Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
WINTER 2008 •
UTAH
H I S T O R I C A L Q U A RT E R LY
U TA H H I S T O R I C A L Q U A RT E R LY
WINTER 2008 • VOLUME 76 • NUMBER 1
VOLUME 76
•
NUMBER 1
806457 WINTER 08 Inside Cover 12/5/07 12:57 PM Page 1
Periodicals postage is paid at Salt Lake City, Utah. This publication has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the National Park
Service, under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.
POSTMASTER: Send address change to Utah Historical Quarterly, 300 Rio Grande, Salt This program receives financial assistance for identification and preservation of historic properties under
Lake City, Utah 84101. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The U. S.
Department of the Interior prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in
any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to:
Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW,Washington, D.C., 20240.
U TA H H I S T O R I C A L Q U A R T E R LY
WINTER 2008 • VOLUME 76 • NUMBER 1
2 IN THIS ISSUE
4 A Lion in the Path: Genesis of the Utah War, 1857-1858
By David L. Bigler
22 And The War Came: James Buchanan, the Utah
Expedition, and the Decision to Intervene
By William P. MacKinnon
38 The Utah War: A Photographic Essay of Some of Its
Important Historic Sites
By John Eldredge
66 Sam Houston and the Utah War
By Michael Scott Van Wagenen
79 The Spencer-Pike Affair
By Richard W. Sadler
94 BOOK REVIEWS
Reid L. Neilson and Ronald W.Walker, eds. Reflections of a Mormon
Historian: Leonard J.Arrington on the New Mormon History
Reviewed by Charles S. Peterson
O
ne hundred and fifty years ago a federal army of nearly two
thousand soldiers under the command of Col. Albert Sidney
Johnston huddled in their makeshift quarters at Camp Scott near
the ruins of Fort Bridger in southwestern Wyoming to wait out
the bitter winter and prepare to march into the Salt Lake Valley later in the
spring of 1858. Meanwhile, Mormon spies kept watch on the soldiers from
the heights of Bridger Butte a few miles west of Camp Scott while the
territorial militia continued preparation of defense fortifications in Echo
Canyon and elsewhere along the trail in anticipation of battle with the
federal troops when they moved into the Mormon stronghold.
The year 1857 had been an eventful and difficult year for Utah and the
nation. The fight over whether Kansas would be a “free” or “slave” state
generated national attention to “Bleeding Kansas,”—a prologue to what
became a full-scale Civil War in 1861. At the same time the United States
Supreme Court increased tensions in the landmark decision in the Dred
Scott case, when it decreed that all African Americans were not citizens and
that the sanctity of property rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution included the human property of slaveholders. As Kenneth M.
Stampp wrote in his classic study of the United States on the eve of civil
war, America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink, “1857 was probably the year
when the North and South reached the political point of no return—when
it became well nigh impossible to head off a violent resolution of the differ-
ences between them.”
Tensions were no less severe in Utah as newly elected president James
Buchanan acted in the spring of 1857 to replace Brigham Young as territor-
ial governor with Alfred E. Cumming. Unconvinced that Mormons would
accept the new governor, Buchanan directed the United States Army to
provide a substantial and suitable escort for the newly appointed governor
and in so doing precipitated what has long been known as the Utah War. As
the Utah-bound expedition made its way along the well-traveled Oregon-
California Trail toward Utah, approximately one hundred and twenty
California-bound emigrants were killed by Mormons at Mountain
Meadows in southwestern Utah on September 11.
This special issue of the Utah Historical Quarterly examines the back-
ground, issues, individuals, and consequences surrounding the Utah War.
Not only did the North and the South stand on the brink of civil war in
1857, but so did the East and West as the Mountain Meadows Massacre,
political upheavals, and the Utah War exacerbated tensions and hostilities in
Utah, California, and surrounding territories that were no less volatile than
those of slavery and states’ rights in Kansas and the South.
ON THE COVER: James Buchanan during his term as President of the United States—1857 to
1861. NATIONAL ARCHIVES
2
Our first two articles offer differing, yet complementary views on the
causes of the Utah War. They address such questions as how the decision
was reached to send a federal army to Utah, and what roles United States
President James Buchanan and Mormon leader and Utah Territorial
Governor Brigham Young played in launching the impending conflict.
In an effort to give a visual understanding of important sites and events
associated with the Utah War, our third article illustrates the landmarks
along the more than eleven hundred mile journey undertaken by the federal
army from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas to Camp Floyd, forty miles southwest
of Salt Lake City. Less than a decade later, Civil War photographers like
Mathew Brady, would use the medium of photography to convey the death
and horror of war to a shocked America.
Our fourth article, with its focus on Sam Houston, reminds us that states-
men of all generations have the right and duty to speak out on controversial
matters and, as Sam Houston did with the Utah War, make their opinions
and recommendations a part of the public discussion.
Although the Utah War saw no actual battles and few deaths, our final
article, in recounting the thirty-year Spencer-Pike affair, instructs us that the
threat of violence was real and that hostilities and animosity took decades to
ease and disappear.
There is no doubt that the Utah War was a significant event in Utah and
American history.1 In 1858 Abraham Lincoln said in reference to the United
States and slavery, “a house divided against its self cannot stand.” Just as the
nation had to deal with the issue of slavery to insure its continuation, so did
the Territory of Utah have to come to an understanding and acceptance of
its relationship with the rest of the nation. That process was accelerated, if
not begun, with the Utah War.
1
The Utah War is a popular topic in the Utah Historical Quarterly. Nineteen articles and journals have
been published beginning in 1941 with Richard Thomas Ackley’s “Across the Plains” in the July-October
issue of Volume 9, and the 1858-1860 Journal of Albert Tracy as the entire volume 13 in 1945. The other
articles include: “Mormon Finance and the Utah War,” by Leonard J. Arrington, July 1952; “A Territorial
Militiaman in the Utah War: Journal of Newton Tuttle,” edited by Hamilton Gardner, October 1954;
“Journals of the Legislative Assembly, Territory of Utah Seventh Annual Session, 1857-1858,” by Everett L.
Cooley, April, July, and October 1956; “Charles A. Scott's Diary of the Utah Expedition, 1857-1861,” edit-
ed by Robert E. Stowers and John M. Ellis, October 1960; “The Buchanan Spoils System and the Utah
Expedition: Careers of W M F Magraw and John M. Hockaday,” by William P. MacKinnon, Spring 1963;
“Camp in the Sagebrush: Camp Floyd, Utah, 1858-1861,” by Thomas G. Alexander and Leonard J.
Arrington,Winter 1966; “The Crisis at Fort Limhi, 1858,” by David L. Bigler, Spring 1967; “Fort Rawlins,
Utah: A Question of Mission and Means,” by Stanford J. Layton, Winter 1974; “The Gap in the Buchanan
Revival: The Utah Expedition of, 1857-58,” by William P. MacKinnon, Winter 1977; “A Crisis Averted?
General Harney and the Change in Command of The Utah Expedition,” by Wilford Hill Lecheminant,
Winter 1983; “125 Years of Conspiracy Theories: Origins of The Utah Expedition, 1857-58,” by William P.
MacKinnon, Summer 1984; “Thomas L. Kane And The Utah War,” by Richard D. Poll, Spring 1993; “The
Nauvoo Legion and the Prevention of the Utah War,” by Brandon J. Metcalf, Fall 2004; “‘Unquestionably
Authentic and Correct in Every Detail’: Probing John I. Ginn and His Remarkable Utah War Story,” by
William P. MacKinnon, Fall 2004; “‘I Have Given Myself to the Devil’:Thomas L. Kane and the Culture of
Honor,” by Matthew Grow, Fall 2005.
3
“A Lion in
the Path”:
Genesis of
the Utah
War, 1857-
1858
I
n December 1857, two American armies confronted each other in
the snow on the high plains of today’s southwestern Wyoming. At
Fort Bridger, some 1,800 officers and men, including volunteers, of
the U.S. Army’s Utah Expedition, roughly one fifth of the republic’s
regular soldiers available for frontier duty, waited for spring to clear the way
to advance on Salt Lake Valley. Between them and the Mormon stronghold
stood the hosts of latter-day Israel, also known as the Utah Militia, or
Nauvoo Legion, as many as four thousand strong, ready to stop them in the
winding Echo Canyon corridor through the Wasatch Mountains.
In Washington that month, the Secretary of War John B. Floyd said the
government could no longer avoid a collision with the Mormon commu-
nity. “Their settlements lie in the grand path-
way which leads from our Atlantic States to Brigham Young—Utah’s first
the new and flourishing communities grow- territorial governor serving from
ing up upon our Pacific seaboard,” Floyd 1850-1857
David L. Bigler is an independent historian in Roseville, California. He is an honorary life member of the
Utah State Historical Society, a charter member of Utah Westerners, and author of books and articles on
Mormon history in the west, including Forgotten Kingdom:The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-
1890, and Fort Limhi:The Mormon Adventure in Oregon Territory, 1855-1858.This paper was presented as the
Utah History Address at the Annual Meeting of the Utah State Historical Society, September 14, 2006, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
4
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
said.They stand as “a lion in the path,” he added, defying civil and military
authority and encouraging the Indians to attack emigrant families.1
The lion in the nation’s path was Brigham Young, Utah’s first governor.
And the grand pathway he stood in the way of was the overland line of
travel and communications between the nation’s eastern and western sec-
tions. Although replaced as territorial governor, he had declared martial law
three months before to stop all travel without a permit across an expanse of
western America that reached from the Rocky Mountains of today’s central
Colorado to the Sierra Nevada, west of Reno. It was an act of defiance, if
not war, that would affect Utah’s history for years to come.
The immediate impact of Young’s actions fell on California. There a
newly elected fifth governor voiced alarm that winter over the effect of the
trails closure and “Mormons and Indians” on immigration. Governor John
Weller said his people were “entitled to protection whilst traveling through
American territory.”To secure it, “The whole power of the federal govern-
ment should be invoked,” he said.2 As he spoke, volunteer militia companies
were forming in gold mining towns along the Sierra Nevada, ready to
march on Utah from the west.3
Noted historian David McCullough has said that nothing ever had to
happen the way it happened. History could have gone off in any number of
different ways at any point along the way.4 But how could it come to this?
To make the picture even more bizarre, both sides justified their actions by
the U.S. Constitution.
President James Buchanan in May 1857 acted under his executive
authority and power as commander in chief of America’s armed forces. He
ordered the U.S. Army to escort a new governor to Utah and serve as a
posse comitatus in enabling appointed officials to enforce federal law in a
territory he believed to be in a state of open rebellion. But his action
touched off an armed revolt.
“God almighty being my helper, they cannot come here,” Brigham
Young roared and declared martial law.5 The United States was breaking the
Constitution, he said, and “we would now have to go forth & defend it &
also the kingdom of God.”6 He believed God had inspired framers of the
Constitution to create a land of religious freedom where His kingdom
would be set up in the Last Days as foretold by the Old Testament prophet
Daniel. Young and his people had established God’s Kingdom. The U.S.
Constitution was its founding document.They were its true defenders, not
corrupt Washington politicians.
Meanwhile, a Nauvoo Legion lookout on Bridger Butte, eyeing the
1
“Report of the Secretary of War,” December 5, 1857, S. Exec. Doc. 11 (35-1), 1858, Serial 920, 7, 8.
2
Governor John B.Weller, Inaugural Address, January 8, 1858, California State Library, Sacramento.
3
“More Volunteers for the Mormon War,” San Francisco Evening Bulletin, January 5, 1858, 5:74, 2/1.
4
David McCullough,“Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are,” Imprimis, 34 (April 2005), 4.
5
Brigham Young Remarks, September 13, 1857, in Deseret News, September 23, 1857, 228/1.
6
Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 10 vols. (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1983), 5:78.
5
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
federal camp on Blacks Fork, may have thought that he had seen all this
before. He was now engaged in the nation’s first civil war, but it was also
the third Mormon war within twenty years. And the causes of all three—
the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, the 1845-46 Mormon War in Illinois,
and now the one in Utah — had a familiar look.
What could they have in common? The following quotes point to the
answer:
They instituted among themselves a government of their own,
independent of and in opposition to the government of this state.7
The Mormons openly denounced the government of the United States
as utterly corrupt, and as about to pass away and to be replaced by the
government of God.8
Their hostility to the lawful government of the country has at length
become so violent that no officer bearing a commission from the Chief
Magistrate of the Union can enter the Territory or remain there with
safety.9
Who spoke those words? All were elected heads of state; each sent troops
to put down a perceived Mormon rebellion; and they used the word
“government” five times in three sentences to identify the problem. In
order of mention, they were Lilburn W. Boggs, governor of Missouri;
Illinois Governor Thomas Ford; and James Buchanan, our fifteenth
American president.What government did they refer to?
When the heavens opened in the early nineteenth century and God
spoke again to humankind as He did in the days of Moses, He reinstituted
a system of rule, known as a theocracy, defined as divine rule through
inspired spokesmen. Theocratic rule bestows many blessings. No longer
need one bear the anguish of uncertainty and an endless quest to discover
who he is, why she came to be at this point in time, and how one can be
sure of self-awareness hereafter.
With such blessed assurance, however, comes an unwelcome corollary.
For prior to the millennium, a theocracy, ruled from heaven above, cannot
co-exist with a republic, governed by its people from earth below, without
civil warfare. History has shown that the two governing systems are incom-
patible and cannot live together in peace. Instead there will be a struggle
for supremacy until one compels the other either to bend or be gone.
Brigham Young knew of this incompatibility from experience by 1846
7
“Extracts from Gov. Boggs’ Message of 1840,” in Document Containing The Correspondence,
Orders, &C. In Relation To The Disturbances With the Mormons; And The Evidence Given Before The
Hon. Austin A. King (Fayette, Mis: Office of the Boon’s Lick Democrat, 1841; published by order of the
Missouri General Assembly), 9-10.
8
Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois from its Commencement as a State in 1818 to 1847, ed. Milo Milton
Quaife, 2 vols., (Chicago: S.C. Griggs and Co., 1854; repr. R. R. Donnelley & Sons, Lakeside Classics
Edition, Lakeside Press, 1945-1946), 2:158-59.
9
James Buchanan,“A Proclamation,” House Exec. Doc. 2 (35-2), vol. 1, Serial 997, 69-72.
6
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
when he led his people west from Nauvoo toward the place that his prede-
cessor had chosen before he was murdered in 1844.The Great Basin was a
vast region of interior drainage, outside the United States and hundreds of
miles from the nearest outpost of rule by its professed owner, the Republic
of Mexico. In this empty and isolated area,Young would do again what had
been done before in Missouri and Illinois.
In Missouri, land possession was volatile even before 1831, when the
Almighty named Jackson County as Zion, and Independence, its frontier
seat, a booming jumping off place on the Santa Fe Trail, the site of New
Jerusalem. The plan of Zion’s city was a picture of millennial order
(theocratic government) and communal economic purpose. It resembled a
beehive with a central square mile, or hive, of identical lots, where the
working bees of Zion lived, and plots on the outskirts for them to go out
to and harvest. Everywhere else, people lived on the land they farmed and
were widely scattered outside smaller towns.
On paper, the planned urban center seems harmless, but a closer look
reveals its confrontational nature. The City of Zion was exclusive, even
hostile toward outsiders for whom it held no room.The collective agricul-
tural concept was intimidating to next-door farm families, whose land
spelled their survival.The command to “fill up the world” with cities of the
same design bears the compulsion of divine rule to prevail over, rather than
coexist with, its neighbors.
All of which mattered little in the summer of 1847 when Brigham
Young laid out at the lowest eastern point of the Great Basin almost a true
copy of Zion’s City, today’s Salt Lake City, which became a model for
future Mormon towns. Land belonging to the Lord would not be bought
or sold, he said, but assigned as inheritances. Having begun the task to
establish God’s Kingdom as an earthly dominion,Young headed back over
the trail to wave on a parade of wagons and prepare to return the next year.
And while he was gone, the earth moved. Events took place so momen-
tous they would change forever Young’s vision of God’s western Kingdom,
as well as the destiny of the nation itself, in ways still beyond our powers to
discern. Six months after Young’s 1847 company arrived in the Salt Lake
Valley, two Mormon Battalion veterans recorded the discovery of gold in
California. A human tsunami was about to transform an isolated land into
the Crossroads of the West. And ten days later, an even more pivotal event
occurred. On February 2, 1848, the United States acquired all or most of
five present southwestern states, including Utah, plus parts of two others,
under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the War with Mexico.
One cannot overstate the impact of these happenings on Utah history.
No longer were Zion’s working bees, with a lot in the city and a plot on
the outskirts, trespassers on land claimed by Mexico. Instead, at a stroke,
they became squatters on the public domain of the United States. To the
features that made Zion’s City unwelcome in Missouri was added an even
more controversial one: the exclusive communitarian design on divinely
7
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
held property conflicted with both the land laws and policies of a republic
that transferred two-thirds of its public domain into private ownership dur-
ing the nineteenth century. All it took for an outsider to acquire the right
to buy 160 acres of the Lord’s domain was clearance of the Indian claim
and an authorized survey. For federal surveyors, life in early Utah would be
an adventure.
