates and over fences to the very doors of the 'Gentiles' and drove stakes for tots of a city."⁵⁶ The antipathy toward the Mormons became so intense that by the end of the year the Iowans were threatening to expel them by force.⁵⁷ [p.106]

To add to these difficulties the Saints, as a result of their enduring hatred toward Missourians,⁵⁸ began organizing raids into Missouri. According to loyal Mormon Joel Hills Johnson, a "secret combination" was formed to proclaim "that it was no harm to steal from Missourians." Johnson said that a bishop, a councilor, four high councilmen, and ten or twelve elders were involved.⁵⁹ Despite Joseph Smith's denunciation of this group,⁶⁰ his brother Hyrum believed they were still functioning as late as 1843.⁶¹

In early July 1840, some Missourians, led by a local sheriff, Chauncey Durkee, retaliated by seizing four of the elders on the Illinois side of the river and forcibly taking them to Tully, a town in Missouri twenty-eight miles south of Nauvoo. There the elders were beaten, humiliated, and temporarily incarcerated. No legal extradition was sought from Illinois authorities.⁶² Durkee maintained, nonetheless, that he was acting in an official capacity since the Mormons were guilty of stealing.⁶³ Mormon leaders countercharged that the Elders had been kidnapped and appealed to Governor Carlin of Illinois to take steps to bring the perpetrators to justice.⁶⁴

In September Governor Lilburn Boggs of Missouri revived the old charges of treason against Joseph Smith and demanded of Governor Carlin that Smith be returned to Missouri for trial.⁶⁵ The editor of the Quincy Whig said that Boggs's demand came as a direct response to his being asked to turn the abductors of the elders in the Tully affair over to Carlin.⁶⁶ Whether or not this was so, Smith was determined not to be taken back to Missouri and sought ways to legally prevent this. He sent John C. Bennett, Quartermaster General of Illinois and a new convert,⁶⁷ to the state capitol to secure an act of incorporation for Nauvoo that would offer protection from legal and military assaults by Missourians.⁶⁸

Bennett and the Mormons were extraordinarily successful in receiving a charter with unique powers.⁶⁹ Joseph Smith took an expansive view of the power given him. "I concocted it for the salvation of the church," he said, "and on principles so broad, that every honest man might dwell secure under its protective influence."⁷⁰ Smith believed that the Nauvoo charter would provide a legal refuge for Mormons, with veto power to act independently of state and national laws in certain situations. When he took steps to implement his sweeping conception of Mormon rights, many Illinoisans were outraged.

From the time of the Mormon arrival in Illinois, Whigs and Democrats both tried to win the Mormon vote,⁷¹ and before many months [p.107] had passed the Saints, with their anti-plural tendencies, had committed themselves collectively to a single party and were once more embroiled in political conflict.

As soon as Sidney Rigdon and the other elders had first begun drifting into town, the editor of the Quincy Whig courted their favor, affirming that "the whole proceedings towards this people by the authorities of Missouri, must stand as a lasting stigma to the state."⁷² The editor reminded Mormons that the Missouri officials who had caused them grief were Democrats and drew the logical moral: "We…hope from the speciman that they have received of the liberality and justice of loco-focoism, when carried out, as it has been by the dominant party in Missouri—that they have come among us with more enlightened opinions in regard to those levelling and destroying doctrines so characteristic in Missouri." The Whig spokesman made a strong appeal for support by reminding the Saints that the Whig newspapers in Missouri had protested the violation of their rights.⁷³

Not to be outdone, Quincy Democrats held a meeting in which they offered material aid to the needy Saints.⁷⁴ The Quincy Whig denounced this as a "queer" sort of meeting, led by a "little knot of politicians," including the editor of the Quincy Argus, and fumed that as part of the arrangement the Saints were expected to support the Democratic party in the August election. The Whig editor said, "we do hope that they [the Mormons] will stand aloof…treat all overtures from either part as an intrusion upon their rights."⁷⁵ The Whig editor would recommend that the Saints remain neutral rather than side with the Democrats.

The bantering between these party partisans continued in this vein when the Argus charged that Governor Boggs was actually a Whig.⁷⁶ The editor of the Quincy Whig countered by asserting that it was the radical Democrats of Missouri who blocked any investigation by the state of the causes of the Mormon War.⁷⁷ Now the Quincy Argus made a grandiose move for Mormon sympathy by urging that Missouri be stricken from the union, but the Whig editor would not be outdone and denounced the Democratic newspaper for its blatant efforts to gather Mormon votes.⁷⁸ At this point belligerent Lyman Wight entered into the fray by declaring in the columns of the Whig that the Democratic party led by Lilburn W. Boggs was responsible for all the Mormons' troubles in Missouri.⁷⁹ A committee of five of the elders chastised Wight for "presenting his political views to the press in a manner derogatory to the church." Wight was told that he was "closing up what public feeling there was manifested in our [p.108] favor."⁸⁰ But Wight was adamant and wrote to the Quincy Whig to lament that the Saints would not support him.⁸¹ Joseph Smith tried to counter Wight's influence by writing to the Whig newspaper that politics was not an issue in Missouri: "it is not doing our cause justice to make a political question of it in any manner whatever.… We have not at any time thought that there was a political party as such, chargable with the Missouri barbaraties."⁸² Wight would still not heed council and wrote on 30 May that "the first Mob ever commenced upon us in the State of Missouri, was commenced by a gang of Ruffians with Moses G. Wilson at their head, and it is well known he is a Loco-Foco, and was supported in it by L. W. Boggs." Wight said it was the Democrat Boggs who issued the exterminating order.⁸³ No doubt Smith and the elders were right in trying to silence Wight, for up to this time both parties were inclined to be sympathetic. To make a party issue of what happened in Missouri would turn the Democrats against the Saints.