Not yet ready to adopt a sovereign position, Mormon leaders now faced
the need to reach an interim accommodation with the nation they had just
left.Why at first they decided to seek a territorial form of government, the
least favorable for establishing a sovereign realm, is unclear. On May 3,
1849, John Bernhisel headed to Washington with a memorial twenty-two
feet long asking Congress to create a territory named Deseret. If the region
staked out by fewer than ten thousand settlers appeared extravagant—
roughly twice the size of Texas—it reflected the expectation of future
growth.
At the same time, Mormon leaders created a “free and independent”
state of the same name to stand until territorial status was granted. This
soon evolved into a memorial for statehood. Two months after Bernhisel
left to request a territory, Almon W. Babbitt took off to seek full entry into
the Union. Deseret now had conflicting petitions. It would take months to
get orders from the Great Salt Lake Valley, so Apostle Wilford Woodruff and
John Bernhisel in November 1849 went to Philadelphia to seek counsel
from the faith’s faithful advocate,Thomas L. Kane.
Kane told them he had applied to President James Polk for a territorial
government at Brigham Young’s request, but that Polk had refused to
accept the condition that he would “appoint men from among yourselves,”
probably referring to Young as governor. At this, “I had to use my own dis-
cretion and I withdrew the Petition,” he said. “You must have officers of
yourselves, & not military Politicians who are strutting around in your
midst usurping Authority over you,” Kane told Apostle Woodruff. “You are
better without any Government from the hands of Congress than a
Territorial Government.”10
Kane next revealed his own prophetic powers. Under a territory,“corrupt
political men from Washington would control the land and Indian agencies,”
he said, “and conflict with your own calculations.”11 True to his prediction,
President James Buchanan in 1858 handed Congress over sixty letters and
reports over a six-year period to justify sending a military expedition to
Utah. All but four were written by officials from the two agencies Kane had
put his finger on—the U.S. Land Office and the Office of Indian Affairs.
In the end, it mattered little. Obsessed with slavery, Congress created a
territory, took away its seaport, and gave it an unwanted name, Utah.
President Millard Fillmore signed the bill on September 9, 1850, and it
10
Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 3:515-16.
11
Ibid.
8
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
could be said the Utah War started on that date. One emigrant said he
heard Brigham Young say, “If they send a governor here, he will be glad to
black my boots for me.”12 Thanks to Kane’s influence, President Fillmore
inadvertently handed the job of blacking Young’s boots to one of his wives.
He named Young himself Utah’s first governor.
Other presidential appointments over the next six years were a mixed
lot, but not noticeably different from those of other territories. Perhaps the
best was Franklin Pierce’s choice as Utah’s surveyor general. Fifty-two-
year-old David H. Burr was nothing like the controversial figure he would
become. One of the nation’s leading mapmakers, he had served as cartogra-
pher for the U.S. Post Office and official geologist of Congress. Over a long
career, he had surveyed and mapped most of the states and many cities and
counties and published the first map of North America incorporating the
discoveries of Jedediah Smith.
But as Kane predicted, Burr got no respect in Utah. Nor had he seen
anything like it when he came in 1855. Patterned after Zion’s City,
Mormon settlements were twice the size federal law allowed for preemp-
tion entry on occupied town sites, a half-section, 320 acres. Great Salt Lake
City topped that limit by six times.13 The year before Burr arrived, settlers
began to consecrate their holdings to the church through trustee-in-trust
Brigham Young.14 And Utah legislators ignored Indian rights and granted
by law canyons, water and timber resources, and herd grounds to Mormon
leaders as if to convey ownership. But these oddities hardly compared to
the hostility Burr’s crews met in the field. According to his deputy, local
settlers told native chiefs that “we were measuring out the land” to claim it
and “drive the Mormons away and kill the Indians.”15 Burr was seen as “an
enemy, and an intruder upon their rights.”16 In the past, his work had
opened the way for settlers elsewhere to own their land. He could not
understand why they removed the mounds and posts that marked section
and township corners and hoped they would realize “how important it is
to them to perpetuate these corners.”17 When the day came, they would
blame him for not setting them properly.
Thomas Kane’s prophetic powers in relation to land ownership also
proved true when it came to the U.S. Office of Indian Affairs. In the house
divided that was Utah, the federal agency’s aim was to keep peace on the
12
David L. Bigler, ed., A Winter with the Mormons:The 1852 Letters of Jotham Goodell (Salt Lake City:The
Tanner Trust Fund, J.Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, 2001), 50.
13
See “An Act for the relief of the citizens of towns upon the lands of the United States, under certain
circumstances,”The Public Statutes at Large of the United States,Vol 5, 453-58.
14
Report of the Commissioner, General Land Office, House Exec. Doc. 1 (34-3), 1856, Serial 893,
210-11.
15
C.L. Craig to David H. Burr, August 1, 1856, “The Utah Expedition,” House Exec. Doc. 71 (35-1),
1858, Serial 956, 115-16.
16
Ibid., David H. Burr to Thomas A. Hendricks, June 11, 1857, 120.
17
Annual Report of Surveyor General of Utah, September 30, 1856, House Exec. Doc. 1 (34-3), 1856,
Serial 893, 543.
9
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
frontier. The mission of God’s Kingdom, on the other hand, was to teach
the Indians, or Lamanites, the gospel of their forefathers and become part-
ners with them in building New Jerusalem on the American continent.
Appointment of Brigham Young as ex-officio superintendent of Indian
Affairs placed the Mormon leader in charge of conflicting objectives.
It is not surprising that Young, to the alarm of U.S. Indian agents, favored
one at the cost of the other. Nor would it have mattered, except when
Zion was redeemed, said the prophet Micah in words repeated in The
Book of Mormon, the “remnant of Jacob,” or Lamanites, would be among
unrepentant Gentiles “as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he
go through, both treadeth down and teareth in pieces.”18 People on the
frontier could figure out that the “remnant of Jacob” referred to the
Indians, while the flocks of sheep this young lion would go through, tear-
ing people to bits, if they did not repent, probably meant them. So it was
that Mormon overtures to the tribes on the Missouri frontier had been a
source of rumor, misunderstanding and conflict.
The same fear can be seen in Secretary of War Floyd’s 1857 report, as
well as in California Governor Weller’s inaugural address soon after.The call
of hundreds of Indian missionaries to tribes west of the Mississippi River,
starting in 1855, set off alarm bells in Washington, D. C., and across the
West. And true to Kane’s prediction, most of the documents Buchanan
handed Congress to justify his ordering a U.S. Army expedition to Utah
came from the Office of Indian Affairs.
Aware of such fears, Brigham Young at times seemed to encourage them.
“O what a pity they could not foresee the evil they were bringing on them-
selves, by driving this people into the midst of the savages of the plains,” he
said in August 1857.19 Even then, he was sending word to the tribes that
“they must be our friends and stick to us, for if our enemies kill us off, they
will surely be cut off by the same parties,” referring to the U.S.Army.20
Whether a creature of federal imagination or real, the lion the War
Department saw in the nation’s path in 1857 was an alliance of Mormons
and Indians, Ephraim and Manasseh in the Mormon theological parlance.
Lending credence to such fears had been attacks on small emigrant parties
the summer before on the California Trail along the Humboldt River on
the line of today’s I-80 and a horrific atrocity at Mountain Meadows in
southern Utah.
Thomas Kane did not spell out a third source of friction between the
Great Basin theocracy and the American republic, but clearly referred to it
when he said, “You do not want two governments with you.”21 In a theo-
cratic system, God’s will renders obsolete the imperfect human covenants
20
Daniel H.Wells to William H. Dame, August, 13, 1857,William R. Palmer Collection, File 8, Box 87,
Special Collections, Sherratt Library, Southern Utah University, Cedar City.
21
Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 3:515.
10
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
22
Thomas Ford, A History of Illinois, 2: 66.
23
For similarities between Utah’s early probate courts and the county courts that evolved in New
Mexico, see Howard R. Lamar, “Political Patterns in New Mexico and Utah Territories, 1850-1890,” Utah
Historical Quarterly 28 (October 1960): 363-87.
24
See Nelson Slater, Fruits of Mormonism or A Fair and Candid Statement of Facts Illustrative of Mormon
Principles, Mormon Policy and Mormon Character, by More than Forty Eye-Witnesses (Coloma, CA: Harmon &
Springs, 1851).
25
See Daniel 2:44.
26
Brigham Young,“Governor’s Message,” December 11, 1855, in Deseret News, December 19, 1855.
27
Sylvester M. Bartlett, Quincy Whig, January 22, 1842, repr. in John E. Hallwas and Roger D. Launius,
eds., Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois (Logan: Utah State University
Press, 1995), 83-84.
11
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
28
John Bernhisel to Brigham Young, July 17, 1856, CR1234/1, Box 60, Folder 20 (Reel 71), Church
History Library, Family and Church History Department,The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Hereafter the LDS Church History Library.
29
Brigham Young to George A. Smith, John Bernhisel and John Taylor, August 30, 1856, CR1234/1,
Letterbook 3, 18-24, LDS Church History Library.The author is indebted to Ardis Parshall for this item.
30
Brigham Young Remarks,August 31, 1856, in Deseret News, September 17, 1856, 219/-4, 220/1-3.
12
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
31
Jacob G. Bigler to John Pyper, David Webb, and counselors, December 23, 1856, Record of the
Nephi Mass Quorum of Seventies, 1857-1858, MSS SC 3244, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young
University.
32
Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 4:451.
33
1Kings 18:17.
13
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
14
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
39
John F. Kinney to Jeremiah Black, undated, U.S. Attorney General, Records relating to the appoint-
ment of Federal judges, attorneys, and marshals for the Territory and State of Utah, 1853-1901, PAM
14082 and MIC A 527-540, Utah State Historical Society. Kinney complained, but learned his lesson.
Again appointed chief justice in 1860, he did Young’s bidding and found himself elected, almost unani-
mously, as Utah delegate to Congress.
40
David H. Burr to Thomas A. Hendricks, February 5, 1857, “The Utah Expedition,” House Exec.
Doc. 71, 118-20.
41
For the story of the Parrish-Potter murders, see Polly Aird, “’You Nasty Apostates, Clear Out’:
Reasons for Disaffection in the Late 1850s,” Journal of Mormon History 30 (Fall 2004): 129-207.
15
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Now thoroughly frightened, David Burr told the General Land Office
“the United States Courts have been broken up and driven from the
Territory.” The fact was, he said, “these people repudiate the authority of the
United States in this country and are in open rebellion against the general govern-
ment.”42 The fear and desperation in these italicized words moved an
American president to take immediate action.
Burr’s cry of alarm reached Washington soon after the inflammatory res-
ignation of Judge William W. Drummond, who wrote it almost a year after he
and his mistress had taken off. Among other things, he charged that supreme
court records had been destroyed “by order of the Church,” that Indians had
murdered Captain John W. Gunnison in 1853 under Mormon orders and
direction, and his predecessor, Judge Leonidas Shaver, “came to his death by
drinking poisoned liquors.”43 The absconded judge offered no evidence or
witnesses to support these accusations and his estimate of Utah’s population
as a hundred thousand, about twice the actual number, was overblown.
Even so, the territory’s top general made the most of the manpower he
had as he pushed preparations for the anticipated military confrontation
with the United States. On April 1, Lieutenant General Daniel H. Wells
announced the militia’s reorganization into companies of ten, fifty, and one
hundred to pattern it after the hosts of ancient Israel. All able-bodied men
from eighteen to forty-five were ordered to sign up for military duty.44
Wells also divided Utah into thirteen military districts and appointed an
officer to enroll recruits in each of them.
As they began to march, spring opened the trails and allowed Burr,
Judge George P. Stiles, Marshal Peter K. Dotson, and others to flee. “Nearly
all the gentile and apostate Scurf in this community left for the United
States,” Hosea Stout said. “The fire of the Reformation is burning many
out who flee from the Territory afraid of their lives,” he went on, adding
the proverb,“The wicked flee when no man pursue[s].”45
But, as he said, not all the “scurf ” had flown. Perhaps less wicked than
the rest or braver, U.S. Indian Agent Garland Hurt, known to the Ute tribe
as “the American,” holed up on the Ute Indian training farm he had estab-
lished on the Spanish Fork River, below the town of the same name.
Before going to his sanctuary, he set a trap for Utah’s Superintendent of
Indian Affairs. In a confidential letter posted by private hands he told
George Manypenny in Washington, D. C. that Brigham Young was gather-
ing Indian goods for an “exploring expedition through the Territories of
Oregon,Washington, and perhaps British Columbia.”46
42
David H. Burr to Thomas A. Hendricks, March 28, 1857, “The Utah Expedition,” House Exec. Doc.
71, 118-20.
43
Ibid.,William H. Drummond to Jeremiah Black, March 30, 1857, 212-14.
44
For the new organization, see Deseret News, April 1, 1857.
45
Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout: 1844-1861, 2 vols. (Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press, 1982),April 15, 1857.
46
Garland Hurt to George Manypenny, March 30, 1857, Letters Received, Office of Indian Affairs,
Utah Superintendency, microfilm, Utah State Historical Society.
16
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
47
Lewis Warren Shurtliff, “Life and Travels of Lewis Warren Shurtliff,” from a handwritten transcription
by Constance Miller Flygare in July 1926, Idaho State Historical Society.The four were Thomas S. Smith,
Lewis W. Shurtliff, Pleasant Green Taylor and Laconias Barnard.
48
Lemhi is a misspelling of Limhi, a Book of Mormon name.
49
Benjamin Franklin Cummings, Autobiography and Journals, November 16-19, 1856, Harold B. Lee
Library, Brigham Young University.
50
Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:26.
17
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
William H. Dame Journal, May 18, 1857, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.
51
Brigham Young Remarks, May 31,1857, in Deseret News, June 10, 1857, 107/1-3.
52
53
Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:53-54.
54
A posse comitatus is a force representative of all citizens to enforce the law under the legitimate
authority of a political jurisdiction.
55
George W. Lay to William S.Harney, June 29, 1857, “The Utah Expedition,” House Exec. Doc. 71, 7-
9.
18
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
56
Daniel 2:27-49.
57
Brigham Young Remarks, July 26, 1857, in Deseret News,August 5, 1857.
58
Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:90.
59
Alfred Pleasanton to Van Vliet, 28 July 1857, House Exec. Doc. 2 (35-1), II, Serial 943, 27-28.
19
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
60
Stewart Van Vliet to John B. Floyd, November 20, 1857, “Report on the Utah Expedition,” Sen. Ex.
Docs. (35-1), v. 3, n. 11, Serial 920, 37-38.
61
Ibid., Stewart Van Vliet to Alfred Pleasanton, September 29, 1857, 25-27.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid., Stewart Van Vliet to John B. Floyd, November 20, 1857, 38.
20
THE UTAH WAR, 1857-1858
64
Proclamation of Governor Young,“The Utah Expedition,” House Exec. Doc. 71, 34-35.
65
See Daniel H. Wells to Lot Smith, October 17, 1857, Lot Smith Collection, University of Arizona
Library,Tucson, and the Daniel Wells reports, LDS Church History Library.
66
For the full story of this conflict, see William P. MacKinnon, At Sword’s Point: A Documentary History
of the Utah War, 1857-1858, Part 1 (forthcoming by Arthur H. Clark, Norman, OK).
21
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
22
T
his article’s title springs from the text of Abraham Lincoln’s extra-
ordinary second inaugural address and its recapitulation of the
Civil War’s origins. In 1857, Lincoln’s predecessor—James
Buchanan—had delivered an inaugural address oblivious to the
fact that the country then teetered on the brink of a precursor to Lincoln’s
conflict—the Utah War. Significantly Buchanan’s inaugural speech men-
tioned neither Utah nor Mormons. It certainly did not deal with either
Brigham Young or polygamy. 1 On the morning that President-elect
Buchanan took office, President Franklin Pierce met for the last time with
his cabinet. Pierce read aloud a letter summarizing the challenges and
accomplishments of their four years together. Missing also from this unpub-
lished valedictory was any reference to matters Mormon, although two
years earlier Pierce had tried unsuccessfully to replace Brigham Young as
Utah’s governor—an important bit of unfinished business. 2 So as the
administrations changed on March 4, 1857, Utah was not an issue of front-
rank importance for America’s most senior political leaders. Instead, they
were preoccupied with the slavery issue, violence in Kansas, and preserva-
tion of the Union.
If, on inauguration day, Presidents Pierce and Buchanan ignored the
Mormons, they reciprocated. On March 4, 1857, the Deseret News made no
mention of the change in national administrations, although it did print the
text of Governor Young’s proclamation announcing an election for the
Nauvoo Legion’s new commanding general.The News was not to mention
Buchanan by name for another three months.3
Five days after the inauguration, the presi- James Buchanan’s Cabinet.
dent granted an interview to Utah’s delegate Proceeding clockwise from the
in Congress, John M. Bernhisel. The delegate president’s left are Secretaries
described this session to Gov. Brigham Young
John B. Floyd (War), Lewis Cass
as “pleasant,” and noted, “The President
appeared free from prejudice himself.”Young (State), Howell Cobb (Treasury),
was optimistic, having written to Thomas L. Joseph Holt (Postmaster
Kane two months earlier that “We are satis- General), Isaac Toucey (Navy),
fied with the appointment of Buchanan as Jeremiah S. Black (Attorney
future President, we believe he will be a General) and Jacob Thompson
friend to the good, that Fillmore was our (Interior).
Copyright 2007,William P. MacKinnon.The author has adapted this article from At Sword’s Point, his doc-
umentary history of the Utah War (forthcoming from The Arthur H. Clark Co., an imprint of the
University of Oklahoma Press), as well as from a paper of similar title presented at Mormon History
Association annual conference, Salt Lake City, May 25, 2007. The author thanks Professors David H.
Miller, Cameron University, and Thomas G. Alexander, Brigham Young University, for their generosity in
sharing documents, Ardis E. Parshall for her research and administrative help, and Patricia H. MacKinnon
for her personal and editorial support.
1
James Buchanan, “Inaugural Address,” March 4, 1857, John Bassett Moore, ed., The Works of James
Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence. 12 vols. (New York: Antiquarian
Press Ltd., 1960), 10:105-13.
2
Franklin Pierce, Letter to Cabinet, March 4, 1857, J. Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.
3
“Proclamation,” Deseret News, March 4, 1857, and “The Inauguration,” June 10, 1857.
23
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
4
John M. Bernhisel to Brigham Young, March 17, 1857, and Brigham Young, Letter to Thomas Kane,
January 31, 1857, both in Family and Church History Department,The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints. Hereafter LDS Church History Library.
5
William P. MacKinnon,“Epilogue to the Utah War: Impact and Legacy,” Journal of Mormon History 29
(Fall 2003):186-248.
24
the doctrine of blood atone-
ment, and—most important-
ly—Brigham Young’s vision of
Utah as a theocratic kingdom
(anticipating the Second
Coming of Christ) rather than
as a conventional territorial
ward of Congress functioning
through republican principles
6
In addition to David L. Bigler’s article in this issue of Utah Historical Quarterly, the most recent and
complete discussion of this long list of pre-1857 secular and religious points of conflict appears in four
other works by Bigler: Forgotten Kingdom:The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896 (Spokane:
Arthur H. Clark Co., 1998), 1-199; A Winter with the Mormons:The 1852 Letters of Jotham Goodell (Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Tanner Trust, 2001), 1-19; “Sources of Conflict: Mormons and Their Neighbors,
1830-90,” lecture delivered to the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, July 25, 2003, photocopy in my posses-
sion; and “Theocracy Versus Republic: ‘The Irrepressible Conflict,’” paper delivered at the Mormon
History Association annual conference, May 2006, Casper, Wyoming. See also MacKinnon, “Loose in the
Stacks: A Half-Century with the Utah War and Its Legacy,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40
(Spring 2007): 53-54.
7
Diary of Joseph L. Heywood, entry for July 31, 1856, <http://contentsm.lib.byu.edu/Diaries/-
image/4269.pdf> accessed April 16, 2007.
8
Erastus Snow to Orson Spencer, October 1, 1855, “Letter from Prest. E. Snow,” St. Louis Luminary,
November 10, 1855.
25
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
9
A classic case for the significance of these three letters appears in Leland Hargrave Creer, Utah and the
Nation (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1929), 117-26. For the match/powder keg metaphor, I am
indebted to Leo V. Gordon and Richard Vetterli, Powderkeg (Novato, CA: Lyford Books, 1991), a novel
about the Utah War. An even earlier use of this metaphor appears in Robert Richmond, “Some Western
Editors View the Mormon War, 1857-1858,” Trail Guide 8 (March 1963): 3. For an analysis of these three
documents, see William P. MacKinnon,“The Buchanan Spoils System and the Utah Expedition: Careers of
W.M.F. Magraw and John M. Hockaday,” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (Spring 1963): 127-50.
10
This letter had been filed with State Department records because in 1856 Secretary of State William
L. Marcy bore administrative responsibility for most territorial affairs. Even as astute a researcher as Dale L.
Morgan mistakenly assumed that Buchanan was the “Mr. President” to whom Magraw wrote a month
before the election of 1856. Morgan, research notes on Buchanan and Utah Expedition, Madeline R.
McQuown Collection, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
11
William S. Harney to John B. Floyd, August 8, 1857, Records, Office of the Adjt. Gen., Letters
Received (Record Group 94), National Archives.
26
AND THE WAR CAME
27
that included James Arlington
Bennet, an eccentric Nauvoo
Legion major general turned
Brooklyn cemetery develop-
er. 14 Accordingly the belea-
guered president chose not to
examine these documents in
Bernhisel’s presence. Instead
he urged Utah’s congressional
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
14
Ardis E. Parshall, “Brigham Young’s Support of Buchanan Proved Ironic as Utah War Unfolded,” Salt
Lake Tribune, March 25, 2007. For a discussion of the three Bennet[t]s whom Joseph Smith had commis-
sioned as Legion generals and their colorful Utah War involvements, see MacKinnon, “Epilogue to the
Utah War,” 213. See also Lyndon W. Cook, “James Arlington Bennet and the Mormons,” BYU Studies 19
(1979): 247-49.
15
John M. Bernhisel, Letter to Brigham Young, April 2, 1857, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Church
History Library. Neither Bernhisel nor the Buchanan administration ever submitted these documents to
Congress, disregarding normal procedure and even the House of Representatives’ subsequent special year-
end demand that Buchanan produce all materials shedding light on the extent to which Utah was in a
state of rebellion.This treatment was in marked contrast to the wide and immediate publicity given to the
even more inflammatory memorial adopted by the Utah legislative assembly a year later on January 6,
1858, and sent to the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal grand jury sitting at Camp Scott returned
an indictment of treason against every man who signed the 1858 memorial.
28
AND THE WAR CAME
the Deseret News and then the New York Herald published an incomplete
version of the memorials on October 7 and December 15, 1857.
What may well have stimulated Thompson’s fateful comments to
delegate Bernhisel was the second batch of Utah materials received in
Washington that week: a letter from Judge Drummond to an unidentified
cabinet officer—presumably Attorney General Black—that appeared in the
capital on the same day as the Bernhisel-Thompson meeting. Drummond
had probably written this letter before boarding ship in California and
before his resignation letter written on March 30 from New Orleans. After
reciting a list of what he considered to be Mormon abuses, Drummond
grew prescriptive: “Let all, then, take hold and crush out one of the most
treasonable organizations in America.”16
Stunned by Thompson’s unanticipated reaction to the Utah petitions, if
not Drummond’s California letter, Bernhisel made what seems to have
been both a strange and fateful decision. Instead of swinging into action to
moderate the administration’s alarmed reaction, Bernhisel withdrew from
the fray, left Washington, and travelled to Pennsylvania to visit relatives. He
then wrote a discouraging report to Brigham Young on April 2, and took
his seat on the early May Salt Lake-bound mail stage from Independence,
Missouri. His unfortunate departure from the capital created a vacuum in
Mormon representation at the very time when it was most needed.17
The day after Thompson informed Bernhisel of the cabinet’s explosive
reaction, another shoe dropped in Washington—this time in the form of
two letters written to Jeremiah Black, the U.S. Attorney General, by Utah’s
chief justice, John F. Kinney.The judge was then in Washington on leave of
absence. His letters constituted the third wave of Utah-related materials
received by the administration that week.
In one of his March 20 letters, presumably hand-delivered, Kinney
reviewed at length the condition of affairs in Utah. This document was
remarkably like the resignation letter Drummond was then formulating
aboard ship in the Gulf of Mexico, and it urged Attorney General Black to
share Kinney’s views with the president and his cabinet just as Drummond’s
California letter, received the day before, had asked. Kinney did not write
spontaneously; Black had asked for his assessment of Utah affairs probably after
reading Drummond’s California letter and after Bernhisel had delivered the
memorials of January 6 to Thompson on March 18. On March 20 Kinney
not only recited examples of what he believed to be Brigham Young’s perver-
16
W. W. Drummond, Letter to unspecified cabinet officer, “Utah and Its Troubles ...,” March 19, 1857
dispatch from Washington, New York Herald, March 20, 1857. The text of this letter cannot be located in
government files; our only awareness of it is through the excerpts reported by the Herald’s Washington
correspondent.
17
Bernhisel’s April 2, 1857, report to Brigham Young remains unpublished. He wrote it too late to be
included in the April mail to Salt Lake City, and so, ironically, this document traveled west in the same
coach with Bernhisel a month later. The letter arrived at its destination on May 29, 1857, just after the
governor’s return from a five-week trek to Fort Limhi and the day following the release of General Scott’s
circular initiating the Utah Expedition.
29
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
sion of Utah’s judicial system, he urged Young’s removal from office and the
establishment of a one-regiment U.S.Army garrison in the territory.18
The second letter that Kinney gave to Attorney General Black on March
20 was a document transmitting an enclosed letter from Utah Surveyor
General David H. Burr. Burr was a long-time critic of Brigham Young’s
handling of such disputed federal-territorial issues as disposition of the
public lands and Indian affairs. Sandwiched among his new litany of alleged
Mormon offenses was Burr’s shocking assessment that, “The great danger
to a [new] Governor would be assassination.” Notwithstanding his identifi-
cation of this risk, Burr argued for something other than a large army
expedition to carry out his recommendations: “To carry out this plan the
presence of a small Military force might be necessary. I do not suppose that
their services would be needed further than to show the leaders of this
people a determination to enforce the laws.”19
Delivery of the Burr letter meant that within two weeks of taking office
James Buchanan and his cabinet had a collection of stunning new inputs on
Utah affairs from the territory’s truculent legislative assembly, its chief
justice, an associate supreme court justice, and the surveyor-general. All of
these documents were suppressed and never shared with Congress,
although the full cabinet was surely aware of them.
From the cabinet’s viewpoint, Kinney’s inputs must have carried substan-
tial credibility at face value, as would those of “General” Burr. Prior to his
appointment to Utah’s bench in 1854, Kinney had been a justice on Iowa’s
supreme court. His experience in Utah was relatively long and recent,
credentials that Kinney believed qualified him to comment about the terri-
tory, as he phrased it, “advisedly.” Both the U.S. Department of State and
the office of the U.S. Attorney General had files amassed during President
18
John F. Kinney to Jeremiah S. Black, March 20, 1857, photocopy of holograph in my possession,
together with the typed transcription, courtesy of Professor David H. Miller, Cameron University.This let-
ter is marked “Confidential & Private” in a hand other than Kinney’s.The only known published reference
(but not the text) to this important document is a simple listing in the bibliography for James F. Varley,
Brigham and the Brigadier, General Patrick Connor and His California Volunteers in Utah and along the Overland
Trail (Tucson: Westernlore Press, 1989), 309. Kinney’s relationship with the Mormons was highly ambiva-
lent over an extended period of time. Starting in 1855 Brigham Young accurately suspected the judge of
joining other disaffected federal appointees in writing anti-Mormon reports to Washington, behavior that
Kinney vehemently denied while simultaneously courting Mormon approbation. Howard Lamar refers to
Kinney during this period as “busily playing the double game of cooperating with the Mormons on the
local level while bombarding Washington with secret strictures against Young.” Howard Roberts Lamar,
The Far Southwest, 1846-1912: A Territorial History (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1966), 331; Michael
W. Homer, “The Federal Bench and Priesthood Authority:The Rise and Fall of John Fitch Kinney’s Early
Relationship with the Mormons,” Journal of Mormon History 13 (1986-87): 89-108.
19
The undated David H. Burr to Jeremiah Black letter may have been received by Kinney with the
same batch of mail that arrived in Washington (via the Salt Lake-San Bernardino-Panama route) yielding
letters for Black and Bernhisel from Drummond and Utah’s legislative assembly, respectively, on March 17
and 19. To date, the only notice of the Burr to Black letter (transmitted on March 20, 1857 by Kinney)
appears in Thomas G. Alexander,“Carpetbaggers, Reprobates, and Liars: Federal Judges and the Utah War,”
unpublished paper for Mormon History Association’s annual conference, Salt Lake City, May 2007, 19
note 49. Burr’s concerns about threats to his safety and mail security appear in David H. Burr to Thomas
A. Hendricks, February 5, and June 11, 1857, “The Utah Expedition,” House Ex. Doc. 71 (35-1), Serial
956, 118-21; Burr to Hendricks, December 31, 1856, Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City.
30
AND THE WAR CAME
20
Quoted in Donald R. Moorman, with Gene A. Sessions, Camp Floyd and the Mormons:The Utah War
(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992; reprinted 2005), 12 and 284 note 23.
21
W.W. Drummond to Stephen A. Douglas, May 16, 1857, Stephen A. Douglas Papers, Special
Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.
22
Stephen A. Douglas, “Kansas, Utah, and the Dred Scott Decision,” Springfield, Illinois, June 12, 1857,
11-15 (pamphlet in author’s possession). For a description of this speech and its reception, see Robert W.
Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 566-75. For the enraged
Mormon rebuttal to Douglas’s speech, see “Comments Upon the Remarks of Hon. Stephen Arnold
Douglas,” Deseret News, September 2, 1857. These two Springfield speeches of June 1857 likely provided
the template for the Lincoln-Douglas debates that followed in 1858.
31
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
23
Thomas L. Kane to James Buchanan, March 21, 1857, Kane Collection, L. Tom Perry Special
Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.
24
Thomas L. Kane to Brigham Young, ca. March 1857, Thomas L. Kane Papers, Stanford University
Libraries, Stanford, California.
25
Thomas L. Kane to Brigham Young, May 21, 1857,Yale Collection of Western Americana, Beinecke
Library,Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
26
Hockaday’s visit to Philadelphia and the recommendation that he visit the president is described in
James C.Van Dyke to James Buchanan, April 27, 1857,The James Buchanan Papers,The Historical Society
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
32
AND THE WAR CAME
27
Thomas L. Kane to Jeremiah S. Black, April 27, 1857, Black Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of
Congress.
28
“Verastus,” to Editor, May 24, 1857, printed as “Col. Thomas L. Kane on Mormonism,” New York
Daily Times, May 26, 1857. Multiple historians view “Verastus” as the pen name adopted by W.W.
Drummond.
29
Robert Tyler to James Buchanan, April 27, 1857, The James Buchanan Papers,The Historical Society
of Pennsylvania. For the text see also Philip G. Auchampaugh, Robert Tyler, Southern Rights Champion 1847-
1866: A Documentary Study Chiefly of Antebellum Politics (Duluth, MN.: Himan Stein, 1934), 180-81; David
A.Williams,“President Buchanan Receives a Proposal for an Anti-Mormon Crusade, 1857,” Brigham Young
University Studies 14 (Autumn 1973): 103-105.Williams’ judgment was:“The fact that it could be seriously
advanced by a son of a former president to the incumbent President in and of itself makes it a significant
document in the political history of Mormonism in America.”
33
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
34
AND THE WAR CAME
33
“Garrison for Salt-Lake City,” Brevet Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott, Memorandum for Secretary of War,
May 26, 1857, Headquarters of the Army, Letters Sent (Record Group 108), National Archives. The only
published text of this remarkable memo appears in M. Hamlin Cannon, “Winfield Scott and the Utah
Expedition,” Military Affairs: Journal of the American Military Institute 5 (Fall 1941): 109-11.
34
James Buchanan, Mr. Buchanan’s Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion (New York: D. Appleton &
Co., 1866), 238-39.
35
Winfield Scott, Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, L.L.D.,Written by Himself. 2 vols. (New York: Sheldon
& Co., 1864), 2:604. Scott, like Buchanan, wrote his memoirs in the third person.
35
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
36
William P. MacKinnon, “125 Years of Conspiracy Theories: Origins of the Utah Expedition of 1857-
58,” Utah Historical Quarterly 52 (Summer 1984): 212-30.
37
James Buchanan to Gerard Hallock, June 29, 1861, cited in William H. Hallock, Life of Gerard Hallock,
Editor of the New York Journal of Commerce (1869 New York:Arno Press, 1970, rep.), 242.
38
For a more complete discussion of these leadership shortfalls and the points covered in summary
fashion in the balance of this article, see MacKinnon,“‘Lonely Bones’: Leadership and Utah War Violence,”
Journal of Mormon History 33 (Spring 2007): 121-78.
39
See MacKinnon, “‘Who’s in Charge Here?’: Command Ambiguity and Cross Currents Atop the
Utah Expedition,” unpublished paper, 55th Annual Utah State History Conference, September 7, 2007,
Salt Lake City.
36
AND THE WAR CAME
spring of 1857 the army had court-martialed him four times and a civilian
court in St. Louis had tried Harney a fifth time for torturing and
bludgeoning to death a defenseless female slave. The nature of Buchanan’s
afflictions were so severe and communication lags so daunting that during
August 1857 Brigham Young and General Wells speculated amongst
themselves that the president might be dead.40 In terms of communication
he was. Buchanan’s first public discussion of the Utah War in any form came
in a brief five-paragraph commentary in his December 8, 1857, first annual
message to Congress, a silence stunning by its length and implications.41
Both James Buchanan and Brigham Young were highly capable leaders,
but each was ill in the late winter of 1857 and lacked military experience.
They reacted ineffectively to the powerful social, political, and religious
forces afoot by placing large numbers of armed men in motion under
murky, sometimes conflicting orders. The results were fateful as well as
expensive in terms of blood and treasure.There were also devastating repu-
tational consequences. This damage lingers to this day in unfortunate ways
on both Mormon and federal sides of the conflict. The LDS church as an
institution still grapples with the stain of Mountain Meadows, the Utah
War’s greatest atrocity. Brigham Young’s personal reputation was tarnished
by his three Utah War-related indictments for treason and murder and the
execution for mass murder of his adopted son, John D. Lee.42 For its part
the U.S. Army still prefers to forget the embarrassment of the Utah
Expedition and its uncomfortable winter spent in the charred ruins of Fort
Bridger on half-rations. For James Buchanan the Utah War was, in many
ways, the beginning of the destruction of his personal reputation, as he
presided ineffectively over the nation’s slide toward disunion. Feelings
against Buchanan ran so high during the Civil War that members of his
Masonic lodge stood guard over his retirement home in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.The damage to Buchanan’s reputation was so long-lasting that
a monument to him was not erected in Washington until the 1930s,
although his niece had covered the full expenses for such a tribute forty
years earlier.