But Smith left for Washington, D.C., in 1840 where his experience in seeking redress for property losses in Missouri altered his thinking, and he returned embittered like Wight against the Democratic party. Smith told a congregation of Saints in Nauvoo in March 1840 that the Democrats would not have his support in the November elections. He observed afterward that his anti-Democratic convictions were shared by his people and that the "effect has been to turn the entire mass of people, even to an individual…on the other side of the political question."⁸⁴ A few days later Udney H. Jacob wrote to President Van Buren, the Democratic leader in Washington, that the Mormon prophet was determined to "throw his weight with all his followers against you."⁸⁵

In commenting on the Mormon swing to the Whig party, Smith said that it did not hurt the Saints, "we have lost nothing by our change, but have gained friends and influence." He insisted that he was compelled to change in "consequence of seeing a disposition manifest to turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering innocense."⁸⁶ According to Thomas Gregg, in March the prophet participated in a Whig political meeting at Carthage, demanding that Martin Hopkins be removed from the ticket and that John F. Charles be put in his place as a candidate for the state legislature. Charles was later influential in helping get the Nauvoo charter through the state assembly.⁸⁷

But Smith sensed that his direct involvement in politics created resentment and told the Saints at April conference that "he did [p.109] not wish to have any political influence." Despite this he also informed them that he "wished the Saints to use their political franchise to the best of their knowledge," thus making it clear that he did not actually want them to disregard his strong anti-Democratic feelings.⁸⁸ Prior to the county elections in August, the Saints held a political meeting of their own and agreed that they would "make their weight felt." It was affirmed in the caucus that "any man who would vote for Van Buren was a knave, a thief, a murderer and a robber."⁸⁹ When the August election returns came in for the county, it was evident that the Saints had reversed their party allegiances and voted strictly Whig.⁹⁰ The editor of the Democratic Illinois State Register commented on the vigorous part Smith had played in the election.⁹¹

In November Nauvoo gave William Henry Harrison and the Whigs a 410-vote majority.⁹² With the Whigs conducting an effective log-cabin-and-hard-cider campaign and benefitting from the reaction to the panic of 1839, Harrison defeated Van Buren in the presidential election, although he did not take Illinois.⁹³ Ebenezer Robinson said of Van Buren's defeat that he "received a rebuke which will long be remembered by him and his supporters." Robinson said, "nothing short of the power of the great Jehovah could have produced such a change in the minds of the people."⁹⁴

So long as Mormons remained in the Whig camp politically they were generally treated with consideration by the party press in the state.⁹⁵ Criticism of the church by the Illinois State Register was denounced by the Whig-controlled Sangamo Journal in Springfield as motivated by religious prejudice.⁹⁶ At times, in Iowa, where the Saints lacked a large block of voters, they were criticized by Whig newspapers.⁹⁷ But in Illinois the Saints lost what tolerance they had garnered from the Whigs when, following Van Buren's defeat, they began to gravitate once more toward the Democrats, a party with which they may have had a greater political affinity on a broad spectrum of issues.⁹⁸

Joseph Smith initially acknowledged a possible rapprochement with the Democrats when he noted in December that party leaders had been helpful in securing the charter for Nauvoo, which granted "every power we asked."⁹⁹ When in June 1841 Judge Stephen A. Douglas, champion of western Democrats, declared in the circuit court of Warren County that the writ issued by Governor Carlin for Smith's arrest was defective,100 even the Whigs began wondering if political winds were changing in Nauvoo.¹⁰¹ In December their fears [p.110] were confirmed. Smith told the Saints in the Times and Seasons that past loyalties had been to Harrison, not to the Whig party. Harrison, who passed away in April, is dead, Smith said, and "all his friends are not ours." Smith candidly confessed that "we care not a fig for the Whig or Democrat; they are both alike to us, but we shall go for our friends…and the cause of human liberty." He warned, "we are aware that 'divide and conquor' is the watchword with many, but with us it cannot be done." He made his intentions absolutely clear by saying, "Douglas is a master spirit," and "his friends are our friends—we are willing to cast our banners in the air, and fight by his side in the cause of humanity and equal rights." Smith said that Adam Snyder, the Democratic candidate for governor, and his running mate, Moore, were Douglas's friends "and they are ours. These men are free from prejudices and superstitions of the age, and such men we love, and such men will ever receive our support."¹⁰²

Such political opportunism by Smith was not likely to win enduring friends among either party and threatened to leave the Saints politically isolated. As might be expected, Whig spokesmen who had been willing to give Mormons the benefit of a doubt on controversial issues now became bitter enemies. The editor of the Quincy Whig said of the prophet's public commitment to Stephen Douglas and friends: "this clannish principle of voting in a mass, at the dictation of one man who has acquired an influence over the minds of the people through a peculiar religious creed…is so repugnant to the principles of our Republican form of government, that its consequences and future effects will be disagreeable."¹⁰³ By switching parties for the second time in Illinois, Smith guaranteed that a block of influential critics would persistently denounce him and his people as politically menacing.¹⁰⁴ Only at election time would Whigs soften their attack,¹⁰⁵ hoping that the Saints might again switch their allegiances.