And the war came—first as an unprecedented, atrocious armed con-
frontation between Americans in Utah Territory and then as a monumental
bloodbath in Virginia.
40
Young and Wells quoted in entry for August 2, 1857, Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal,
1833-1898. 9 vols. (Midvale: Signature Books, 1983-1985), 5:71-2.
41
James Buchanan,“First Annual Message,” December 8, 1857, Moore, ed., The Works of James Buchanan,
10:151-54.
42
The texts for these three indictments are unpublished. They were quashed under unusual circum-
stances described in MacKinnon, “Epilogue to the Utah War,” 245 note 14; Edwin Brown Firmage and
Richard Collin Mangrum, Zion in the Courts:A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
1830-1900 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 138, 144-47.
37
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
T
rouble between Brigham Young, Utah Territorial Governor
and Mormon Church President, and other federal territorial
officials began to brew in the early 1850s and by the spring
of 1857 a resolution to the troubles was needed. Late in
May 1857 Brevet Lieutenant General Winfield Scott, General-in-Charge of
the United States Army, issued orders to organize a force of up to 2,500 sol-
diers to march to Utah, secure law and order, and to escort newly appointed
territorial officials including the new territorial governor Alfred Cumming.
Accompanying the army expedition were hundreds of supply wagons
proclamation forbidding all armed forces from entering the territory. The
proclamation had no effect on the expedition’s commander, Colonel Albert
Sidney Johnston. However, weather and Mormon resistance did.The expe-
dition halted in November as winter snow and cold enveloped the moun-
tains of southwest Wyoming, and because of the destruction of much of the
expedition’s supplies by the Mormon militia.The expedition camped at the
new Camp Scott near the destroyed forts of Bridger and Supply.
In June, following negotiations between Brigham Young and Thomas L.
Kane, the Utah Peace Commission, and others, a pardon was issued by
President James Buchanan. Brevet Brigadier General Albert Sidney
Johnston led the Utah Expedition into the Great Salt Lake Valley and a
nearly deserted Salt Lake City. Within a few days, the expedition was
encamped at isolated Cedar Valley, located about forty miles southwest of
Salt Lake City. There at the newly christened Camp Floyd the army, with
the assistance of the Mormons, built a sizeable military post. There they
would remain until the firing on Fort Sumter and the outbreak of the Civil
War in April 1861.
The photographic essay which follows highlights some of the significant
locations on the last segments of the overland trail used by the Utah
Expedition from Devil’s Gate to the Great Salt Lake Valley.
John Eldredge is the author of The Utah War:A Guide to the Historic Sites South Pass to Salt Lake City (2007)
and past president of the Utah Chapter, Oregon-California Trails Association.
40
THE UTAH WAR
BELOW: From South Pass the U. S.Army followed the well-traveled over-
land road to the Great Salt Lake Valley, arriving the last week of June 1858.
41
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
42
THE UTAH WAR
Pacific Springs
Looking west from Pacific Springs located a few miles west of South Pass,
the Mormon militia during the night of September 25, 1857, encountered
some of “Uncle’s troops.” Mormon militiaman Hosea Stout recorded: “I
expect an attack will be made the first opportunity perhaps by stampeding their
animals.” — On the Mormon Frontier:The Diary of Hosea Stout 2: 638. Capt. Jesse Gove of the
10th Infantry wrote of the Mormon harassment near Pacific Springs: “This
morning about 2 o’clock several shots were fired immediately behind my tent, and
immediately the whole herd of mules stampeded with a terrific rush…. One man in
H Co. … died of fright. He had the heart disease, hence the sudden fright killed
him….Their [Mormon militia] intention was to drive off the mules, nothing more.”
— Jesse A. Gove, The Utah Expedition, 1857-1858, Letters of Capt Jesse A. Gove, 64. John I. Ginn, a
civilian with the U. S.Army, recalled: “The mules ran about three miles, when
their feet ceased to clatter on the hard, smooth road….Then Col.Alexander ordered
the buglers to sound the ‘stable call’ as loud as they could…. Directly they [the army
mules] came dashing into camp in a bunch, together with six additional
animals wearing saddles and bridles—the whole Mormon mount.” — John I. Ginn,
“Mormon and Indian Wars:The Mountain Meadows Massacre, and other tragedies and transactions
incident to the Mormon Rebellion of 1857” — Typescript, Utah State Historical Society.
JOHN ELDREDGE
43
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
44
THE UTAH WAR
Simpson Hollow
Simpson Hollow located near Big Sandy and Wyoming Highway 28.
Mormon militia under the command of Maj. Lot Smith set fire to a supply
train. Upon hearing of the success of Smith, Gen. Daniel Wells wrote
Smith: “I am glad to hear so good an account of your success on your mission…
Furnish your men and as many others as you conveniently can with supplies of
clothing and food from any of the [wagon] trains when you have a good chance…
Remain in the rear of the enemy’s camp till you receive further orders, not neglecting
every opportunity to burn their trains, stampede their stock, and keep them under
arms by the night surprises, so that they will be worn out.” — Quoted in LeRoy R. and
Ann W. Hafen, The Utah Expedition, 1857-1858, 231.
Trail trace immediately to the left of the trail marker.
45
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
46
THE UTAH WAR
47
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
48
THE UTAH WAR
Fort Supply
Located twelve miles southwest from Fort Bridger, the Utah Territorial
legislature designated Fort Supply the county seat for Green River County,
Utah Territory in 1852.When word was received that the army was on the
march, Brigham Young ordered Fort Supply to be abandoned, burnt, and
crops destroyed or cached. Mormon militiaman Jesse W. Crosby wrote: “I
went to Fort Supply with a small company to help take care of the crops and to
make ready to burn everything if found necessary… We took out our wagons, horses,
etc. and at 12 o’clock noon set fire to the buildings at once, consisting of 100 or
more good hewed houses, one saw mill, one grist mill, one threshing machine, and
after going out of the fort, we did set fire to the stockade, grain stacks, etc.” — On the
Mormon Frontier, 640, fn. 11. A reporter for the New York Times saw what was left of
Camp Scott: “On arriving at the spot [Fort Supply] I realized for the first
time in my life what I had imagined of the appearance of a sacked, burned and
abandoned village… There was a sense of desolation about those ruins of a recently
beautiful settlement which was, to say the least, unpleasant.” — New York Times, January
21, 1858.
49
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Fort Bridger
Fort Bridger in 1857. Fur trapper and trader Jim Bridger established his
trading post on Black’s Fork of the Green River in 1843.Along with his
partner Louis Vasquez, the two developed an important trading post on the
western emigrant trail. In 1855 Brigham Young purchased the fort from
Vasquez and Bridger. In October of 1857 as the army was advancing John
Pulsipher a former resident at Fort Bridger, reported that his brother
Charles and other Mormon militiamen, “are whipping them [U. S.Army]
without killing a man having taken their stock burned their freight trains — & now
have burned Fort Supply & Bridger to save them from falling into their hands.”
— In Hafen and Hafen, The Utah Expedition, 205. Unable to be used as a winter encamp-
ment because of its small size, Fort Bridger was used as a storage area.
Col.Albert Sidney Johnston established his winter encampment at Camp
Scott two miles from the burned out fort.
Eckelsville
Located a few miles south of Fort Bridger on the bend of Black’s Fork and
near Camp Scott, Eckelsville, named for the newly appointed Utah
Territory Chief Justice D. Eckels, was a temporary community of Sibley
tents, dugouts, log cabins, and other makeshift structures. Here the new ter-
ritorial governor,Alfred Cumming, and his wife, Elizabeth, and other
newly appointed territorial officials and civilians resided from November
1857 to April 1858 when the town was abandoned. Elizabeth Cumming
wrote to her sister,Anne, in December, describing her accommodations in
Eckelsville: “We live in five tents—One a dining room. Second a store room of
trunks, boxes & so forth… Third a kitchen… Fourth—a sleeping tent for the young
girl. Fifth—a double wall tent divided into parlour & bed chamber—eight feet by
10 each….You can hardly imagine how cosy & comfortable it looks. I quite enjoy
it.” Ray R. Canning and Beverly Beeton, eds., The Genteel Gentile: Letters of Elizabeth Cumming, 1857-
1858 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Library, 1977), 23.
Camp Scott
Since the Mormon militia destroyed most of Fort Bridger, the army of
1,400 officers and men plus civilians established their winter quarters at
Camp Scott, a short distance from Fort Bridger. Named for General-in-
Chief of the entire U. S.Army, Major General Winfield Scott, Camp Scott
served as the temporary seat of territorial government. On November 21,
1857, Governor Cumming issued his proclamation to the people of Utah:
“…the President appointed me to preside over the executive department of this
Territory… I will proceed at this point to make the preliminary arrangements for the
temporary organization of the territorial government….” — Hafen and Hafen, The Utah
Expedition, 297. By late May Governor Cumming prepared to abandon Camp
Scott and Ecklesville and transfer the seat of territorial government back to
Salt Lake City.
50
51
UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY FORT BRIDGER STATE PARK
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
52
THE UTAH WAR
53
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Cache Cave
Cache Cave is located a few miles from the head of Echo Canyon and on
the overland trail. For a few weeks in October 1857, Lt. Gen. Daniel H.
Wells made Cache Cave his eastern command post. Later it served as an
important express station for messengers and spies of the Utah Militia. Date
of photograph is unknown.The individuals in the photograph are the Ball
family.
54
A. J. RUSSELL, PHOTOGRAPHER COALVILLE HISTORY MUSEUM, NAVEE VERNON PHOTO BY JOHN ELDREDGE
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
56
THE UTAH WAR
Rock fortifications
The Mormon militia constructed several stone fortifications atop Echo
Canyon’s northern walls from which to fire upon Johnston’s army. Hosea
Stout wrote of these “formidable [locations] high [on] perpendicular ledges of rock
immediately over looking the road” where it was “decided to erect batteries on the
summit of the rocky crags.” — On the Mormon Frontier, 639. At various strategic
locations, Mormon militiamen constructed various types of fortifications
including water filled ditches, one measuring six feet wide and ten feet
deep.At another location the Mormon militia may have “mined” the road.
— The Atlantic Monthly 3 (April 1859): 489.
57
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Echo Station
A writer for The Atlantic Monthly in 1859 described Echo Station as “huts”
the Mormon militia occupied and were “constructed by digging circular holes in
the ground, over which were piled boughs in the same manner as the poles of an
Indian lodge.” Many of the huts had chimneys built of sod and stones.
Nearby was a protected glen to keep needed livestock.The reporter for the
Atlantic Monthly estimated that there were as many as 150 huts that could
accommodate as many as fifteen men each. — The Atlantic Monthly 3 (April 1859): 488.
In April 1858 when Governor Alfred Cumming accompanied by a small
Mormon escort made his first trip through Echo Canyon at night to the
Salt Lake Valley to meet Brigham Young, numerous fires were lit along the
trail at these posts to give the impression that hundreds of Mormon militia
were in the canyon. Mormon militiaman Lorenzo Brown wrote: “In the
evening [we] went up to the batteries to make fires & fire guns to salute the New
Governor as he came past.The Camp was lighted conspicuously with a fire in each
hut so that ever thing seemed alive with me.The Gov. seemed awe struck.”
— Lorenzo Brown Journal,April 29, 1856 to February 9, 1859,Typescript, LDS Church History Library.
Weber Station
The Weber Station, located a “mile below the mouth of Echo [Canyon] and on
the Weber bottom,” was one of several commissary posts established between
Yellow Creek and Fort Wells at Big Mountain.At these posts members of
the Mormon militia were re-supplied with food and equipment during the
winter campaign. For a brief time Weber Station was headquarters for
Lt. Gen. Daniel H.Wells, commander of the Mormon militia’s eastern
campaign.
58
PHOTO BY JOHN ELDREDGE C. R. SAVAGE PHOTOGRAPHER, COPY IN POSSESSION OF JOHN ELDREDGE (ALSO BYU) PHOTO BY JOHN ELDREDGE
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
60
PHOTOS BY JOHN ELDREDGE
61
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Big Mountain
Looking west from the summit of Big Mountain. In the far distance are the
Great Salt Lake Valley and the Oquirrh Mountains. In the dead of winter
snow depths at the summit frequently reaches more than three feet, making
travel by any wheeled vehicle impossible.The U. S.Army found it extremely
difficult to ascend and descent Big Mountain as did most who traveled by
wagon. Captain Albert Tracy wrote on June 25, 1858: “We got off as early as
five in the morning, and after a long and toilsome ascent in the course of which we
pass additional fortifications of the Mormons, reach at last the bald and rock crest of
‘Big Mountain.’The view from this point is little less than magnificent—opening out
between rocky and snow-clad peaks and ridges, to the veritable valley of Salt Lake in
the distance, with even a partial glimpse of the lake itself, at the right…. So steep, so
smooth, and so rocky was this descent, that a mule or horse might scarcely keep his
footing going down….” Capt Tracy and others faced additional hazard further
along, “we found, going down the farther side of Big Mountain, such clouds and
density of dust as well nigh brought us to an open suffocation. Neither was the
condition of things improved by a drove of the Commissary’s cattle, which had
preceded us, leaving in the air a mass of itself sufficient to our keenest fixation and
misery.” — “Journal of Captain Albert Tracy, 1858-1860,” Utah Historical Quarterly 13 (1945): 25-26.
62
THE UTAH WAR
Mountain Dell
Looking northeast towards Little Dell Reservoir. Mountain Dell was the
last camp for Johnston’s army before entering the Salt Lake Valley on June
26, 1858. Charles A. Scott wrote on June 25: “Orders were published to the
Command for no man to leave the ranks in passing through the city to morrow
and also the Articles of War, about injuring the property of Citizens [etc.] and a
proclamation of the Governors congratulating the people on peace being established
without bloodshed. June 26th Started at six, a long pull up for a commencement.
At the top we found Ash Hollow No. 3, to descend, or Little Mountain as it is
named—one of the lock chains of the forge (which I was driving) broke and if the
other had done the same I would have gotten to the bottom in less than double quick
time...” — Robert E. Stowers and John M. Ellis, eds.,“Charles A. Scott’s Diary of the Utah Expedition,
1857-1861,” Utah Historical Quarterly 28 (April 1960): 172-73.
63
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
64
THE UTAH WAR
65
NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Sam Houston and the Utah War
By MICHAEL SCOTT VAN WAGENEN
T
he “Utah War” of 1857-58, grew out of rumors that the Utah
Territory was embroiled in open rebellion against the United
States government. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons, did in fact distrust
federal, state, and local governments after being driven from their homes in
Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. In the isolation of the Utah Territory they
created their own theocratic judicial and legislative bodies. To outsiders,
there appeared to be sinister motives behind Governor Brigham Young’s
kingdom in the West.1
This conflict came to a head in 1857, when federal Judge W. W.
Drummond in Utah relayed exaggerated
reports to President James Buchanan that the Sam Houston, Senator from
Mormons were engaged in sedition against Texas c. 1860
Michael Scott Van Wagenen is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of Utah.
1
For additional background of the tension between the federal government and Utah’s theocracy, see
Norman F. Furniss, The Mormon Conflict, 1850-1859 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 1-20;
Donald R. Moorman, with Gene A. Sessions, Camp Floyd and the Mormons:The Utah War (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1992), 8-9.
66
SAM HOUSTON AND THE UTAH WAR
the United States.2 Garland Hurt, a territorial Indian agent, further report-
ed that the Mormons had joined forces with Native Americans to retake
Utah from the United States.3 In spite of these rumored separatist leanings,
the Mormon leadership made a second petition for statehood in 1856.4
While congressional rejection of that petition contributed to a deepening
resentment of the federal government, the Mormons were far from imple-
menting any formal plan of secession.
Mormon appeals for an investigative commission of the Utah situation fell
on deaf ears, and the president sent the United States Army westward to sup-
press the Mormon uprising in the summer of 1857.5 Church leaders met the
federal challenge with a scorched earth policy. The Nauvoo Legion (Utah’s
territorial militia) implemented the plan, burning critical grazing areas on the
windswept plains of Wyoming, and setting the torch to Fort Bridger and Fort
Supply before they could fall into the hands of the approaching troops.6
During the early weeks of the campaign, Mormon guerillas attacked military
supply trains and destroyed more than three months worth of provisions.The
unexpected resistance forced the expedition of 2,500 infantry, dragoons, and
artillery to winter near the ruins of Fort Bridger.7
As word of Mormon resistance reached Washington, D.C., Buchanan for-
mulated a plan to increase the size of the standing army by five regiments to
help meet the threat posed by the Mormons.8 The president’s “Army Bill,”
as it was called, easily passed the House of Representatives, and in February
1858, after weeks of debate, the Senate prepared to vote on the Army Bill.