Most Democrats were pleased to have Mormons in the fold again, but not everyone was reassured. The editor of the Quincy Herald said he was uncertain as to what Smith's actual motives were, but if Smith intended his proclamation in the Mormon newspaper to be a "royal edict" binding upon all the Saints, then despite possible advantage to his party, he would agree with the Quincy Whig "that it is presumption in the extreme."¹⁰⁶ In Iowa the editor of the Lee County Democrat called Smith a "pretty cute fellow" for influencing his people's political allegiances so cavalierly.¹⁰⁷ The prophet had [p.111] made some important Democrats distrustful and incurred the enduring wrath of the Whigs, a party beginning to lose some support in the state¹⁰⁸ and therefore all the more hostile.

While Mormons were moving toward political isolation in Illinois, they were also heading toward a quasi-independent status militarily. As part of the city charter the state legislature had granted the right to organize a self-governing military body termed the Nauvoo Legion, whose only tie to the rest of the state militia was that both owed ultimate allegiance to the governor.¹⁰⁹ Stephen Douglas informed Smith that in his opinion the elders owed service to no other segment of the state militia.¹¹⁰ The officers at Nauvoo, comprising a court martial, were empowered to enact any laws not repugnant to the constitutions of Illinois or the United States, with nothing explicitly stated as to their compliance to the laws made by the legislatures of the state or nation.¹¹¹

In February 1841, the legion was fully organized with its officers choosing Smith as Lieutenant-General,¹¹² a choice that seemed natural enough at the time but made the prophet the focus of intense fear and hatred among non-Mormons in Hancock County. Receiving his military commission in March, Smith assumed a role he had been careful to avoid in Missouri. The result was that where Missourians did not always focus their hate on Joseph Smith personally, Illinoisans did. A contributing factor was the unprecedented size of the Mormon military force. Within six months enrollment in the legion reached 1,450.¹¹³

In the Mormon mind the legion was to assist the Saints in fulfilling their prophetic destiny. Eliza R. Snow, a Mormon poetess and eventual plural wife of Joseph Smith, stressed the peculiar mission the legion would serve in the Mormon millennialist perspective. She referred to the legion as "a phoenix," which "Missouri's oppressor's laid low in the dust." Snow envisioned a "day of vexation" when these "warriors" would stand as a "bulwark of Freedom." And, should they falter, "there is still a reserve, a strong Cohort above; 'Lo! the chariots of Israel and horsemen thereof."¹¹⁴

As historian Robert Flanders has shown, the legion played a prominent role in social and ceremonial life in Nauvoo, taking part in the major holidays and religious functions of the city.¹¹⁵ Something of the pomp and enthusiasm with which the elders pursued their military exercises is described by an eyewitness in the Banner of Peace:

[p.112] Joe Smith in splendid regimentals, in the character of lieutenant general, as the head of a thousand troops. He was attended by six of his principle officers on horseback, constituting the front rank, as they moved. Directly in the rear were six ladies on horseback, with black caps and feathers, constituting the second rank and in the rear of these were two ranks of six each of bodyguards in white frocks with black belts. Joe carried a large tin speaking trumpet, and uttered his prophecies through that instead of giving his orders to his aids.¹¹⁶

Despite its showy, amateurish qualities, the legion seemed menacing to non-Mormons. In May, John Nevius, who lived at Bluff, Illinois, noted the fears of the community in a letter to a relative in Pennsylvania. The Saints, he said,

are looked upon with a jealous eye, and that for the reason they believe…they must and will take the world. And if they cannot do it by preaching they will by the force of arms. They therefore incorporate militerry tacticks with their religeion it is said they train every saturday and are well disciplined…it is said they take the liberty to tell the people that they now come with the Bible in their hands but ere long they will come with a sword also by their side.¹¹⁷

When Smith and John C. Bennett came to Iowa in September and were treated with military honors by the marshalled elders, David Kilbourne protested to the assembled men: "Citizens of Iowa: The laws of Iowa do not require you to muster under, or be reviewed by Joe Smith or General Bennett, and should they have the impudence to attempt it, it is hoped that every person having respect for himself, will at once leave the ranks." Smith noted with satisfaction that Kilbourne's protest had no effect.¹¹⁸ But a prophet who combined the rolls of land speculator, political boss, and commanding general of an independent militia invited the hostility of men like Kilbourne, who were economic rivals and who feared the concentration of power in their opponent's hands. Within a few months the press in Illinois and Iowa began to express apprehensions regarding Smith's activities. Thomas Sharp voiced a general feeling when he warned that so long as Smith remained "near the sanctuary and prophe[s]ies of religion he is guiltless of offense; but…when he uses the religious influence he possesses, under the military garb he has acquired, he becomes a dangerous man, and must look to the [p.113] consequences."¹¹⁹ By assuming multiple routes to power, the Mormon prophet had taken a course that most Americans would resent and fear: the consolidation of power into the hands of a single man. Mormons were certain that their leader was inspired and that his power would bring good ends, but the American people, sired in the traditions of Jefferson and Madison, believed that men are more or less corrupt and not to be trusted with too much power. This distrust in time would swing the majority in the state against the Mormons and their leader and bring him and his brother, Hyrum, to the jail at Carthage.

In the face of their near disaster in Missouri, the Saints closed ranks when they reached Nauvoo and moved toward complete intellectual isolation and morality based exclusively on in-group values.¹²⁰ The trend was apparent when dissenters were blamed for all the Missouri mishaps¹²¹ and the twelve apostles were told bluntly that no sin compared to "proving a traitor to the brethren."¹²² Orson Spencer wrote that "compliance with the divine will is the only true standard of character,"¹²³ and John D. Lee was instructed that "no man could commit sin so long as he acted in the way that he was directed by his church superiors."¹²⁴ Among Mormons loyalty to priesthood was emerging as the paramount virtue. This loyalty was to be demonstrated by strict obedience to the ordinances which priesthood officers administered¹²⁵ and by a willingness to heed their council and to make any sacrifice they requested to build the kingdom of God.¹²⁶

New powers granted to the priesthood were instruments of group cohesion. Smith announced in the summer of 1840 that the leading elders had been given authority to baptize vicariously for the dead, so that the Saints' ancestors might comply with gospel standards¹²⁷ and the elect be fused into a "whole and complete, and perfect union."¹²⁸ Later, in 1842, Smith declared that the keys had been restored whereby priesthood leaders could "seal" family members on earth and the ordinance would be confirmed in heaven.¹²⁹ Through the sealing power the elders would have the opportunity of "adoption," as well. Smith said in 1844 that "the doctrine of sealing of Elijah is as follows: The first thing you do, go and seal on earth your sons and daughters to yourself, and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, and go-ahead, and not go back, but use a little crafty-ness, and seal all you can and when you get to heaven, tell your Father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven, according to his promise."¹³⁰ It was thought that the larger one's family—through [p.114] bearing children, taking additional wives, or adoption—the greater one's kingdom and glory in the hereafter.¹³¹

J. W. Gunnison, who came to Utah in the 1850s and observed Mormon institutions closely, said that adoption also "consists in taking whole families and adopting them as part and parcel of the family chief."¹³² But Heber Kimball indicated that many Saints were hesitant to embrace the new doctrine. "When any seemed disposed to enlarge their kingdom and godhead the old women and young women run with their old kettles & pans & cow Bells to drown the sound of their leaders and throw the saints into confusion and keep them shut up in their old traditions."¹³³ In July 1845, Orson Hyde attempted to overcome this reluctance by urging some Saints in Iowa to "give him a pledge to come into his kingdom when the ordinances could be attended to, but wished all to select a man whom they chose."¹³⁴ William Smith said that Brigham Young had all the seventies sealed to him before they left Nauvoo.¹³⁵ Parley Pratt said in the Millennial Star that in the celestial kingdom there would be a "gradation" which will "descend in regular degrees from the throne of the Ancient of Days with his innumerable subjects, down to the least and last Saint…who may be worthy of a throne and septre, although his kingdom may, perhaps, consist of a wife and a single child."¹³⁶

The goal of the Saints was to become gods. Joseph Smith told his flock in 1844, "You have to learn to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to gods, the same as all gods before you, namely by going from one small degree to another."¹³⁷ The prophet admitted William Clayton and others into an inner prayer circle where washings and anointings were administered, ordinances later performed in the temple.¹³⁸ Some were even given second anointings whereby their "calling and election" was confirmed and they were pronounced kings, priests, and gods.¹³⁹ The highest orders of salvation were thus institutionalized and governed by priesthood authority, setting the Mormons apart from evangelical Protestants, who valued first one's personal relationship to God.

The most controversial means of adding to one's kingdom was plural marriage. By 1841 Smith had begun adding additional wives to his household and introducing the concept to some of his most trusted followers.¹⁴⁰ Orson Pratt later justified this innovation by saying that "a man's posterity, in the eternal worlds, are to constitute his glory, his kingdom and dominion." The more wives, the more posterity. Pratt told the Saints that the Lord "intends to make them [p.115] a kingdom of Kings and Priests, a Kingdom unto himself, or in other words, a Kingdom of Gods, if they will hearken unto his law" of "celestial marriage."¹⁴¹ Smith promised Sarah Ann Whitney, one of his plural wives, that if she remained within the "new and everlasting covenant" of marriage until the end, she and her father's house "shall be saved in the same eternal glory," and even if they should wander from the fold they could still repent and "be crowned with a ruiness of glory."¹⁴² Smith told William Clayton that "nothing but the unpardonable sin [of shedding innocent blood] could prevent him… from inheriting eternal glory for he is sealed up by the power of the priesthood unto eternal life having taken the step that is necessary for that purpose." Clayton had just entered into a plural marriage relationship.¹⁴³

Initially only a few of the Saints were introduced to the new order.¹⁴⁴ Many were strongly opposed, even though a small faction had been secretly encouraging the practice.¹⁴⁵ Mrs. Joseph Horne remembered that "the brethren and sisters were so averse to polygamy that it could hardly be mentioned."¹⁴⁶ When Benjamin Johnson heard that Smith wanted his sister he told the prophet "as the Lord lives" Johnson would kill him if his sister was degraded.¹⁴⁷ When Brigham Young learned of polygamy "it was the first time in my life that I desired the grave, and could hardly get over it for a long time."¹⁴⁸ Hyrum Smith told the elders in 1843 that"if an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctrine some would be sure to see his cloven foot & a cloud of blackness over his head."¹⁴⁹ John Taylor said that when Smith made plural marriage known to him, Orson Hyde, Heber Kimball, and others, they "were in no great hurry to enter into it."¹⁵⁰ Helen Mar Whitney, Kimball's daughter, added that when Smith commanded her father to take a second wife "if it had been his death sentence he could not have felt worse."¹⁵¹ Don Carlos Smith, the younger brother of Joseph Smith, also opposed polygamy, saying that any man "who will teach and practice the doctrine…will go to hell, I don't care if it is my brother Joseph."¹⁵²