In the midst of this federal warmongering, an elderly statesman whittled
at his desk.9 Going back fourteen years, Texas Senator Sam Houston had
had dealings with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. As President of the then Texas Republic Houston had negotiated
with Mormon officials for the settlement of the church in his southern
borderlands.10 Some 250 of the church’s adherents currently lived in his
state, where they had proven themselves to be an important part of the
2
William P. MacKinnon, “Utah Expedition of 1857-58, or Utah War,” in The New Encyclopedia of the
American West, ed. Howard R. Lamar (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 1149-51; and William P.
MacKinnon, “And the War Came: James Buchanan, the Utah Expedition and the Decision to Intervene”
in this issue.
3
MacKinnon,“Utah Expedition,” 1149.
4
In addition to these first two attempts at statehood, five other petitions were made to Congress, the
last in 1894 resulted in Congress passing the enabling act to allow for a constitutional convention in Utah.
5
Moorman, Camp Floyd, 3-24. This introductory chapter gives an excellent overview of the events
leading to Buchanan’s decision to send the army to the Utah Territory.
6
Gordon B. Dodds, “Bridger, James,” in The New Encyclopedia of the American West, ed. Howard R.
Lamar, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 125-26. The Mormons claimed to have bought these
outposts in 1855, although Jim Bridger disputed this purchase. See Moorman, Camp Floyd, 48.
7
William P. MacKinnon, “Utah Expedition,,” 1149; Richard D. Poll and Ralph W. Hansen,
“‘Buchanan’s Blunder’The Utah War, 1857-1858,” Military Affairs 25 (Autumn 1961): 124.
8
A force as large as five thousand.
9
James L. Haley, Sam Houston (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002), 354.
10
These obscure and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations are explored in Michael Scott Van Wagenen’s
The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God (College Station:Texas A & M University Press, 2002).
67
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
11
For a complete treatment of the early Mormon-Texas experience see Melvin C. Johnson’s Polygamy
on the Pedernales: Lyman Wight’s Mormon Villages in Antebellum Texas, 1845 to 1858 (Logan: Utah State
University Press, 2006).
12
Reports of Mormon “outrages” were popular in the major eastern newspapers during this time.
While these were mostly sensationalized, popular accusations of Mormon polygamy later proved to be
true. The New York Herald in particular printed and reprinted many inflammatory articles about the
Mormons. See: “Highly Important from the West – Arrest of Joe Smith, the Mormon Chief,” June 26,
1841; and “Highly Important from the West – Progress of the Mormons,”August 10, 1841.
13
Van Wagenen, The Texas Republic, 29, 34-63.
14
George Miller, Correspondence of Bishop George Miller With The Northern Islander From his first acquain-
tance with Mormonism up to near the close of his life. Written by himself in the year 1855 (Michigan: Wingfield
Watson, 1916), 21. Miller’s account actually lists A.W. Brown, which is a misprinting of Almon W. Babbitt,
a member of the Council of Fifty who was deeply involved in Mormon politics at the time.
15
Miller, Correspondence, 20-21.
16
Journal History, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 2, 1847. Family and Church
History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. Hereinafter
cited as LDS Church History Library.
17
Van Wagenen, The Texas Republic, 53-54.
68
SAM HOUSTON AND THE UTAH WAR
in central Texas.18
After the Mormon’s first
public meeting in Austin,
one Texan observed that
the townspeople felt that
the Mormons “were a law-
less band, and the subject of
rising up and driving them
from the countr y was
strongly advocated.” While
Wight’s practice of
polygamy raised the ire of
his neighbors in the new
Texas capital, they tolerated
the Mormon apostle once
they realized the value of
his milling services.19 Soon
the Mormons were grind-
ing corn and constructing
buildings for the residents
of Austin. They even won
the contract to build
Austin’s first jail.20
During the next twelve
years, Wight’s colony of
Mor mons would move
UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
throughout central Texas.
They mainly engaged in
the milling industr y,
although they also farmed,
ranched, and made shingles
and furniture to supplement their “common George A. Smith, who, with John
stock” economy.21 (Their contributions to the M. Bernhisel, met privately with
Texas frontier, while largely forgotten today, Senator Houston in 1856 in an
were well known in central Texas during the effort to secure statehood for
mid-nineteenth century.) Utah.
There is little historical evidence to indi-
cate that Houston had any personal contact
with the Mormons in Texas. He did, however, have several friends and
18
Ibid., 54-59.
19
Noah Smithwick, The Evolution of a State: Recollections of Old Texas Days (Austin, 1900), 235-36.
20
Heman Hale Smith, “The Lyman Wight Colony in Texas,” unpublished manuscript, (ca. 1900), 12.
The L.Tom Perry Special Collections of Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
21
Van Wagenen,The Texas Republic, 60-62.
69
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
22
The quest for Utah statehood proved a long, politically-charged process that was not completed until
1896.
23
Houston had been married three times. His apparent difficulty in obtaining divorces from his first
two wives led to rumors that Houston was himself a bigamist. See Haley, Sam Houston, 90, 98-99, 202.
24
George A. Smith to Brigham Young, July 23, 1856, LDS Church History Library.
25
George Henry Crosby, (1872-1938) Papers [ca. 1929-1936] Typescript. LDS Church History Library.
Some details are clearly confused as the letter is the recounting of a story passed through several people
and generations. The blanket is Houston’s famous Cherokee cloak. Utah Mormons might easily mistake
this for a colorful Navajo blanket with which they themselves were acquainted.
70
SAM HOUSTON AND THE UTAH WAR
26
Melvin C. Johnson,“Lone Star Trails to Zion: Mormon Narratives of the Republic and State of Texas
1844-1858,” 5, unpublished manuscript presented at Sunstone Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1998,
copy in possession of the author. See also Deseret News, July 29, 1874. Nearly forty years after the Texas War
of Independence, the Texas Legislature passed a law allotting an annual pension to veterans of the cam-
paign. At the time, only three known veterans were still living in the Utah Territory. All three were former
officers in the Texas military. This total does not take into account how many had died or previously left
the territory.
27
Seth Millington Blair,“Reminiscences and Journal, 1819-1875,” LDS Church History Library.
28
Ibid. See also Blair’s obituary in the Deseret News, March 24, 1875.
29
Preston Thomas, Preston Thomas: His Life and Travels, ed. Daniel Thomas, unpublished manuscript, LDS
Church History Library.
30
Blair,“Reminiscences.”
31
Blair’s service in this capacity began as early as 1850, when he wrote a letter of introduction for
church apostle John Taylor to Sam Houston. It is unclear if Taylor and Houston ever met. See Seth M.
Blair to Sam Houston, February 17, 1850, John Taylor Collection, LDS Church History Library.William P.
MacKinnon provided a copy of the letter to the author.
71
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
chy.32 This allowed Blair to deal with Houston and other outsiders while
maintaining an apparent independence from the church. The strategy
worked, and Blair received appointment as Utah Attorney General from
President Millard Fillmore.33
As the army approached the Utah Territory,Young called upon Blair to
persuade Senator Houston of the futility of the military campaign.34 On
December 1, 1857, Blair sat down to write a letter to his old friend in
Congress.35 In his letter, Blair appealed to Houston as the Mormons’ last
hope. “In my heart I believe you the only Senator who sits in Congress of
the United States who dares lift up his voice in opposition to public
opinion.” He continued to explain that being,
unheard we are condemned, without cause we have been disfranchised, as traitors we are
branded, as fanatics we are cursed, as dogs we are to be hung! Our wives ravished by the
mercenary soldiers under the stars and stripes, our daughters seduced by the United
States officers, our cities pillaged, our fields laid in ashes, our altars and temples polluted.
He then recounted the defensive measures currently being made in the
territory, warning that the Mormons would destroy their property rather
than have it fall into the hands of the military. “As Forts Bridger and
Supply have gone, so will each city, town, hamlet, village, settlement,
habitation, field, altar, temple, all and every trace of civilization in these
mountains go at the approach of the invading army.” He continued, “Our
numbers, you ask, what are they? Enough! Our resources, true patriotism,
which asks no reward save equal rights. Our hope, victory or death.”36
Blair no doubt struck a chord with Houston when he warned the
senator that the Utah campaign would “drain the treasury and accomplish
but one object—the dissolution of the Union.” In spite of being a south-
erner, Houston defended the Union above all else and remained sensitive
to threats against it.37
Blair concluded his letter with an impassioned appeal to his old friend:
I beseech you, then, as one who loves the Union and despises the life that would tame-
ly submit to a tyrannical rule, to raise your voice to stop the bigoted crusade of the
administration against Governor Young and this people, and ask Congress to counter-
32
See Seth M. Blair to George A. Smith, June 3, 1858, George A. Smith Papers, 1834-1875, LDS
Church History Library. Blair wrote:“I . . . felt that the good sense fine judgment & Statements like course
of Bro Brigham would suffer if for a moment it was believed that I ‘held a high place (or low one) in his
Council.’”
33
Blair Obituary, Deseret News, March 24, 1875.
34
This was part of a larger campaign to solicit the aid of Eastern politicians in the coming war.
35
Blair’s obituary in the Deseret News, March 24, 1875, states the letter was printed “first in the
Washington Star, and subsequently in many journals throughout the Union.” A search of the Washington
Evening Star and other newspapers failed to produce the letter.William P. MacKinnon located the letter in
the New York Herald, March 2, 1858, and graciously provided me this important part of the Blair–Houston
story.
36
Ibid.
37
When the Union did in fact dissolve at the outbreak of the Civil War, Houston refused to swear alle-
giance to the Confederacy and was removed from his position as Governor of Texas. See Haley, Sam
Houston, 390-91.
72
SAM HOUSTON AND THE UTAH WAR
mand the exterminating orders of the administration, stay the floodgate that traitors,
highwaymen, public robbers (who thirst for gold), although crimson with the blood of
their fellow men, have raised to drain the treasure in sending soldiers to murder an
innocent and law abiding people.38
Houston received Blair’s letter the second week of January 1858.
Unsettled by the correspondence, Houston asked for a meeting with his
old Mormon contact in Washington, D.C., John M. Bernhisel.39 On January
18, 1858, the two men met in the Senate chamber when Houston assured
Bernhisel he would speak personally to the president about the Utah cam-
paign and would recommend a commission be sent to investigate the state
of affairs in the territory. Whatever Houston may have said to Buchanan
seemed to have no effect as he continued with his plan to raise five addi-
tional regiments for the Utah campaign.
Given Buchanan’s refusal to act on his advice, Houston carefully planned
his next step. On February 1, 1858, Buchanan hoped to have a favorable
vote for his Army Bill in the Senate. During the debate over the bill,
Houston sat at his desk whittling and feigning disinterest. Finally, laying his
carving knife aside, he rose to address his fellow senators.
If it is necessary on this occasion, for the Mormon war or any other purpose, I care not
what, to raise an additional force, of what description should that force be? Is it to be
composed of active and efficient men? Are they to be such men as could be raised in
the United States? No, sir.40
While Houston believed that the Mormons needed to accept federal
authority, he doubted they intended rebellion. He claimed that the
impending war against the Mormon rebellion was a thinly veiled effort
to build up a large, standing army. He adamantly persisted in his opinion
that a large standing army could not conquer Utah, and suggested that a
volunteer force could better deal with the Mormon situation.41
While such language seems to infer that Houston wanted to invade the
Utah Territory, his call for volunteers would actually derail the president’s
bill by denying him the authority to recruit additional regular troops. Any
further action would require the bill to retur n to the House of
Representatives.This would provide an important delay which could allow
the organization of a commission to investigate the extent of Mormon
rebellion in the territory. This was in keeping with his discussion with
Bernhisel two weeks earlier, when he voiced support of such a commis-
sion. Rather than seem too sympathetic towards the Mormons, however,
Houston focused his attack on the raising of additional troops for the Utah
campaign.The day ended without a vote.
38
New York Herald, March 2, 1858.
39
John M. Bernhisel to Brigham Young, January 17, 1858, LDS Church History Library.
40
Sam Houston, The Writings of Sam Houston, 1813-1863, ed. Amelia W.Williams and Eugene C. Barker
(Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1941) 6:471. The entire speech can be found in the Congressional
Globe, 35th Cong., 1st sess., Part 1, 1857-1858, pp. 492-97.
41
Houston, Writings, 483.
73
On February 10, 1858, President Buchanan again hoped for a positive
vote on his Army Bill. As the debate ensued, Houston was accused of not
only trying to defeat the bill, but also attempting to reduce the ranks of the
existing military. The old Texan rose to his own defense, claiming once
again that he preferred volunteers be recruited rather than regular troops.42
For the first time though, he raised the issue that the president’s appointees
may have actually started the whole affair.43 While discussing the efficiency
of using volunteers for short campaigns, he added:
if war be necessary; but I doubt whether, unfortunately, men have not been there in
former times who were worse than the Mormons themselves, and whose moral texture
and complexion might reflect disgrace upon the Mormons. It may be that such persons
incited these men to desperation, and led to the statements which have induced the
present Executive to act as he has done, when, perhaps there would not have been a
necessity for that action if the truth had been before him.44
Houston’s attack now focused on President Buchanan, creating quite a
stir in the Senate chambers. This, along with Houston’s poor characteriza-
tion of the standing army, continued to make him the target of considerable
criticism.
The following day, Senator Jefferson Davis rose in an angry invective
against Houston. Once again, Houston was on the defense. He tried to
explain his position on volunteers yet another time. Then turning to his
characteristic use of levity to diffuse hostile situations, he made a joke
about the Utah campaign.
These are my views in relation to this emergency, and I am as anxious to see the coun-
try quiet as any one. I think that volunteers, actively, sprightly, animated young men,
going to that country, would be the best means of breaking up the Mormons. When
they get there they will feel that they are cut off from the rest of the country, and be
pleased to settle there. They will take wives from amongst the Mormons, and that will
break up the whole establishment; it will take away their capital.45
The Congressional Globe made note of the laughter that filled the Senate
following Houston’s remark.
As far as charges that the Native Americans were collaborating with the
Mormons, Houston chastised his fellow congressmen. Referencing the
brutal military policy toward the Native Americans, he claimed:
. . . it has driven them to the Mormons; they are their allies. Why? Because they were
killed when they wanted peace. Because the Mormons have not committed a corre-
sponding wrong on them, they are the allies of the Mormons. They will always go
where friendship and justice are accorded to them.46
42
Ibid., 492. Sam Houston’s speech can be found in its entirety in the Congressional Globe, Part 1, 1857-
1858, pp. 646-47.
43
For examples of federal officials giving misinformation to President James Buchanan see William P.
MacKinnon, “The Buchanan Spoils System and the Utah Expedition: Careers of W. M. F. Magraw and
John M. Hockaday” Utah Historical Quarterly 31 (Spring 1963): 127-50.
44
Houston, Writings, 492-93.
45
Ibid., 504. This speech can be found in its entirety in the Congressional Globe, Part 1, 1857-1858, pp.
669-73.
74
SAM HOUSTON AND THE UTAH WAR
46
Houston, Writings, 507.
47
Both Houston and the Mormons had an inconsistent record in dealing with Native Americans.
Houston had brutally fought the Creek Nation during the War of 1812, but lived among and was adopted
by the Cherokee Nation. For the complex relationship between the Mormons and Native Americans see
Howard A. Christy, “Open Hand and Mailed Fist: Mormon-Indian Relations in Utah, 1847-52,” Utah
Historical Quarterly 46 (Summer 1978): 216-35; Sondra Jones, “Saints or Sinners? The Evolving Perceptions
of Mormon-Indian Relations in Utah Historiography,” Utah Historical Quarterly 72 (Winter 2004): 19-46;
and Ronald W. Walker, “Toward a Reconstruction of Mormon and Indian Relations, 1847-1877,” BYU
Studies 29 (Fall 1989): 23-42.
48
Houston, Writings, 521. The speech can be found in its entirety in the Congressional Globe, Part 1,
1857-1858, pp. 873-75.
49
Ibid., 522-23.
50
Ibid., 525.
75
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
51
For details related to the Mormon military operations in the Utah War, see Leonard J. Arrington,
Brigham Young:American Moses (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 250-71.
52
Houston, Writings, 524-25.
53
Ibid., 526-27.
76
SAM HOUSTON AND THE UTAH WAR
54
Sam Houston to Margaret Houston, February 26, 1858, in Sam Houston, The Personal Correspondence
of Sam Houston, Volume IV: 1852-1863, ed. Madge Thornall Roberts (Denton: University of North Texas
Press, 1996) 4: 286. See also New York Times March 3, 1858, and Washington Evening Star, March 26, 1858.
55
Poll and Hansen,“Buchanan’s Blunder,” 131.
56
MacKinnon,“Utah Expedition of 1857-58,” 1150; Moorman, Camp Floyd, 38-50.
57
Houston, Writings, 466, and the Congressional Globe, Part 1, 1857-1858, pp. 492-97.
58
Sam Houston to Margaret Houston, March 1, 1858, in Houston, The Personal Correspondence 290.
77
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
59
Haley, Sam Houston, 365-94 covers his short term as Texas governor.
60
Ibid., 403-405.
78
The Spencer-
UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Pike Affair
BY RICHARD W. SADLER
A
t noon on August 11, 1859, an assailant shot and mortally
wounded U. S. Army Sergeant Ralph Pike on a crowded Salt
Lake City street. Thirty years later, Howard Orson Spencer, the
victim of a brutal attack by the Camp Floyd soldier was tried
and found innocent in a civilian court of the murder of Pike. Known as the
Spencer-Pike affair, the events of 1859 were part of the larger Utah War
that began in1857 when United States President James Buchanan ordered
federal troops to Utah to escort Alfred Cumming, Brigham Young’s
replacement as territorial governor.1
After spending a cold and difficult winter Daniel Spencer, uncle to Howard
at Camp Scott in western Wyoming, the sol- O. Spencer and on whose Rush
diers, under the command of Col. Albert Valley ranch the encounter with
Sidney Johnston, marched through Salt Lake Ralph Pike took place.