For many women plural marriage was a severe trial. Phoebe Woodruff wrote, "I opposed it to the best of my ability until I became sick and wretched."¹⁵³ Mrs. Eliza Maria Partridge Lyman, sealed to Smith in 1843, said that it "was truly a trial for me."¹⁵⁴ Orson Hyde's third wife said, "I resisted it with every argument I could command, for with my tradition, it was most repulsive."¹⁵⁵ When Lucy Kimball was informed that Smith wanted her, she recalled, "I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable."¹⁵⁶ [p.116] Catherine Lewis heard one of Smith's wives say that she supposed plurality was necessary, but she would "rather that her kingdom were small."¹⁵⁷ Joseph Fielding, a devout elder, said that he was anxious to do "the will of the God and obtain all the glory I can" but admitted later that "it appears in general to have given great offence to the [first] wife, in some instances their Anger and Resentment have risen to a very high pitch saying it is an abomination." Fielding observed "this is a strong Charge against Joseph especially."¹⁵⁸

When the John C. Bennett scandal erupted in the summer of 1842, plural marriage was brought into the open for Mormons and non-Mormons alike, although it was still officially denied by church leaders. Bennett was mayor of Nauvoo, a general in the legion, and a self-advertised physician.¹⁵⁹ Oliver Olney recorded that Bennett had been "for months…in clover up to his ears in women that think they have ben abused by their husbands."¹⁶⁰ Smith became alarmed when he learned that his name was being used by Bennett to solicit sexual favors. He wrote to the women of the Nauvoo Female Relief Society in mid-April to beware of a "man who may be aspiring after power and authority, and yet without principle." The sisters were not to be imposed upon "by believing such men, because they say they have authority from Joseph, or the First Presidency." Smith said, "We do not want any one to believe anything as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals and virtues," even though "such principles be taught by lord-mayors, generals,…elders priests or the devil, [they] are alike culpable and shall be damned."¹⁶¹

In May a crisis arose when Smith learned that increasing numbers were being misled and indulging in sexual experimentation outside of plural marriage. According to Smith's history Bennett was confronted and forced to resign as mayor on 19 May, "because his whoredoms and abominations were fast coming to light."¹⁶² More reliable sources show that Smith was not yet ready for a showdown on this date and that he gave Bennett permission to leave the church without recrimination on the 17th. On the 19th the city council gave Bennett a vote of thanks "for having good & wholesome laws adopted." Bennett was told that he had performed the "faithful discharge of his duty."¹⁶³ Fearing retaliation, Smith hoped to avoid an open break with Bennett.

On the 23rd, however, Chauncey Higbee was cut off from the church for unchaste conduct and for teaching that it was right if kept secret.¹⁶⁴ Two days later Mrs. Catherine Warren was charged by the Nauvoo high council with having sexual relations with Bennett, and [p.117] she testified at her hearing that several Saints had taught her that plural relations were right and that the heads of the church sanctioned them.¹⁶⁵ At this point, with rumors flying, any hope of keeping the issue under wraps had become remote. In a last desperate effort to quiet Bennett, Smith met with him and about one hundred elders on the 26th to hear his confession and earnest pleadings not to be publicized. Smith asked the group to show Bennett mercy.¹⁶⁶ But recurring exposures of sexual misconduct and rising feelings against him in the Mormon community forced the ex-mayor to flee the city.¹⁶⁷

Within two weeks polygamy among the Mormons had become a national scandal, as Bennett published charges that Smith had been involved with Nancy Rigdon, Sidney Rigdon's daughter, and also with Sarah Pratt, the wife of Apostle Orson Pratt.¹⁶⁸ Smith published counter-charges against Bennett, who evidently had a wife in Ohio at the time of his amorous affairs in Nauvoo, as well as against Sarah Pratt and Nancy Rigdon.169 Embarrassed by all of this, even the loyal Joseph Fielding now concluded that the "Lord had pushed things forward rather prematurely."¹⁷⁰

The Mormon churches in Philadelphia were torn apart by plurality, with bitter conflict occurring between missionary Benjamin Winchester and others, including William Smith. Winchester, who would be scolded by the prophet, soon left the church over the issue.¹⁷¹

One of the major casualties over the plurality doctrine was Orson Pratt. The Alton Telegraph noted on 23 July that Pratt had fled Nauvoo, leaving behind a note which revealed that the apostle was devastated by reports that Smith had made advances toward his wife. Pratt wrote: "I am a ruined man. My future prospects are blasted. The testimony seems to be equal.… my sorrows are greater than I can bear." Pratt lamented that if Smith's testimony was correct, then his family life was ruined, but if Sarah's version was correct, then fourteen years of work in the church had been wasted.¹⁷²

Oliver Olney added a dimension to Pratt's torment not touched on in the note. Olney observed that it was openly discussed in Nauvoo how Bennett was at the Pratt home at night while Orson was away. But Sarah charged that Smith had "used the name of the Lord to seduce her several times. In company she declares it to be a fact." Olney said that some in Nauvoo still held that Sarah was a "respectable lady," but "others say not."¹⁷³ Brigham Young recorded in his history that he spent several days laboring with Pratt "whose mind [p.118] became so darkened by the influence and statements of his wife, that he came out in rebellion against Joseph, refusing to believe his testimony or obey his council. Joseph told him if he did believe his wife and followed her suggestions he would go to hell." Pratt refused at church meetings to acknowledge that Smith was "good, moral, virtuous and patriotic."¹⁷⁴

Pratt was suspended from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on 20 August, but several months later, in January, returned and "repented in dust and ashes." At the council of the twelve meeting where Pratt was restored to his apostleship, Brigham Young said that Orson's only fault was that "he loved his wife better than David." Smith told Pratt that Sarah "lied about me—I never made the offer she said I did." He suggested that Pratt might consider getting a new wife, "marry a virtuous woman—and sire a new family that if you do not do it she'll ever throw it in your teeth." Sarah was also rebaptized but remained bitter with regard to this matter for the rest of her life.¹⁷⁵

Smith's own wife, Emma, was another casualty of the new order. The story of her troubles over plural marriage is well known,¹⁷⁶ but it is worth noting again that at one point she came close to leaving Joseph,¹⁷⁷ fluctuating between grudging acceptance and bitter and at times hysterical opposition.¹⁷⁸ Determined to preserve his plural marriages, Smith at one point told Emma that he would give them up entirely only to confess to William Clayton that he had no such intention.¹⁷⁹

Emma's continued opposition forced Smith to justify plurality to her and to certain elders. He presented Emma with a revelation which affirmed that "all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows…connections, associations…that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in or after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." He warned that "those who have this law revealed to them must obey the same" or "be damned."¹⁸⁰ Whoever refused would be "ministering angels to minister to those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding weight of glory." The prophet promised, "If a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise… and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and ever-lasting covenant, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall [p.119] come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation." By assuring Emma that her salvation would be virtually certain and all but the unpardonable sin would be merely visited "with judgment in the flesh," Smith placed enormous pressure on his reluctant wife to accept plural marriage. But according to William Clayton, for the moment she "said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious."¹⁸¹

The Bennett affair raised new questions in the minds of some Illinoisans as to the moral situation at Nauvoo. The scandal had developed on the eve of the 1842 election, and the Sangamo Journal made the most of it by publishing Bennett's allegations.¹⁸² At Quincy in July the editor of the Whig first accepted Smith's charges that Bennett had seduced married women in Smith's name, but within a week he was beginning to suspect that where there was smoke there was also fire. When Bennett published his accusation in book-form, the editor said despite Bennett's dubious character he had presented substantial evidence.¹⁸³ The same month Abraham Lincoln wrote from Springfield that Bennett's "disclosures are making some stir here but not very great."¹⁸⁴ The editor of the Hawk-Eye and Iowa Patriot in September cited the New York Journal of Commerce's evaluation of Bennett's lectures on the topic, saying that Bennett "tells his stories with a leer and a laugh, occasionally, which showed the lecturer's mind was in a vulgar and debased condition and totally destitute of that stern disapprobation of crime that should characterize a reformer." The editor said, "We do not think the Gen. carried any very strong conviction to the minds of his audience, that what he said was conclusive evidence of the real state of things at Nauvoo."¹⁸⁵

The editor of the Missouri Republican commented in October that the book was "not chaste" and that "much of it the young should not read." He said that he did not accept it at face value, yet he could not discount all of it either.¹⁸⁶ At Peoria an editor wrote in January that the court house was packed to hear Bennett, and that "the general belief is that he [Bennett] told the truth."187

Despite this mixed reaction by the public, Mormon missionaries and church officials reported that the church was hurt. Robert D. Foster wrote to Smith from New York on 16 July 1842 that "many have been the interrogations prepounded to me respecting yourself family Church &c. &c." Foster reassured Smith that while Bennett had found many voteties, "they are mostly birdes of the same feather viz. [p.120] (blackbirds)." He said, "The effects upon the respectable community is equal to the effects of water upon the gooses back."¹⁸⁸ But John E. Page reported at Pittsburgh on 8 August that "the disclosures of Bennett has done much to injure the cause here the people are enxiously looking for the fully and effectual downfall of Mormonism." Page urged Smith to respond to put down Bennett's influence. On the 15th Page told Smith that the "elders abroad are the sufferers" and pleaded for evidence to counter accusations.¹⁸⁹ Smith published affidavits impugning Bennett's character which cast some doubt on his veracity in Illinois and elsewhere.¹⁹⁰ At Carthage, however, Thomas C. Sharp took Bennett's allegations at full value and began a periodic harangue against Smith in his Warsaw Signal.¹⁹¹

For a time, in response to the criticism in local and national press due to Bennett's allegations, Smith entertained the idea of finding refuge further west. Oliver Olney learned of this and wrote him a letter dated 20 July 1842 from Quincy. He inquired, "They say with your numerous wifes and maidens you are about to start west as far as the Rocky Mountains where you will raise up a Righteous Branch without being molested by the Laws of the Land." Olney later noted that the Saints "are fast a fixing to go West where they can live in peace without being molested By the laws of the land. They say soon to start If what I hear is correct as far West as Origen Territory and establish a stake of Zion." But Willard Richards indicated in a letter to James Arlington Bennett of New York, written in November, that the Saints desired to go no further west unless compelled, so that by the latter date they felt reasonably certain that they had weathered the storm stirred by Bennett.¹⁹²

Nonetheless, the conflicts within and without the church over plural marriage were not over, and the issue placed many within the inner circle in a terrible moral dilemma. Divine revelation informed them that to achieve the highest glory in the next life they had to accept and live the principle, yet they could not openly advocate it or even admit to it, except to a few within their own group. To the non-Mormon world they continued to publish strong denials.¹⁹³ Only by this means could the rising protest be abated and the kingdom preserved. Mormons were left in a morally ambivalent situation, with many believing the published denials, and others, better informed, aware that the denials were a subterfuge. For some this created a trauma they could not endure, and they left the church. One church member who deplored the apparent duplicity was Sarah [p.121] Scott. She wrote to her parents in Massachusetts in 1844 that the doctrines of plurality of gods and wives and of unconditional sealing to salvation had been taught secretly in the church for two years despite emphatic denials. She could only remark, "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in men." For some the full culmination came in the summer of 1843, when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on plural marriage to a select group of high councilmen. Many were fiercely opposed. Soon these men and others began to hold secret meetings and to preach that Smith was a fallen prophet.¹⁹⁴