Richard W. Sadler is a Fellow of the Utah State Historical Society and Dean of the School of Social and
Behavioral Sciences,Weber State University.
1
Histories deal briefly or not at all with this incident. Other coverage of this incident can be found in
Charles P. Roland, Albert Sidney Johnston, Soldier of Three Republics (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964);
Harold Schindler, “Is that you Pike? Feud Between Settlers, Frontier Army Erupts and Simmers for Three
Decades,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 2, 1995; Lance D. Chase, “The Spencer-Pike Affair, 1859-90: Method
in Madness,” in Temple, Town, Tradition, The Collected Historical Essays of Lance D. Chase, (Laie: HI: The
Institute for Polynesian Studies, 2000).
79
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
2
An 1859 case of violence that had some relationship to the Spencer-Pike affair was the murder com-
mitted in February of 1859 by Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York State who shot Philip Barton
Key, U.S. District Attorney for the District of Columbia and the son of Francis Scott Key. Representative
Sickles suggested that he was in a jealous rage over the illicit affair in which Key and Sickle’s young wife
Teresa were involved. In the subsequent sensational trial, in which Sickles plead successfully temporary
insanity, he was acquitted. He went on to be a successful soldier in the Civil War including losing a leg at
Gettysburg and being awarded the Medal of Honor.W.A. Swanberg, Sickles the Incredible (Gettysburg: Stan
Clark Military Books, 1991); Nat Brandt, The Congressman Who Got Away With Murder (Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press, 1991).The middle of the nineteenth century also saw political violence (Bleeding Kansas
and the Christiana Affair), economic violence (the Squatters’ Riots in California), racial violence (the Nat
Turner Rebellion and the Texas Slave Insurrection of 1860), race riots (in Cincinnati, New York, and New
Orleans), religious and ethnic violence (the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and the Mountain
Meadows Massacre), personal violence (the assault on Charles Sumner in the United States Senate), assassi-
nations and political murders (Elijah Lovejoy and Abraham Lincoln), and group violence (the vigilante
movements in the West).
80
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
3
Andrew Jenson writes that Howard Spencer was born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, which dif-
fers from family accounts. Andrew Jenson, Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of
Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Salt Lake
City:Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 4:503-504.
4
Orson Spencer (1802-1855) received a degree from Union College at Schenectady, New York, in
1824 and a second degree from the Theological College at Hamilton, New York, in 1829. Orson served
for a time as mayor of Nauvoo, LDS church mission president in Great Britain, and chancellor of both the
University of Nauvoo in Nauvoo and the University of Deseret in Utah. Catharine Curtis Spencer died
on the plains of Iowa in 1846. On Orson and Catharine Spencer and their family see: Aurelia Spencer
Rogers, Life Sketches of Orson Spencer and Others and History of Primary Work (Salt Lake City: George Q.
Cannon and Sons, 1898); Richard W. Sadler, “The Life of Orson Spencer,” (masters thesis, University of
Utah, 1965); Seymour H. Spencer, Life Summary of Orson Spencer, (Salt Lake City: Mercury Publishing
Company, 1964.)
5
Daniel Spencer (1794-1868) converted to Mormonism in 1840 along with his brothers Hiram and
Orson. Daniel was also mayor of Nauvoo for a time, was the first president of the Salt Lake City LDS
Stake (1849-1868) as well as being involved in the Utah Territorial government and the British Mission.
81
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
had a fever sore on his leg, and to his disgust at being kept in camp, he
remarked to his comrades: ‘Boys, if you want to get out of doing anything,
just scratch your leg a little.’ He then rolled up his pants and filled the gap-
ing wound with hot embers. I thought him then the right kind of stuff to
make a soldier.”6
Ralph Pike, a native of Hebron, New Hampshire, whose brother had
died serving in the Mexican War, came west as a corporal in the 10th
Regiment’s I Company. In November 1857, Pike volunteered to go with a
group of soldiers under the command of Captain Randolph B. Marcy to
New Mexico to purchase much needed mules, sheep, and salt for the Utah
bound expedition then wintering at Camp Scott near Fort Bridger in
western Wyoming. The mid-winter march of the Marcy expedition was
particularly grueling and Pike’s participation in this journey may have led
to his promotion to sergeant in 1858.7
In late June 1858, after a truce had been negotiated with Brigham Young
ensuring that the federal army would not meet with armed resistance,
Ralph Pike and his fellow soldiers under the command of recently
Brevetted Brigadier General Albert Sidney Johnston marched through
Echo Canyon, the abandoned streets of Salt Lake City, and on to Cedar
Valley forty miles to the southwest where they established Camp Floyd—
named in honor of President Buchanan’s Secretary of War John B. Floyd.
Rush Valley, located north and west of Camp Floyd, had been explored by
Captain Howard Stansbury in 1849 and 1850, and by Lt. Col. Edward J.
Steptoe in 1854 and 1855.8 Steptoe had designated Rush Valley as a reserve
for federal grazing and in doing so set up some tensions between the federal
government and Mormons who viewed the areas as theirs to use by prior
appropriation.When Steptoe and his troops left the Utah Territory in 1855,
Mormons, including Daniel Spencer, moved in to utilize the land and
resources in Rush Valley. In 1858, following the establishment of Camp
Floyd, the army began to use Rush Valley as grazing ground for its livestock.
At the same time Daniel Spencer asked Governor Cumming for permis-
sion to continue to graze his cattle and sheep in Rush Valley as he had
6
The narrative of Lot Smith is found in LeRoy R. and Ann W. Hafen, Mormon Resistance, A
Documentary Account of the Utah Expedition, 1857-1858 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005), 220-
46. For accounts of the Utah War see Donald Moorman and Gene A. Sessions, Camp Floyd and the
Mormons, The Utah War (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992); Norman F. Furniss, The Mormon
Conflict, 1850-1859 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966); Harold D. Langley, ed., To Utah with the
Dragoons and Glimpses of Life in Arizona and California, 1858-1859 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press, 1974); Eugene E. Campbell, Establishing Zion, the Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869
(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988).
7
Information on Ralph Pike comes from correspondence with William P. MacKinnon in the author’s
possession.
8
Rush Valley, located south of the city of Tooele and Tooele Valley, is thirty miles long from north to
south and seventeen miles wide at the widest point. It is distinguished by the presence of Rush Lake
which was formed when Lake Bonneville laid down a lake bar which interdicted any natural drainage
from Rush Valley to the Tooele Valley. Rush Lake in the 1850s was about 1.5 miles in length and with its
surroundings provided a supply of water and good grazing ground. Ouida Blanthorn, A History of Tooele
County (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society and Tooele County Commission, 1998), 15-16.
82
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
done for more than three years. Cumming wrote Johnston in October
1858, asking that Spencer be allowed to continue his grazing rights in
Rush Valley, an arrangement to which the general apparently agreed.9
Conflict intensified between the army and the Mormons as both grazed
their herds in Rush Valley during the winter of 1858-59.With the approval
of both Cumming and Johnston to continue to graze his livestock in Rush
Valley, Spencer added animals owned by Erastus Snow, Jacob Gates, and J.C.
Little to the Rush Valley herds. He also, without approval, enlarged struc-
tures and corrals. Furthermore, George Reeder, Spencer’s chief herdsman,
was accused of illegally selling locally produced whiskey, known as “Valley
Tan,” to the soldiers. These alleged misdeeds may have been reasons that
Spencer was ordered to remove his herds from Rush Valley by mid-April
1859. As spring approached, soldiers began to move throughout Rush
Valley to encourage Mormons to remove their animals before the mid-
April deadline.As the troops pushed, Mormon herders resisted.
On March 21, 1859, Howard Spencer and Al Clift left Salt Lake City
with directions to begin to move the Mormon owned animals north out of
Rush Valley. Clift and Spencer spent the night at Daniel Spencer’s ranch at
the point of West Mountain, and reached the Spencer ranch in Rush Valley
the following afternoon where they were met by soldiers who ordered
Spencer and Clift to move their herds from the valley that very afternoon.
When Howard Spencer maintained that three weeks remained before they
were obligated to remove the livestock, the argument intensified and angry
words gave way to violent action.
Al Clift, an eyewitness to the event, recounted to Brigham Young and
others what transpired. His report was recorded by Wilford Woodruff in his
diary:
...They [the soldiers] told Spencer He Could not stay there over night.This appeared to
be an officer. Howard Spencer told him that the House belonged to him & he should
stay there over night.The soldiers then went away & returned with about a dozen men
in all. The officer told Spencer He should not Stay there over night. Spencer said He
would & got off his horse & went through the first Carall into another Carrall whare
his food was & the man that seemed to Command the soldiers rode up to him on
Horse back & took the gun by the brich & struck him over the Head by the barrel
with all his might across the side of the head and laid his [head] open and he fell dead
to all appearance. He straitened himself out as he fell.10
Ralph Pike attacked Howard Spencer with the butt of his musket, which
shattered the pitchfork in Spencer’s hands and fractured Spencer’s skull.
Bleeding and unconscious, Spencer collapsed to the ground. Mormon
9
Letters from Alfred Cumming to Albert Sidney Johnston, October 8, 1858, and March 24, 1859, in
the Mrs. Mason Barret Collection of Albert Sidney and William Preston Johnston Papers, Manuscripts
Division, Howard Tilton Memorial Library, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. Copies of these
letters are in the Donald R. Moorman Collection, Stewart Library,Weber State University, Ogden.
10
Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal,1853-1898 (Midvale: Signature Books, 1984), 5:312-
13.
83
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
herders, Bishop Luke Johnson from nearby St. John, and army physician
assistant Sergeant Charles E. Brewer rendered assistance.11 Spencer was
carried to a nearby shelter where throughout the night he drifted between
life and death. In his report about the incident Brewer wrote:
In being called to see him I found that a small part of his skull had been fractured by a
severe blow. When first seen his symptoms were those of conprelsion [sic] of the hair,
his pulse full slow and irregular accompanied by jactitation and spasms of the limbs, his
breathing deep and slow with puffing of the cheeks. Indicative of threatening paralysis;
no part of his body was however paralysed and he was perfectly conscious. On a more
minute examination I found a small fragment of the cranium pressing upon the brain;
this fragment being cut down upon and elevated by proper instruments, the pressure
was removed and he almost immediately felt relieved, both heard his friends expressing
great satisfaction at the relief afforded.12
Brewer recommended that Spencer be moved to Camp Floyd, but the
Mormons refused. Shortly after the altercation, Al Clift rode to Salt Lake
City to inform Daniel Spencer, Brigham Young, and others about the seri-
ousness of Howard’s injuries. Brigham Young sent his carriage to retrieve
Howard. George Boardman Spencer, Howard’s younger brother, his uncle
Daniel Spencer, and Dr. S. L. Sprague hurriedly traveled to the Rush Valley
ranch to recover Howard. On March 23, the party reached Rush Valley and
transported Howard that evening to the Spencer ranch at the point of the
West Mountain.The following day Margaret Spencer, married to Howard’s
cousin Charles, rode in the wagon in an effort to comfort Howard during
the day-long rough and difficult journey to Salt Lake City.
Mormons, the army, and civilian officials responded to the news of the
attack differently. Wilford Woodruff ’s reaction to the altercation in Rush
Valley mirrored the feelings of most Mormons. On March 21, following dis-
cussions with Brigham Young,Woodruff noted in his diary that the troops at
Camp Floyd were being “sent into our Cities to slay the People” and noted
that Howard Spencer’s injuries seemed a fulfillment of prophecy. Woodruff
added that the situation might lead to further bloodshed. “Unless the Lord
wards off the blow it looks as though we were to have war & Boodshed.
[sic] Our Enemies are determined on our over throw as far as possible. But I
have faith to believe that the Lord will protect us as he has done.”13
The Spencer-Pike altercation brought different responses and assessments
11
Aurelia Spencer Rogers suggests that Brewer tried to poison her brother, see Rogers, Orson Spencer,
182-84. Luke Johnson had been an early Mormon convert and one of the original Mormon Twelve
Apostles. He was excommunicated from the church in 1838, and later rejoined the church in Nauvoo, and
in 1858 settled St. John. Johnson died in 1861 at the Salt Lake City home of his brother-in-law, Orson
Hyde. Sgt. Charles E. Brewer penned a description and analysis of Howard Spencer’s injuries and the con-
frontation in a two page letter to Colonel Charles F. Smith, 10th Regiment Infantry Camp Floyd, U.T.
Copy of the Brewer letter is in the Moorman Collection, Stewart Library, Weber State University. March
23, 1859.
12
Brewer to Smith, March 23, 1859. Wilford Woodruff reported that he was with Brigham Young
when the news of the Spencer-Pike altercation reached him on March 23, 1859. Kenney, Wilford Woodruff’s
Journal, 5:312-15.
13
Kenney, Wilford Woodruff Journal, 5: 313.
84
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
14
Cumming to Johnston, March 24, 1859, Moorman collection.
85
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
him, it being the fact that armed bodies of the Mormons stand prepared to dispute the
passage of any minor party or individual not desirable to them to have enter the city.”15
Attempts to capture the shooter were unsuccessful. Pike was carried into
the nearby Salt Lake House and operated on in an unsuccessful attempt to
save his life. Pike clung to life for three days, but before he died on August
14, he identified his assailant as Howard Spencer.
Pike’s body was returned to Camp Floyd where hundreds of his fellow
soldiers attended a funeral Mass conducted by Father Bonaventure Keller
and was buried in the Camp Floyd cemetery. The Valley Tan, labeled the
incident “Another Assassination.” In his announcement of Pike’s death,
Brig. Gen. Johnston wrote,“It is with much regret the commanding officer
announces to the regiment the death of that excellent soldier, First
Sergeant Ralph Pike of Company I, late last night, the victim of Mormon
assassination, through revenge for the proper discharge of his duty.”16
Capt.Tracy named Spencer as the assailant and recorded the mood of the
soldiers and officers and the measures their leaders undertook to avoid fur-
ther violence.
The command, officers, and men, seem to be simply exasperated, and were it not for
discipline itself, much more might be said or done by the former.To that pitch, indeed,
have things gone, that extra details of guard have been ordered to prevent the men from
leaving in squads at night, to wreak their vengeance upon whatsoever in the form of
Mormon, or the property of such, may come in their path. The officers, moreover, are
cautioned to more than ordinary vigilance, to see that no breach of order take place.17
Measures were taken to calm Camp Floyd but were not entirely success-
ful as soldiers from Company I, angry and bitter over the murder of their
comrade, raided the nearby Mormon settlement of Cedar Fort and burned
some haystacks. Fortunately, no civilians were injured. Relations between
soldiers and civilians remained strained, especially in Provo and northern
Utah County communities.18
The broad daylight shooting of Pike on Thursday, August 11, 1859, and
15
“The Utah War Journal of Albert Tracy, 1858-1860,” Utah Historical Quarterly 15 (1945): 72-73.
16
The Valley Tan, August 17, 1859, quoted in Moorman and Sessions, Camp Floyd, 256. Harold Schindler
also quotes the newspaper article and makes the assertion that Bill Hickman, noted Mormon gunman, was
involved in helping Spencer get away on the day of the shooting. Hickman in his Confessions mentions
nothing about this Spencer-Pike affair. Schindler also suggests that Spencer’s close friend George
Stringham was nearby at the time of the shooting, see Schindler,“Is That You Pike?”.
17
“Journal of Albert Tracy,” 73.
18
Not all relationships between Mormons and the military were tense. Patience Loader, a Mormon
woman who arrived in Utah in the Fall of 1856 with the Martin Handcart Company, married Sergeant
John Rozsa of the Tenth Infantry from Camp Floyd in the summer of 1858 as he converted to
Mormonism. Sandra Ailey Petree, ed., Recollections of Past Days, The Autobiography of Patience Loader Rozsa
Archer, (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2006) 98-106. John Nay and his wife Thirza were early
Mormon settlers of Cedar Fort. In the Fall of 1858, Corporal James Haven (age twenty-six) began to reg-
ularly visit Thirza Nay (age forty-five) who had been married to John Nay for twenty years and had borne
nine children in their relationship. Thirza after becoming involved in “familiar intimacy” with Corporal
Haven, ran off with and married him. The family relationships are described in Joan Nay, Beth Breinholt,
and Joy Stubbs, The Nay Family in Utah and the West, A History of John Nay Jr., and His wives and children,
(Salt Lake City: privately published, 2002).
86
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
his death the following Sunday, raised questions as to how the shooter
could commit the deed and could get away. Lorenzo Brown reflected some
of the Mormon point of view: “12 August, 1859, Yesterday a U.S.A.
Sergeant Pike was shot while standing in a crowd by some person
unknown who deliberately made his escape although persued [sic] by a
host & strange to say although seen by hundreds no one knew him and no
two gave the same description of him.”19
Hosea Stout commented in his diary about the murder of Ralph Pike
and concluded that it was Spencer who shot Pike because “Pike struck him
over the head with a gun and broke his skull near killing him.”20 A Salt Lake
City grand jury issued a warrant for the arrest of Spencer for the murder of
Pike; however, he was not taken into custody until 1888. The delay of
Spencer’s arrest was the result of the threatening Civil War in the East, the
subsequent abandonment of Camp Floyd by the army in 1861, and public
support for Spencer that allowed him to live a quiet but not hidden life in
Salt Lake City.
Nearly a year after the killing of Pike, Howard married Louise Lucy
Catherine Cross in the Salt Lake Endowment House in April 1860.21 A
year later Howard along with three other men were called to become
members of the high council of the Salt Lake Stake presided over by his
uncle Daniel Spencer.Wilford Woodruff recorded the setting apart of these
four men to the Salt Lake Stake high council:
12 Sunday....We met at the Historians Office at ? past 5 oclok & ordained 4 men to the
High Priesthood & High councillers of this Stake of Zion. Presidet young Blessed
Brother Long. Brother Kimball Blessed Brother [ ]. John Taylor Blessed Brigham
Young jr.W.Woodruff Blessed Howard Sp [enser?] President Young said yes & I ordain
you to kill evry scoundrel that seeks your life & when you Come across such men use
them up.22
Howard Spencer also spent much of 1862 with Lot Smith in Wyoming
helping to guard the overland mail and telegraph routes. He fought Indians,
worked as a night watchman in Salt Lake City for ZCMI, and worked
building the Union Pacific Railroad in Echo Canyon. In 1869-70 and
again in 1877-78 he served LDS church missions to England, spending
much of the time in the London area.
19
Lorenzo Brown, Journal I, 347 in Juanita Brooks, ed., On The Mormon Frontier, the Diary of Hosea Stout
(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press and the Utah State Historical Society, 1964), 2:701, fn. 62.
20
Ibid. 701-702
21
The couple had five girls and one boy. In 1875, Spencer married twenty-year old Persis Ann Brown
and they had two sons and three daughters. In 1877, Howard married twenty- year old Asenath Emmeline
Carling and they had five sons and twelve daughters. Elda P. Mortensen, compiler and editor, Isaac V.
Carling Family History (Provo: Printed by J. Grant Stevenson, 1965).
22
Kenney, Wilford Woodruff, 5:573. On the Salt Lake Stake and its organization see Lynn M. Hilton, ed.,
The Salt Lake Stake, 1847-1972 (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing Company,1972). Howard Spencer is listed
as serving fourteen years on the stake high council. His cousin Claudius Spencer and his brother-in-law
Brigham Young Jr. who had married his sister Catharine Curtis Spencer in 1855 also served with him part
of the time.
87
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
23
On the settlement and development of Orderville, Long Valley and Kane County, see, Martha
Sonntag Bradley, A History of Kane County, (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society and Kane
County Commission, 1999) 103-29. Howard Spencer’s role in the Long Valley settlements is also dealt
with in Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox and Dean L. May, Building the City of God, Community &
Cooperation Among the Mormons (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976). Spencer was proud of the
success of the United Order in the Long Valley settlements and in 1875 and 1876 he attended a number of
meetings in St. George where he often spoke about the success of the United Order in the Long Valley
settlements. See A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, editors, Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan:
Utah State University Press, 1980), 1: 409, 422, 433.
24
President Grover Cleveland appointed John Walter Judd an associate territorial Supreme Court judge
of the Utah Territory where he served from 1888 to1893. Judd was born in 1839 in Gallatin, Sumner
County, Tennessee, and during the Civil War he served as a cavalryman in the Confederate army. In 1893
Judd was appointed as a U.S. District Attorney for the Territory of Utah and served until Utah became a
state. In 1896 he returned to Tennessee where he taught law at Vanderbilt University until his death in
1919. Clifford L. Ashton, The Federal Judiciary in Utah, (Salt Lake City: Utah State Bar Foundation, 1988),
45-46.
25
LeGrand Young was born in Nauvoo, Illinois, December 27, 1840, the son of Joseph and Jane Adeline
Young. He attended the common schools in Salt Lake City, later graduated from the law department of
the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and was admitted to the Utah Territorial Bar in 1870. Joseph L.
Rawlins was born in 1850 in Mill Creek, Salt Lake County, and attended Dr. John Park’s school at Draper.
He later attended the University of Deseret from 1869 to1871, and the University of Indiana from 1871 to
1873. Joseph L. Rawlins was professor of mathematics and Latin at the University of Deseret. He studied
law in Salt Lake City and was admitted to the Utah Bar in 1874. A year later, he formed a partnership
with Ben Sheets. Rawlins served as a delegate from the Utah Territory to the House of Representatives
from 1892 to 1895. He introduced and helped to procure the passage of the bill under which Utah was
admitted to statehood in 1896. He was elected U.S. Senator from Utah in 1897, serving from 1897 to
1903. Arthur Brown was a non-Mormon attorney from Nevada who later became a leader in the
Republican Party being elected along with Frank J. Cannon, as Utah’s first United States Senators.
88
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
89
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
pistol,” he saw Spencer run from the area of the Salt Lake House where
Pike had been shot. Phillips testified that Spencer and his friends Hickman,
Stringham, Luce, and Steve Taylor had planned the shooting and that the
four friends had acted to cause confusion following the shooting in order
for Spencer to make his escape.The prosecution produced no eyewitnesses
to the shooting but relied principally on Pike’s deathbed statement naming
Spencer as his assailant to carry its case with the jury.
Arthur Brown made the opening statement for Spencer’s defense during
the Wednesday afternoon session of the trial. While the prosecution had
avoided discussion of the earlier events in Rush Valley, Brown gave an
extensive recounting of the March 1859 attack on Spencer by Pike in
Rush Valley. Spencer had been “rendered partially insane” by the blow from
Pike and “his skull was crushed in and his brains oozed out.”26 Brown’s
opening statement outlined the defense strategy—neither Spencer nor any
of his friends were the shooter, Spencer was not in the area during the day
of the shooting, Spencer was not the same person he had been before the
attack by Pike, and if he had shot Pike it was not premeditated but a rash
act by an insane victim. Ten witnesses, all family, friends, and medical doc-
tors testified that Spencer had become unstable following the altercation in
Rush Valley with Pike, that he had not fully recovered from the beating.
Defense witnesses presented on Wednesday afternoon included Claudius V.
Spencer, George Reeder, Elijah Seamons, Mrs. Margaret Spencer, Dr. W.F.
Anderson, Mrs. Martha Spencer, Dr. Benedict, Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Joseph F.
Richards, and Dr. Bascombe.27
The next day George Boardman Spencer, brother to the defendant, testi-
fied that he was with his brother Howard all day on August 11, 1859, and
that Howard was not and could not have been involved in the shooting.
George noted that after the Rush Valley incident Howard became irritable
and brusque and that he never fully recovered from the attack. Other
defense witnesses included Orlando F. Herron and William Brown who
testified as eyewitnesses to the Pike shooting that Howard was not the
shooter but instead was someone they did not know. Further defense
witnesses on Thursday included Vincent Shurtliff, Hiram B. Clawson,
Thomas Jenkins, Mrs. Katherine S.Young, and Mrs. Ellen S. Clawson.28 All
testified to Howard’s weakened condition following the Pike attack and
that he never fully recovered mentally from the beating. Howard Spencer
26
Deseret Evening News, May 8, 1889, Salt Lake Tribune, May 9, 1889, and Salt Lake Herald, May 9, 1889.
27
Claudius V. Spencer, son of Daniel Spencer, was Howard Spencer’s cousin. George Reeder was the
Spencer’s herdsman on the Rush Valley ranch in 1859. Mrs. Margaret Spencer was the wife of Howard’s
cousin Charles Spencer, son of Hiram Spencer. Margaret was born in England in 1830, married Charles in
Salt Lake City in 1857, resided on Daniel Spencer’s ranch at the north end of the Oquirrh Mountains. She
held Howard Spencer’s wounded head during the trip from the ranch to Salt Lake City in March 1859.
28
Hiram B. Clawson was a substantial businessman in Salt Lake City and husband to Howard’s sister
Ellen (Mrs. Ellen S. Clawson, who also testified). Katherine S. Young was Howard’s sister and wife of
Brigham Young, Jr. who was at this time a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
90
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
did not testify in his own behalf as his attorneys maintained that he did not
recall any subsequent events following the brutal beating by Pike.The
defense then rested its case.
The prosecution called two medical doctors—Dr. J.M. Dart and a Dr.
Ewing—as rebuttal witnesses to counter the defense testimony that
Spencer suffered a permanent diagnosable weakened mental condition
caused by Pike’s blows.
Beginning Thursday afternoon and continuing Friday morning,
Spencer’s three attorneys offered their closing arguments. Joseph Rawlins
asserted that the prosecutors had not proven their case and that the testi-
mony of prosecution witnesses could not be reconciled. LeGrand Young
followed Rawlins and recalled the tense and violent years of 1858 and
1859.
It had been said that Pike was under arrest but who were his custodians? His own
underlings. He was an armed prisoner in the custody of men under his own command.
What a satire on the law to say that he was in the hands of the law! Is it any wonder
that the people said justice would not be done? Would it be strange if Spencer was fired
by the torture of his wound and in his demented condition grew frenzied and brought
retributive justice to the boastful sergeant who had committed the cowardly assault.
Usually villains have some soft spot, but this dog did not even have that. The cowardly
wretch had Spencer thrown on the damp ground until a more humane officer ordered
a change. And then when Pike was brought in he was permitted to go on parade with
his subordinates, an armed man, flaunting in the face of his victim the position he was
in, and boastful of what he had done. Would not a sane man have become uncontrol-
lable under such circumstances? In those days men carried pistols because the law did
not afford them protection...Men were justified in defending themselves if the law did
not protect them. 29
At this juncture Judge Judd asked Young: “Do you say the revolver was
above the law?” Young with great enthusiasm and standing before Judge
Judd responded: “In those times and under those circumstances, yes.” The
judge ordered Young to restrain himself, and Young obediently took his
seat. At this emotional climax in the trial, the judge recessed the court until
the afternoon.
Arthur Brown began the Friday afternoon session with his summation.
He maintained that the prosecution had proven neither murder nor
manslaughter.They had also tried to stir up a conspiracy with references to
Bill Hickman in the hope that his name and association with violence in
the territory would influence the jury against Spencer. Brown argued that
the defense’s presentation was superior to that offered by the prosecution
and that the prosecution failed to show that Spencer had killed Pike. He
concluded his statement that Spencer experienced periods of temporary
insanity brought on by the blows from Pike’s musket and these periods of
insanity were substantial and real.
29
Salt Lake Herald, May 11, 1889. For additional coverage of the trial, see Deseret Evening News, May
11, 12, 1889, and Salt Lake Tribune, May 11, 1889.
91
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
District attorney Peters made the closing argument for the prosecution
noting that there was a conspiracy to kill Pike and that Spencer was
involved in the conspiracy. Peters closed by stating that there was indeed
conflict between the testimony of the prosecution and the defense witness-
es, but that he believed the prosecution witnesses were more credible.
Following Peters arguments, Judge Judd gave meticulous and lengthy
instructions to the jury. They were to be the exclusive judges of the testi-
mony, but should not allow the statements about Howard Spencer’s insanity
to influence the case.With those instructions fresh on their minds, the jury
retired from the courtroom at 3 p.m. After the jury left the courtroom,
Arthur Brown, speaking for the defense, made numerous objections to the
judge’s instructions to the jury—especially those relating to the issue of
Spencer’s sanity.
At nine o’clock on Saturday morning, May 11, 1889, John M.Young, the
jury foreman, informed the judge that they had reached a verdict. A half-
hour later the jury members filed into the courtroom and took their seats.
When the clerk read the verdict of not guilty applause erupted in the
crowded courtroom. Judge Judd promptly checked the demonstration and
then voiced his displeasure to the jurors:
Gentlemen of the jury. In the verdict that you have rendered you have doubtless done it
honestly. But if this is not a case of murder speaking from a practice of over twenty-five
years I have never seen one in a court of Justice. I am now of the opinion that Brother
Young was exactly right in his opinion in argument to the jury when he said that the
law in courts of justice in this country, was no protection.You may now be discharged.30
In a lengthy Sunday morning editorial under the headline “Farce
Follows Tragedy,” the Salt Lake Tribune concluded that although insanity
had been presented as a major factor in the case, it was a screen to hide
Spencer’s guilt. “The facts of the case were that Spencer was an old time
blood-atoner. He was in perfect accord with those other lambs HICK-
MAN, LUCE, STRINGHAM, TAYLOR, and the rest.” To the Tribune the
real villain in the case was the Mormon church and its leadership and its
teachings in the decade of the 1850s.31
With an alternate view, the Sunday morning Salt Lake Herald noted:
We doubt that there is more than one fair-minded and honest man in the territory who
does not agree perfectly with the jury in the HOWARD SPENCER case. The solitary
exception seems to be Judge Judd, and we think the reasons why he occupys the lonely
position is because he doesn’t understand the case...Killings are not always willful mur-
ders. They are sometimes excusable, sometimes justifiable, and sometimes praiseworthy.
This assertion is based on law, justice, and common sense. It seems to us that if there
were ever an instance of justifiable or excusable taking of human life that was the case
when HOWARD SPENCER shot Sergeant Pike...all the jurors will know that the
public, almost without exception, are with them in acquitting the defendant.32
30
Ibid.
31
Salt Lake Tribune, May 12, 1889.
32
Salt Lake Herald, May 12, 1889.
92
THE SPENCER-PIKE AFFAIR
The Spencer-Pike affair and the events surrounding it from Rush Valley
to Salt Lake City in 1859, and then the trial of Howard Orson Spencer
thirty years later provides a glimpse of attitudes and actions that character-
ized Mormon-Federal relations during the difficult years of the Utah War
and its aftermath. Furthermore, the 1889 jury decision finding Spencer
innocent reveals an ambivalence about law and order that existed in many
parts of the country as well. Brigham Young’s 1861 statement recorded by
Wilford Woodruff in the 1889 Salt Lake Herald indicate that Spencer did
kill Pike. However, two questions remain—who posted Spencer’s six thou-
sand dollar bail, and who financed the first-rate set of four lawyers who
defended Spencer in his May 1889 trial? It appears that Mormon church
leaders and members did not want Spencer to be convicted of
murder.33
Vindicated, Howard Spencer quietly returned to beautiful and isolated
Long Valley where for the remaining three decades of his life he farmed
and ranched while render ing community and church
service. He died at the age of seventy-nine on March 4, 1918, after an
accidental fall from a bridge over the Virgin River in Glendale—nearly
sixty years after the encounter with Ralph Pike in Rush Valley.
33
As noted, Hiram Clawson and Brigham Young Jr. were both married to Howard Spencer’s sisters.
Hiram Clawson was also married to two of Brigham Young’s daughters and had served as Brigham Young’s
private secretary. Both Clawson and Young had access to money and influence and both were very inter-
ested in seeing Spencer found innocent.
93
BOOK REVIEWS
NEARLY A DECADE after his death comes another book of Leonard Arrington
essays. Offered fondly and optimistically by editors Reid Neilson and Ronald
Walker Reflections of a Mormon Historian is composed mainly of Arrington articles;
two previously unpublished, and twelve that have done earlier service. An extraor-
dinary collection of photos is offered along with a “chronology” of Arrington’s life
borrowed from the Arrington Papers Register at Utah State University Library.
Joining the editors in the prefatory material are Susan Arrington Madsen whose
“foreword” is brief but intimate, and David Whittaker. The latter’s “Arrington
Bibliography” runs to thirty-five pages, and lists approximately fifty-eight books,
monographs and pamphlets, three hundred forty-three articles and chapters in
books, as well as forty-nine reviews, and eighty addresses and duplicated papers. A
quick glance at the articles suggests that a large portion of them are on Mormon
topics but that quite a number of important titles are in economic, agricultural,
and state and regional history; other fields upon which Arrington’s reputation rest-
ed. The book and monograph titles appear to be about equally divided between
Mormon history and his other interests. Here, however, the more important titles
fall in the religious history category, yet, considering the peculiarities of Mormon
culture, Arrington’s approach might simultaneously be considered to have been
secular if not indeed general history as suggested by Dale Morgan’s comment in a
1959 review that Great Basin Kingdom went a fair piece “on the road toward being
a ‘general history’” of Utah.
The editors’ input also includes Walker’s nostalgic salute, “Mormonism’s ‘Happy
Warrior.’” This essay summarizes Arrington’s role in jump-starting the New
Mormon History movement, a professionalized and vastly invigorated Mormon
interest in historical scholarship, and the LDS church’s experiment with profes-
sionalized history in the 1970s and 1980s. It also notes the rise of a modest
critique of Arrington’s work within the movement. The editors’ “preface” focuses
on the New Mormon History elements of Arrington’s career and notes his
“determination” to substitute a “middle way” for the defensive institutionalism of
much previous Mormon history. They also note a “less parochial…[more] inter-
cultural spirit” in the current development of “Mormon Studies programs” and
“conferences,” and in mounting interest at “prestigious presses” which lead them
to offer these essays because they address the “how” of Mormon history and
especially because they are “prologue” to “challenges” inherent in this broadening
approach. (16-17)
Like the title, the organization of Arrington’s essays reflects the editors’ primary
interest in Mormon studies. They arrange them in three parts: (1) biography,
94
BOOK REVIEWS
95
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
BY DEFINITION, the word “reclaim” means to restore, turn from error, or take
back. Jennifer Denetdale proclaims, “as the first Diné with a Ph.D. in history” (xi),
that her mission is to “critiqu[e] works that refuse to acknowledge the colonial
nature in which we continue to live and then advanc[e] studies that privilege
Diné worldview” for the betterment of Navajo communities and a true restora-
tion of their history.(45) In this book, a result of her doctoral studies, she has two
objectives: “I intend to examine existing histories that focus on Manuelito [her
great, great, great grandfather] and pay little attention to Juanita [Manuelito’s wife]
in order to demonstrate that much of what has been written about Navajos by
non-Navajos reflects American biases . . .” and “second[ly] to demonstrate that
Navajos perceive their own past differently” because of a cultural belief system
based on oral tradition.(7) This “anti-colonial” theme, constantly restated through-
out, is the axe being ground.The question then becomes how sharp the blade and
what is going to be chopped.
The bulk of the book’s content is actually a review of the literature surround-
ing who should write about Native people. The author provides an exhaustive
array of authors who feel that one has to be a native (not necessarily from the
same culture) to be successful. While “Western cultural constructions have served
to keep structures of inequalities and injustices entrenched....Native scholars have
declared our intellectual endeavors should support Native sovereignty.”(14,18) An
historian walks a fine line when writing history for contemporary political pur-
poses. The underlying assumption is “genetic determinism” or the idea that one
has to be of a certain race or a Native-of-some-type in order to really understand.
Consequently, non-Native historians have missed the canoe and are floundering in
the waters of misunderstanding. There are a few clinging to the side that meet
Denetdale’s approval, but none are totally on board.The reason: they do not come
from an oral tradition; therefore, they can’t “get it.” No mention is made of ethno-
history, which has been in full bloom for more than thirty years, during which
scholars from all walks of life have been extremely fruitful in combining culture
and history for clarity of understanding.To recognize this is to remove one of the
straw men.
There are other straw men neatly hewed by the ax.Who is going to argue with
the idea that there should be more Native scholars writing about their culture or
that understanding a people’s religious teachings and cultural metaphors advances
interpretation of historical events or that history written in the past has not been
as culturally sensitive as it is today or that the U.S. government has been less than
stellar in its treatment of Native Americans? These are all handy targets that illus-
96
BOOK REVIEWS
trate Western writing has “been projects of imperialism,” but it also ignores the
tremendous contribution provided by the evil “colonials.”
How big this contribution has been is found in the book’s endnotes and bibliogra-
phy. By my calculation, only 15 percent of her sources are by or from Native
Americans and many of those references were collected by non-Natives. The two
chapters that come closest to the author’s stated objectives are the biographical
account of Manuelito and the stories about Juanita. The Manuelito chapter has 122
endnotes, six of which cite a Navajo source, and half of these are contemporary inter-
views. Nineteen endnotes are from original documents, most of which are cited from
secondary sources; almost the entire chapter is based on secondary sources.
There are two problems with this. The most obvious is that an historian needs
to go to original sources to determine what happened.There is little of that here,
but it does not need to be that way. One six volume series cited, Through White
Men’s Eyes by J. Lee Correll, is a vast collection of primary source documents
surrounding the Long Walk period (1860s) with frequent mention of Manuelito.
No substantive use was made of it to tell an original story or new interpretation.
Instead, there is a rehashing of events from secondary sources (the “colonial”
view), even though scholars already criticized some of these sources for significant
inaccuracy. There is nothing “Navajo” about her rendering of these events. One
might argue that only the written white view now exists, but there are a number
of books based on testimony given by Navajo people about their, or their family’s,
experience during that time. If the Navajo view is the only valid possibility—then
these sources should have been used.
The chapter about Juanita raises different problems. Here, the author attempts
to integrate family oral tradition “to rewrite our histories in ways that more accu-
rately reflect our experiences, especially under colonialism.”(129) Again, out of
sixty-three endnotes, five are oral interviews coming from four family members.
They provide small snippets of family recollections about Juanita, which quickly
pushes the author to other topics or personal reflection. Of history, there is little.
An already published short account of the Navajo creation story is a brief foray by
the author to use traditional narrative materials. Remember, her stated purpose is
to provide new insight, showing how some aspect of Navajo history relates to this
type of teaching. There is some discussion about the role of women as defined in
this narrative, but considering that Navajo culture is matrilineal, it is all too short
and general. An endnote explains that the author chose to use an already existing
account to maintain privacy, which is fine, but if her intent is to explain Navajo
thought and interpret historic events from an oral tradition, then she is going to
have to say something new somewhere. The level of the Navajo creation story
presented here is well known, discussed openly by tribal members, and found
extensively in reservation school curriculum.
A final observation; in an attempt to be a pro-Navajo activist who will throw
off the oppressive yoke of colonial rule, Denetdale abandons good ethnohistorical
practices. To borrow a metaphor from a different arena, her writing of history is
97
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
like “playing tennis without a net.” Unwilling to use much of any original written
or oral sources, the author ends up either critiquing other scholars’ writing or pre-
senting history as she would like it to have been. Take for example, the issue of
Manuelito talking about education as a ladder. This is so well known, it has
become a cliché in several forms—the song “Go My Son” with its obligatory sign
language, the Manuelito Scholarships offered by the tribe, and the glossy
brochures that promote education through the picture of a ladder—as examples.
The author does a very good job of explaining all of the second and third hand
accounts of this utterance, but then points out that “no written document testifies
to its authenticity.”(82) Still, it works to promote education, and Manuelito was
very much in favor of that. Should the metaphor, however, be perpetuated? Ask
Mason Weems about George Washington and the cherry tree.
Where does this leave us? Denetdale’s perception of history and the Navajo
people lies at the center of how she chooses to portray them. To her, they are a
down-trodden people held captive by the colonial, capitalist system that has creat-
ed 150 years of enslavement. The white man has created a series of symbols that
he refuses to let go and sees Navajo traditional dress and culture as a reaffirmation
of these stereotypes. I feel differently. I see Navajo people as anything but down
trodden. They certainly have their share of issues, some of which do come from
the capitalist system of the dominant society. But they are hardly passive and heav-
ily exploited. I see them now, as well as in the past, charting their own course and
being successful at it. Their future is bright and very much in their own hands.
Thus, perhaps this is the ultimate straw man—to rewrite (reclaim)a people’s histo-
ry that can stand on its own merits right beside its oral tradition.
ROBERT S. MCPHERSON
College of Eastern Utah/San Juan Campus
Religion, Politics, and Sugar;The Mormon Church, the Federal Government, and
the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, 1907-1921. By Matthew C. Godfrey. (Logan: Utah
State University Press, 2007. vi + 226 pp. Cloth, $34.95.)
98
BOOK REVIEWS
The story Matthew Godfrey tells is essentially this: The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter–day Saints (Mormons), having settled in the Great Basin of Utah in 1847
but having spread into other mountain states, is the dominant ecclesiastical organi-
zation of the region. In the eyes of its critics it is also much more than that—it is
the dominant organization in the region regardless of the field. Not content in
providing only religious direction, the church is desirous of helping improve the
economic circumstances of its people as well. In doing so, the church becomes
involved in establishing and helping grow the sugar beet industry.After all, it could
provide a cash crop for farmers, jobs for others in the processing plants, and
improve the self-sufficiency of its members all at the same time.
With these goals in mind, the church helped organize and finance fledgling
sugar companies. It then became a major stockholder in the consolidation of
several small sugar beet companies into the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company in 1907.
Church president Joseph F. Smith became the new corporation’s first president.
This close relationship continued for most of the corporation’s history. Heber J.
Grant, who succeeded Smith as church president also served as company president.
Following Grant’s death in 1945, George Albert Smith became church president
and president of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company. In turn, David O. McKay
succeeded Smith in the same two positions as well. Furthermore, Charles Nibley, a
self-made millionaire, and Presiding Bishop of the church served as vice president
and general manager for many years until his death in 1931.
The church’s deep involvement in the local economy and private enterprise was
not new. Brigham Young successfully promoted cooperatives through out Mormon
Country in the nineteenth century. But in the twentieth century American attitudes
toward large and powerful corporations were changing. Big business and monopolies
were under attack by intellectuals, farmer organizations, labor, and social activists.At
this time, many industries such as railroads, oil, steel, and sugar were dominated by a
few companies. Enormous pressure was placed on government to break up or at
least regulate the corporations controlling these powerful industries. The national
government responded to the pressure. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890),
Clayton Anti-Trust Act (1914) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914) were all
federal actions to either dismantle or regulate the monopolies.
After months of investigation and hearings, the Federal Trade Commission filed
suit charging the Mormon church with such unfair trade practices as working
against the creation of other sugar beet enterprises that would compete with
Utah-Idaho, and setting sugar prices so high as to “gouge” its own people.
However, the book is more than a story of this lawsuit. Godfrey provides a
fascinating and fair-minded story of how the Mormon church and the national
government clashed over religion, profits, markets, and power during the Progressive
Era.The book is an enjoyable read and provides an excellent analysis of major trends
sweeping across the American landscape in the early twentieth century.
MICHAEL CHRISTENSEN
South Jordan
99
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Bags to Riches:The Story of I.J.Wagner. By Don Gale. (Salt Lake City:The University
of Utah Press, 2007. xx + 202 pp. Cloth, $25.95.)
FROM RECYCLING used burlap bags, bottles, batteries, barrels, and bootleg
stills—no, not theirs—to buying, selling and investing in real estate and businesses,
Isadore Wagner took his family’s bag company from early twentieth-century
poverty to postwar prosperity. In the doing, until his death in 2003 at age eighty-
nine, this Utah native and son of immigrant Jews built his fortune, altered Salt
Lake City’s cityscape, and gave back to the community.
“[He] worried that he might leave the world before his account was in the bal-
ance,” Don Gale writes in his unabashedly delightful book, Bags to Riches:The
Story of I.J.Wagner. A Utah author and broadcaster, Gale parallels the derring-do of
one of Salt Lake City’s “favorite sons” and noted “gadfly” with the city’s coming-
of-age.
I.J. “Izzi” Wagner was a major influence in urban development at a time when
downtown Salt Lake City, riddled with a proliferation of railroad tracks and bill-
boards, was in need of a face-lift. He not only helped eliminate the tracks but, fac-
ing down criticism which went on for decades, reduced the amount of conspicu-
ous signage.
Wagner volunteered on multiple city and community boards. His mother’s sage
advice coupled with his tenacity earned him praise as “the catalyst, advocate, leader,”
and “conscience” behind such projects as the Salt Lake International Airport and the
Salt Palace Convention Center. His charitable bent emphasizing diversity and toler-
ance helped build the Jewish Community Center which bears his name.
Gale writes Wagner’s “word was his bond,” his handshake his contract. In 1990,
that concord coupled with the donated site of his childhood home gave credence
to the Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center.
Izzi’s parents Rose and Harry Wagner were from Northern and Eastern Europe
and arrived in Utah in 1913 with three dollars to their name. Their small adobe
home on 144 West Third South had neither sewer line nor running water and was
surrounded by a brothel, a small hotel, and several street-level bordellos. When
Harry arrived home with used flour sacks in hand, Rose knew they had the
ingredients for a viable business: the Wagner Bag Company.
Izzi hawked out-of-date papers to out-of-towners when he was six years old.
Later, he worked at Maurice Warshaw’s fruit stand. He played the violin, took box-
ing lessons to defend against those intolerant of his ethnicity, and learned how to
dance.When Harry died suddenly in 1932, the family was in debt, and seventeen-
year-old Izzi left his schooling at the University of Utah to take over the company.
Over the years, childhood friends became business partners; successes reinforced
others and much land was bought up around downtown. Wagner Industrial Park
was among the first of its kind in Utah.
During World War II,Wagner joined the Marines. A mosquito bite and malaria
100
BOOK REVIEWS
saved him from becoming a Pacific casualty in the bloody battle of Tarawa. In
1942, he married the love of his life, Mormon vaudeville dancer Jeanné
Rasmussen, and by 1953, his company employed seventy people, produced fifty-
thousand bags a day, and imported millions of yards of burlap from India. When
Wagner Bag Company merged with St. Regis Paper Company in 1960, the
undisclosed amount of money ensured each family member a “comfortable” life.
Bags to Riches, a chronology of Wagner’s verve and experiences, reads like a trib-
ute rather than a scholarly biography.With unbridled enthusiasm for a dear friend,
Gale occasionally tumbles into excessive flattery and repetition. The inclusion of
Wagner’s stereotypic slur about Jews getting the best price is unfortunate.
An ancillary to Gale’s generous portrait is his well-seasoned comprehension of
the complexities of business and its power brokers. Using practical prose, anecdotal
accounts, and musings gleaned from five years of daily conversations with Wagner,
Gale offers rare insight into the waning genre of businessmen who value tzedakah
as well as their millions.A good man, indeed, a good read.
EILEEN HALLET STONE
Salt Lake City
Thunder Over Zion:The Life of Chief Judge Willis W. Ritter. By Patricia F. Cowley
and Parker M. Nielson. (Salt Lake City:The University of Utah Press, 2007.
101
UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
well-respected judges in the country for many years. Traynor was valedictorian,
Ritter salutatorian.
Ritter owed his appointment as a federal judge to Senator Elbert Thomas, an
important mentor who had been Ritter’s political science teacher at the
University of Utah and on whose campaigns Ritter worked tirelessly. When
Tillman Johnson, who had served as the sole federal judge in Utah for thirty-three
years, finally decided to retire at the age of ninety-one,Thomas kept a promise to
nominate Ritter for the post. The difficulties over the nomination, including the
always-difficult religious and political tensions in Salt Lake City, make for a com-
pelling tale.
Thomas, a Democrat and practicing Mormon, was encouraged to appoint John
S. Boyden, who, like Ritter, shared political affiliation with Thomas and, unlike
Ritter, religious affiliation, and was apparently torn in deciding whom to nomi-
nate. According to the biography, recently-elected Arthur V.Watkins, a Republican
and Mormon, employed Ernest Wilkinson and others in an attempt to make sure
that Ritter was not appointed.
It is in the description of confirmation proceedings that the biases of the book
become most evident. Senator Arthur Watkins, “Rube” Clark (LDS church J.
Reuben Clark), Ernest Wilkinson, and John Boyden are all demonized in turn,
using terms that do not do the book justice. Examples include referring to
Watkins and Clark and their “minions,” (89) their “lies”(119), their “clever stratagem
of deception to manipulate the Senate Judiciary Committee”(142) and to Boyden
as “devious,” (104)as the “master manipulator,”(108)and as one who exhibited
“paranoia.”(147)These terms either need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
or toned down. There is little doubt that Watkins and Wilkinson and Clark
used hardball political tactics in an attempt to block an appointment they found
objectionable, but naming chapters 10 and 11 “Smear” and “Watkins’ Folly” is
overstatement.
Chief Judge Ritter’s judicial career, with all its controversies and attainments, is
described at some length, though the controversies are understated. Ritter ulti-
mately is described as one who was an “unyielding, tireless bulwark against
oppression by those in power, secular or religious.” (304) The book does not
always directly address the problem of who would protect attorneys and litigants
from the oppression of Chief Judge Ritter, a man with enormous secular power.
The biographers are not blind to Ritter’s faults, but find greater faults in his antag-
onists.
Ritter appears genuinely to have been brilliant and, in the context of certain
legal concepts, particularly in the criminal area, far ahead of his time. His decisions
were referred often to when the United States Supreme Court afforded defen-
dants important rights and protections that have now become familiar to everyone
in the United States. Not surprisingly, the book’s analysis of Ritter’s important
rulings is excellent.
102
BOOK REVIEWS
103
UTAH STATE
HISTORICAL SOCIETY FELLOWS
THOMAS G.ALEXANDER
JAMES B.ALLEN
LEONARD J.ARRINGTON (1917-1999)
MAUREEN URSENBACH BEECHER
FAWN M. BRODIE (1915-1981)
JUANITA BROOKS (1898-1989)
OLIVE W. BURT (1894-1981)
EUGENE E. CAMPBELL (1915-1986)
C. GREGORY CRAMPTON (1911-1995)
EVERETT L. COOLEY (1917-2006)
S. GEORGE ELLSWORTH (1916-1997)
AUSTIN E. FIFE (1909-1986)
PETER L. GOSS
LEROY R. HAFEN (1893-1985)
JOEL JANETSKI
JESSE D. JENNINGS (1909-1997)
A. KARL LARSON (1899-1983)
GUSTIVE O. LARSON (1897-1983)
BRIGHAM D. MADSEN
CAROL CORNWALL MADSEN
DEAN L. MAY (1938-2003)
DAVID E. MILLER (1909-1978)
DALE L. MORGAN (1914-1971)
WILLIAM MULDER
FLOYD A. O’NEIL
HELEN Z. PAPANIKOLAS (1917-2004)
CHARLES S. PETERSON
RICHARD W. SADLER
MELVIN T. SMITH
WALLACE E. STEGNER (1909-1993)
WILLIAM A.WILSON
104
806457 WINTER 08 Inside Cover 12/5/07 12:57 PM Page 1
Periodicals postage is paid at Salt Lake City, Utah. This publication has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the National Park
Service, under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.
POSTMASTER: Send address change to Utah Historical Quarterly, 300 Rio Grande, Salt This program receives financial assistance for identification and preservation of historic properties under
Lake City, Utah 84101. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The U. S.
Department of the Interior prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
age, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in
any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to:
Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW,Washington, D.C., 20240.