In addition to these difficulties, the Saints had drifted into a precarious situation politically in 1842. With an election coming and Mormons having switched their allegiance to the Democrats, the Whigs and their gubernatorial candidate, Joseph Duncan, hammered at them, drawing attention to the unusual power concentrated in the hands of the prophet and to the scandal associated with John Bennett.¹⁹⁵ Duncan especially denounced Smith for his public commitment to Douglas and the Democrats:

Joe Smith, as LIEUTENANT GENERAL of the Nauvoo Legion, commanding his followers to vote for this or that candidate, is too bold a stride toward despotism ever to be long countenanced by a free and intelligent people…it ill becomes Joseph Smith professing obedience to our laws, and asking our protection, not only towards himself but his people…to issue [a proclamation] both in his spiritual and military capacity, commanding his followers to vote as he shall direct.¹⁹⁶

The editor of the Telegraph noted that the Saints had nominated a full ticket of county officers of their denomination and warned that "they intend either to rule or ruin."¹⁹⁷ Duncan now demanded that the Nauvoo charter be repealed and made this the main object of his campaign oratory.¹⁹⁸ The Democrats handled the Mormon question more gingerly, accusing the Whigs of stirring religious prejudice.¹⁹⁹ But in July, during the heat of the election struggle, Thomas Ford, newly named Democratic candidate replacing the deceased Adam Snyder, moved to undercut Duncan's advantage by also demanding that the charter for the Mormon city be repealed.²⁰⁰ This was a shrewd maneuver²⁰¹ and gave Ford enough of a margin that the Mormon vote was of no statewide significance when he won the election.²⁰² Ford was now free to act on his campaign pledge if he chose. Thus the Mormon tactic of voting en bloc to gain a statewide balance of power had been thwarted.²⁰³ The disgruntled editor of [p.122] the Alton Telegraph, whose party had lost the election, took the opportunity to hit at the Mormons again:

It will open the eyes of all parties to the dangerous and antirepublican tendency of a political, religious and military band of men, organized in our midst, and trained to obey the will and dictation of one man—to vote according to his resentments and prejudices—to sacrifice their own honest convictions of right and duty at the beck and nod of a petty dictator.²⁰⁴

In time others in addition to the Whigs would agree with the editor of the Telegraph. The gubernatorial election of 1842 foreshadowed things to come.

On 8 August, immediately after the election, Smith was arrested on a charge of being an accessory to the recent attempted murder of former Governor Boggs of Missouri.²⁰⁵ But the deputy sheriff was unable to apprehend Smith, as he was quickly presented with a writ from the municipal court of Nauvoo demanding that Smith be brought before its chambers for a ruling on the impending arrest.²⁰⁶ The next day the city council passed an ill-advised law which affirmed that it had full right to review the merits of every arrest within its jurisdiction and to release under a writ of habeas corpus any prisoner held on charges originating out of "private pique, malicious intent, or religious or other persecution."²⁰⁷ In November city fathers passed another ordinance threatening indefinite confinement without bail to any public official who refused to heed the court's writ.²⁰⁸

In the meantime Smith went into hiding, refusing to be taken again to Missouri where he feared for his life.²⁰⁹ But this attempt to thwart legal process was deeply resented in Illinois. Tom Sharp wrote indignantly in the Warsaw Signal, "What think you of this barefaced defiance of our laws by the city council of Nauvoo, and if persisted in what must be the final result?" Sharp predicted that soon every criminal in the area would seek asylum in the Mormon city.²¹⁰

The editor of the Sangamo Journal, in Springfield, raised a similar question when he published a letter by John Bennett alleging that Smith "designs to abolish all human law and establish a Theocracy in which the word of God…shall be the only law; and he now orders that his followers shall only obey such laws as they are compelled to do."²¹¹ Even Governor Carlin was concerned about the question of Mormon exemption from legal process. He wrote to Emma Smith a month later that he did not believe the state legislature [p.123] intended to grant Nauvoo a right to release prisoners held under writs issued by state courts. The actions of the Nauvoo city council, he fumed, are a "gross usurption of power that cannot be tolerated."212 In his inaugural address in December he asked the state legislature to repeal the Mormon city and agricultural charters, observing that the people are "aroused" and "anxiously desire that these charters should be modified so as to give the inhabitants of Nauvoo no greater privilege than those enjoyed by others of our fellow citizens."²¹³

The question of the repeal of the Nauvoo charters now became embroiled in an ongoing conflict with Quincy and other rural towns in western Illinois. A demand was made in the legislature that the charters of several such towns be abrogated,²¹⁴ thus shifting the focus for the moment away from the Mormons. Two charges leveled against Mormons were the menace of their legion and the misuse of habeas corpus.²¹⁵ In the legislature William Smith took the position that repeal was a threat to property rights.²¹⁶ The issue was decided when several Whigs voted against repeal, preferring to amend Mormon powers rather than abolish them.²¹⁷ The vote in the senate was 22 against repeal and 13 in favor.²¹⁸ It was a narrow escape for the Mormons, with five votes making the difference. But the matter of special exemption from legal process had occasioned the first general opposition to Mormons in the state and played into the hands of a small but outspoken group of anti-Mormons in Hancock County who were determined to curb Mormon power one way or another.

This group was led by Thomas Sharp, who had come to Hancock County in September 1840 from New York where he had been a Whig, active in the anti-Masonic movement. At twenty-three he was young and ambitious and had switched to the Democrats in Illinois in time to become a leader in the anti-Mormon movement in the county.²¹⁹ By mid-1841 Sharp had purchased the Western World, published at Warsaw, and begun directing his editorials against the Saints. On 9 June he explained his reasons, warning that there was every indication that the Mormons intended becoming a "political church." If this is not so, he asked,

why is it that General Bennett told us that they designed always to make their power felt at the ballot box? Why is it that when a highly respectable citizen remarked that the Mormons would soon have a majority in this county, D[on] C[arlos] Smith… replied that "the country would be safe in their hands?" Why is [p.124] it that a proclamation is made by the Prophet just at this time calling in all the "saints abroad" to settle in that county? Why is it that the Mormons have, in all former contests, uniformly voted as one man in favor of the candidate of Joseph Smith's choice?

Whatever is thought of their present strength, it is certain that if not checked in another year, they will have the decided majority in this county.…Now we ask the citizens of Hancock County, are you prepared for this? Are you prepared to see one man control your affairs? Are you prepared to see the important offices of sheriff and county commissioner selected by an unparalleled knave, and thus have power to select your jurymen, who are to sit and try our rights to life, liberty, and property?… Ask yourselves what means this array of military force which is paraded under the direction of this church. Is an army necessary to propagate religion? Is it necessary to protect their civil rights?²²⁰

Responding to this rhetoric, which gave voice to their own, innate fears, the old citizens met on 19 June at Warsaw to elect delegates to an anti-Mormon convention, and on 28 June they chose a slate of candidates for county office. They pledged at this time that they would "lay aside former party feelings and oppose, as independent freedmen, political and military Mormonism."²²¹ Their effort proved initially successful for Sharp announced in the Warsaw Signal on 25 August that its candidates had won the elections for county and school commissioners, although the vote was close.²²²

So long as Sharp remained editor of the Signal, he continued to attack various dimensions of the Mormon kingdom, warning of the Saints' intentions to occupy Warren,²²³ cautioning Smith that excessive political ambition could be dangerous,²²⁴ and detailing the vagaries of "spiritual wifery."²²⁵ He was especially angry at the alleged Mormon manipulation of the processes of the law.²²⁶ But despite these efforts to maintain a solid front against the Saints in preparation for the election of 1842, he was outmaneuvered by Smith, who appealed to the uncommitted in the county²²⁷ and with a "mongrel ticket" of Mormons and non-Mormons carried all the county offices.²²⁸ After this Sharp was unable to pay his publishing costs and was forced to sell the Signal to Thomas Gregg at the end of the year.²²⁹ Smith had won the first round, but preserving the loyalty of the uncommitted and those who joined with him out of political ambition was difficult, and in time risky. One of the politicos who went along with the prophet at this time was Mark Aldrich, who later came to doubt the political advantage of siding with the Mormons and [p.125] became a bitter anti-Mormon who would be indicted for Smith's murder.²³⁰

Meanwhile, Mormons moved to have tested in a federal court the validity of Governor Carlin's writ. Their efforts were rewarded when Pope, a Whig judge, declared the writ void since Smith had not fled Missouri to escape punishment for the abortive effort on Boggs's life.²³¹ Mormons were pleased at the results, but some of the citizens at Carthage, and elsewhere, viewed with alarm Smith's apparent immunity from legal prosecution. William Weston wrote to his brother at Rockville that although Smith had a reward of $400 on his head, "we cannot bring him or any of his crew to justice for any of these iniquit[ie]s without fighting."²³² The fear would continue to grow inside the county that Mormons were not subject to the same law as the rest of the population. Such unique privilege seemed particularly undemocratic to many, and one editor warned the prophet this early that a day of reckoning would come.²³³

Furthermore, with both political parties still unusually anxious as to whither Mormon political support was tending, the Pope decision naturally caused a stir. The Quincy Herald, a Democratic journal, promptly labeled the affair a Whig effort to gather Mormon votes, while the Warsaw Message, a Whig supporter, saw the decision as judicious.²³⁴ Governor Ford may have feared these developments, urging Smith personally to "refrain from all political electioneering." Smith replied, diplomatically, that he had "always acted upon that principle."²³⁵ The Mormon leader may indeed have intended to retire from the political arena, for he informed the church in January that "it would be well for politicians to regulate their own affairs. I wish to be let alone, that I may attend strictly to the spiritual welfare of the church."²³⁶ However, the prophet's sense of destiny was still as much concerned with the acquisition of political power as, in fact, with the fulfillment of prophecy, and he would not refrain from using this means to advance the kingdom. Seeking to gain social control over the divisive and secular elements in American society, he believed that this could only be achieved through political power. He plainly affirmed his intentions a month after his pledge to Ford, telling the Saints, "Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it, as well as for a man who has no influence to use his. From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get. In relation to politics I will speak as a man; but in relation to religion I will speak in authority."²³⁷ Yet the kingdom was organized to blur all distinctions between secular and religious, politics and the parish, and the [p.126] Saints assumed that what the prophet said was God's will, whatever the subject matter. By announcing that he would build the kingdom through political power, Smith stirred an automatic reaction by non-Mormons who believed in pluralism. Non-Mormons would work with as much conviction as the Saints, but to thwart the prophet's quest. These Gentiles had a much larger constituency upon which they could ultimately depend for support. [p.127]

Table of Contents: