Jump to content

A proven prophecy from Joseph Smith, Jr.


jgoldenrockwell

Recommended Posts

For the skeptics, here's something that you can try.

Tell us where there will be a war in 2028, which will involve your homeland.

Tell us exactly where the war will start, within a 100-mile radius of a given point.

Tell us which issue will be the key reason that the war starts.

Care to try? Joseph did it.

He prophesied the US Civil War, that it would be over the issue of slavery, AND THAT IT WOULD START IN SOUTH CAROLINA. Military historians will tell you that the war should never have started there, that it was "almost accidental," and "nobody could have guessed," because SC just wasn't important enough (even in 1860) to bring the entire South to the battlefield. In 1838, South Carolina was a political backwater, a place somewhere between Georgia and Virginia that made the trip longer between Alexandria and Atlanta. It was little more in 1860.

Yet the war started there, right where Joseph said it would start OVER TWO DECADES EARLIER.

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

Link to comment
Military historians will tell you that the war should never have started there, that it was "almost accidental," and "nobody could have guessed," because SC just wasn't important enough (even in 1860) to bring the entire South to the battlefield. In [1832], South Carolina was a political backwater, a place somewhere between Georgia and Virginia that made the trip longer between Alexandria and Atlanta. It was little more in 1860.

Yet the war started there, right where Joseph said it would start OVER TWO DECADES EARLIER.

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

That's ridiculous. South Carolina was front and center in the 1832 Nullification Crisis.

Link to comment

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

OK -- you list the events in this so-called "predictive prophecy" --

And then I will show you how each one of them was either fully anticipated in

the South Carolina nullification crisis in 1832, (or else, never "came to pass") --

After New Orleans, Charleston, South Carolina was the most important port city

in the American South -- the literary capital of the region -- the banking and

financial center south of Baltimore -- site of America's second largest Jewish group

of that day -- center for southern freemasonry -- a thriving city with a thriving

hinterland. Why demean the people of 1830s South Carolina, by saying that it was

a backwater? If so, then so were Philadelphia and Boston.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

UhOh!:-)

Don't pull the Civil war prophecy on me..

i'm MELting, Melting, melting....:-)

Why not one of the first? Did they sell the BOM copyright?

Did the BOM sell out at $5.00 a copy? odd they had revelations to keep reducing the price:-), now you give it away! <_<

Guess we still need to wait for the $5.00 BOM to return? Will that be in 2028? :P:unsure:

(I really should just go to bed early:-)

Link to comment
Military historians will tell you that the war should never have started there, that it was "almost accidental," and "nobody could have guessed," because SC just wasn't important enough (even in 1860) to bring the entire South to the battlefield.  In [1832], South Carolina was a political backwater, a place somewhere between Georgia and Virginia that made the trip longer between Alexandria and Atlanta.  It was little more in 1860. 

Yet the war started there, right where Joseph said it would start OVER TWO DECADES EARLIER.

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

That's ridiculous. South Carolina was front and center in the 1832 Nullification Crisis.

As one who has made a lifetime study of the Civil War and the antebellum era in the U.S., I can state, unequivocably, that no responsible and educated historian of the era would make a statement like yours. NO ONE envisioned civil war in 1832, nor did anyone really anticipate civil war as late as 1860, for that matter, at least not until the election of Lincoln at the end of the year. Furthermore, even after the commencement of hostilities, and the battle of First Manassas (First Bull Run), no one envisioned for the U.S. Civil War the magnitude and duration of the conflict that followed. Not until the battle of Shiloh in April 1862 did it become evident that the war would be as severe as was prophesied by Joseph Smith in 1832.

One of the most uninformed retorts utilized by LDS critics is to state that, in essence, anyone could have predicted the U.S. Civil War in 1832. It is a preposterous statement, and one that is rooted in ignorance and prejudice, and a desire to deny the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith at all costs.

For not only did Joseph Smith predict the magnitude of the U.S. Civil War (the first truly "modern" war), but he also expanded upon the prophecy and predicted that wars would be poured out upon all nations. Students of history understand the tangible links between the U.S. Civil War, and the Austro-Prussian war that immediately followed, and which set in motion other causal factors that ultimately contributed to both the first and second world wars of the 20th century.

So, in conclusion, it is a facile and baseless assertion that anyone could have predicted civil war in 1832 based on the Nullification Crisis. And even if one were to suggest such a thing at the time, NO ONE could have prophesied in such detail as did Joseph Smith in what is now known as section 87 of the Doctrine & Covenants.

Link to comment
. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

Nevo already mentioned how South Carolina was front-and-center of the nullification crisis in 1832.

Not to mention the fact that, if I recall correctly, the prophecy underwent a bit of doctoring prior to being published to the world.

EVEN SO: I hereby prophesy that an armed conflict will erupt between Israel and Lebanon in 2006 which will lead to many deaths.

Are you impressed with me/Joseph?

Link to comment

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

OK -- you list the events in this so-called "predictive prophecy" --

And then I will show you how each one of them was either fully anticipated in

the South Carolina nullification crisis in 1832, (or else, never "came to pass") --

After New Orleans, Charleston, South Carolina was the most important port city

in the American South -- the literary capital of the region -- the banking and

financial center south of Baltimore -- site of America's second largest Jewish group

of that day -- center for southern freemasonry -- a thriving city with a thriving

hinterland. Why demean the people of 1830s South Carolina, by saying that it was

a backwater? If so, then so were Philadelphia and Boston.

Uncle Dale

Dale, I think you know that I have a high regard for you. But, in my estimation, you could not be more mistaken in your claims. But, I will challenge you to produce references from the antebellum era that support your viewpoints. Find me anyone that predicted civil war in the 1830s, either during or after the Nullification Crisis. Find me anyone that predicted a war of the magnitude suggested in D&C 87. Find me anything that tends to support your statements. I will gladly consider it.

Link to comment
Military historians will tell you that the war should never have started there, that it was "almost accidental," and "nobody could have guessed," because SC just wasn't important enough (even in 1860) to bring the entire South to the battlefield.  In [1832], South Carolina was a political backwater, a place somewhere between Georgia and Virginia that made the trip longer between Alexandria and Atlanta.  It was little more in 1860. 

Yet the war started there, right where Joseph said it would start OVER TWO DECADES EARLIER.

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

That's ridiculous. South Carolina was front and center in the 1832 Nullification Crisis.

As one who has made a lifetime study of the Civil War and the antebellum era in the U.S., I can state, unequivocably, that no responsible and educated historian of the era would make a statement like yours.

So South Carolina was a political backwater in 1832. Thanks for the correction!

Link to comment
Military historians will tell you that the war should never have started there, that it was "almost accidental," and "nobody could have guessed," because SC just wasn't important enough (even in 1860) to bring the entire South to the battlefield.  In [1832], South Carolina was a political backwater, a place somewhere between Georgia and Virginia that made the trip longer between Alexandria and Atlanta.  It was little more in 1860. 

Yet the war started there, right where Joseph said it would start OVER TWO DECADES EARLIER.

. . .now begin the Yabbuts, if any of the skeptics even dare to answer . . .

That's ridiculous. South Carolina was front and center in the 1832 Nullification Crisis.

As one who has made a lifetime study of the Civil War and the antebellum era in the U.S., I can state, unequivocably, that no responsible and educated historian of the era would make a statement like yours.

So South Carolina was a political backwater in 1832. Thanks for the correction!

My argument has nothing to do with the prominence of South Carolina, or the lack thereof. I understand completely the prominent role that South Carolina played in the years preceding actual secession. But the threat of secession was not understood as a prelude to civil war! In fact, I would assert that no president except Abraham Lincoln would have gone to war to preserve the union in 1861. Secession would have resulted in the dissolution of the United States, but it was not envisioned in 1832 that secession would result in civil war, let alone a war of the magnitude that the U.S. Civil War attained. I challenge you to cite anyone in the antebellum era that predicted such a thing, with the exception of Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
My argument has nothing to do with the prominence of South Carolina, or the lack thereof.

In that case it had nothing to do with my post, so why the scolding?

Well, then, apply my so-called "scolding" to those on this thread who are making the argument that anyone could have predicted, in 1832, that civil war was inevitable. Perhaps I misunderstood you as endorsing that viewpoint, if so, my apologies. But there are others on this thread who have suggested it, so I hereby redirect my comments to them.

As an elaboration on my previous points, I offer the following:

In the late 1850s, Hyde prophesied in a public discourse in Salt Lake City that war was about to divide the nation. Mocking reports of his prediction appeared in eastern newspapers. After his comments had been vindicated by the Civil War, Orson Hyde wrote an "I told you so" letter to the editor of the Springfield Missouri Republican. His comments indicate that Joseph Smith's prophecy extended far beyond the Civil War and included an additional, chilling detail of events yet future:
You have scarcely yet read the preface of your national troubles. Many nations will be drawn into the American maelstrom that now whirls through our land; and after many days, when the demon of war shall have exhausted his strength and madness upon American soil, by the destruction of all that can court or provoke opposition, excite cupidity, inspire revenge, or feed ambition, he will remove his headquarters to the banks of the Rhine. (2)

Thus the maelstrom was war itself, rather than solely the American Civil War. Hyde pointed out that the strength of this particular war in America would dissipate and cease, to be followed by a new headquarters of war based in Germany.

If, according to Geisler, war between the North and South was a foregone conclusion, one wonders why these newspapers were so out of touch with common views that they would ridicule Orson Hyde for espousing the same view only a year or two before its fulfillment? Where are the others who recognized and published similar claims? If this were such a common understanding, might not Joseph Smith's critics be on firmer ground if they had even one instance of a similar prediction? (1)

(1) Coin of the Realm: Beware of Specious Specie, Review of Scripture. In The Conterfeit Gospel of Momonism by Norman L. Geisler, Reviewed By: Alma Allred, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000. Pp. 137

Link to comment

Dale, I think you know that I have a high regard for you.  But, in my estimation, you could not be more mistaken in your claims.  But, I will challenge you to produce references from the antebellum era that support your viewpoints.  Find me anyone that predicted civil war in the 1830s, either during or after the Nullification Crisis.  Find me anyone that predicted a war of the magnitude suggested in D&C 87.  Find me anything that tends to support your statements.  I will gladly consider it.

Luckily there are hundreds of old newspaper articles from that era on the web, and

you can read them for yourself --- you do not have to rely upon the later ponderings

of Jacksonian Era historians.

Had Federal troops entered South Carolina, to keep it from succeeding from the

Union -- THAT would have been the beginnings of civil war, then and there.

For several weeks it really did look as though South Carolina would leave the Union,

and that Jackson would have to send in the federal army, to prevent that event from

becoming permanent. It was his stated intention -- to use such force -- that helped

the crisis "turn the corner" and find resolution by less bloody means.

So, yes, people were then afraid of civil war -- though not on the scale of the 1860s,

and not a war which the Union might easily lose. Read the articles for yourself.

The divide betwen slave and non-slave states was just beginning to effect American

national politics at that period. The possibility of the Union being split over that issue

was just beginning to take hold upon our political conscience. Twenty-some years would

pass, before the schism became critical (in "bleeding Kansas," in John Brown's raid,

in the rise of the Republican party, and then in the disaffection of the deep South).

In looking at Smith's prediction, I suppose we must ask ourselves whether a

conflict "beginning in South Carolina" could have esculated into a full-blown civil

war, during the 1830s -- a war that would engulf the world. Probably that scale of

conflict was not then in the offing; so if Smith was envisioning a world war in 1832,

he was going rather beyond the bounds of common consensus.

His so-called "civil war" prediction should, however, be read in the same context as

the opening articles of the 1832 LDS "Evening & Morning Star" and as JS's letter

to the Rochester newspaper of that time -- which, taken altogther, voiced a doctrine

of imminent apocalyptic war.

That did NOT happen -- not in the early 1830s, nor as an outcome of the 1860s.

If the "Living Prophet" of the LDS Church (or one of the recent prior prophets),

has quoted this 1832 text as a message from God, I'd like to read that counsel.

I suppose that if the LDS leaders really thought it were undeniably so; they would

have added it to the LDS D&C many decades ago.

The RLDS once pondered such a canonization -- and then backed away from the

idea -- so it's not in the Reorganized LDS D&C either.

UD

Link to comment

The same prophecy says that after war had been poured out among all nations, that many slaves would turn against their masters.

I've heard this interpreted as the fall of communism beginning in the 80's many times.

Link to comment
The same prophecy says that after war had been poured out among all nations, that many slaves would turn against their masters.

I've heard this interpreted as the fall of communism beginning in the 80's many times.

Or, maybe something out of "Star Gate"???

UD

Link to comment
Luckily there are hundreds of old newspaper articles from that era on the web, and you can read them for yourself --- you do not have to rely upon the later ponderings of Jacksonian Era historians.

But if you did, you would find them saying things like:

  • "The forces of compromise, chilled by the specter of civil war, were already at work -- and Calhoun, in this crisis, finally, the moderate, was playing his part" (Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln [New York: Norton, 2005], 385),
    or
  • "As South Carolina sped toward nullification, possible disunion and civil war, the President countered with several effective actions" (Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson [New York: Twayne Publishers, 1966; New York: HarperCollins, 1999], 152).

Never mind the curious title of William W. Freehling's book, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).

Link to comment

His so-called "civil war" prediction should, however, be read in the same context as

the opening articles of the 1832 LDS "Evening & Morning Star" and as JS's letter

to the Rochester newspaper of that time -- which, taken altogther, voiced a doctrine

of imminent apocalyptic war.

That did NOT happen -- not in the early 1830s, nor as an outcome of the 1860s.

This may be of interest:

And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of blood-shed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation. Pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake, will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of this Land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the land [sic - Lord?], those who have complied with the requisition of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the state of Missourie. Therefore, I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded me to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSc.htm#020233

compare:

Kirtland, January, 4th, 1833.

Mr. Editor,

Sir, Considering the liberal principles, upon which your interesting and valuable paper is published, myself being a subscriber, and feeling a deep interest in the cause of Zion and in the happiness of my brethren of mankind, I cheerfully take up my pen to contribute my mite, at this very interesting and important period.

For some length of time I have been carefully viewing the state of things, as they now appear, throughout our christian land; and have looked at it with feelings of the most painful anxiety, while upon the one hand, beholding the manifest withdrawal of God's Holy Spirit, and the vail of stupidity which seems to be drawn over the hearts of the people; and upon the other hand beholding the judgments of God that have swept, and are still sweeping hundreds and thousands of [our] race, (and I fear unprepared) down to the shades of death. With this solemn and alarming fact before me, I am led to exclaim, "O that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night," &c.

I think that it is high time for a christian world to awake out of sleep, and cry mightily to that God, day and night, whose anger we have justly incurred. Are not these things a sufficient stimulant to arouse the faculties, and call forth the energies of every man, woman, and child, that possesses feelings of sympathy for their fellows, or that is in any degree endeared to the budding cause of our glorious Lord? I leave an intelligent community to answer this important question, with a confession, that this is what has caused me to overlook my own inability, and expose my weakness to a learned world: but, trusting in that God, who has said that these things are hid from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes, I step forth into the field to tell you what the Lord is doing, and what you must do, to enjoy the smiles of your Savior in these last days.

The time has at last arrived when the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has set his hand again, the second time, to recover the remnants of his people, which have been left from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, &c., and from the islands of the sea, and with them to bring in the fulness of the Gentiles, and establish that covenant with them, which was promised when their sins should be taken away. See Romans 11:25, 26, and 27, and also, Jeremiah 31:31, 32, and 33. This covenant has never been established with the house of Israel, nor with the house of Judah, for it requires two parties to make a covenant, and those two parties must be agreed, or, no covenant can be made.

Christ, in the days of his flesh, proposed to make a covenant with them, but they rejected him and his proposals, and in consequence thereof, they were broken off, and no covenant was made with them at that time. But their unbelief has not rendered the promise of God of none effect: no, for there was another day limited in David, which was the day of his power; and then his people, Israel, should be a willing people;-and he would write his law in their hearts, and print them in their thoughts; their sins and their iniquities he would remember no more.

Thus after this chosen family had rejected Christ and his proposals, the heralds of salvation said to them "lo we turn unto the Gentiles," and the Gentiles received the covenant, and were grafted in from whence the chosen family were broken off: but the Gentiles have not continued in the goodness of God, but have departed from the faith that was once delivered to the saints, and have broken the covenant in which their fathers were established: (see Isaiah 24:5,) and have become high minded, and have not feared; therefore, but few of them will be gathered with the chosen family. Has not the pride, high-mindedness, and unbelief of the Gentiles, provoked the Holy One of Israel to withdraw his Holy Spirit from them, and send forth his judgments to scourge them for their wickedness? This is certainly the case.

Christ said to his disciples, (Mark 16:17, and 18,) that these signs should follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up servants, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover: and also, in connexion  with this, read 1st Corinthians 12th chapter. By the foregoing testimonies, we may look at the christian world and see the apostacy there has been from the apostolic platform; and who can look at this and not exclaim, in the language of Isaiah, "the earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant."

The plain fact is this, the power of God begins to fall upon the nations, and the light of the latter day glory begins to break forth through the dark atmosphere of sectarian wickedness, and their iniquity rolls up into view, and the nations of the Gentiles are like the waves of the sea, casting up mire and dirt, or, all in commotion, and they are hastily preparing to act the part allotted them, when the Lord rebukes the nations; when he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and break them in pieces like a potters vessel. The Lord declared to his servants, some eighteen months since, that he was then withdrawing his spirit from the earth; and we can see that such is the fact, for not only the churches are dwindling away, but there are no conversions, or, but very few; and this is not all, the governments of the earth are thrown into confusion and division; and DESTRUCTION, to the eye of the spiritual beholder, seems to be written by the finger of an invisible hand, in large capitals, upon almost every thing we behold.

And now what remains to be done, under circumstances like these? I will proceed to tell you what the Lord requires of all people, high and low, rich and poor, male and female, ministers and people, professors of religion, and non-professors, in order that they may enjoy the Holy Spirit of God to a fulness, and escape the judgments of God, which are almost ready to burst upon the nations of the earth.-Repent of all your sins, and be baptised  in water for the remission of them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and receive the ordinance of the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power, that ye may receive the Holy Spirit of God; and this is according to the Holy scriptures, and the Book of Mormon; and the only way that man can enter into the celestial kingdom. These are the requisitions of the new covenant, or first principles of the gospel of Christ: then "add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity; (or love,) and if these things be in you, and abound, they make you to be neither barren, nor unfruitful, in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Book of Mormon is a record of the fore fathers of our western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God, after having been hid up in the earth for the last fourteen hundred years, containing the word of God which was delivered unto them. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that of Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the land America is a promised land unto them, and unto it, all the tribes of Israel will come, with as many of the Gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new covenant. But the tribe of Judah will return to old Jerusalem. The city of Zion, spoken of by David, in the one hundred and first Psalm, will be built upon the land of America, "and the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to it with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads," and then they will be delivered from the overflowing scourge that shall pass through the land. But Judah shall obtain deliverance at Jerusalem. See Joel 2:32. Isaiah 26:20, and 21st. Jeremiah 31: and 12 Psalms 50:5. Ezekiel 34:11, 12, and 13. These are testimonies, that the good Shepherd will put forth his own sheep, and lead them out from all nations where they have been scattered in a cloudy and dark day, to Zion, and to Jerusalem; besides many more testimonies which might be brought.

And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away, before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquakes will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. The people of the Lord, those who have complied with the requisitions of the new covenant, have already commenced gathering together to Zion, which is in the State of Missouri; therefore I declare unto you the warning which the Lord has commanded me to declare unto this generation, remembering that the eyes of my Maker are upon me, and that to him I am accountable for every word I say, wishing nothing worse to my fellow men than their eternal salvation; therefore, "fear God and give glory to him for the hour of his judgment is come"-Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant, and flee to Zion before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled. Remember these things; call upon the Lord while he is near, and seek him while he may be found, is the exhortation of your unworthy servant,

JOSEPH SMITH, jr.

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v5n21.htm#705

Uncle Dale

Link to comment
But the threat of secession was not understood as a prelude to civil war!  In fact, I would assert that no president except Abraham Lincoln would have gone to war to preserve the union in 1861.  Secession would have resulted in the dissolution of the United States, but it was not envisioned in 1832 that secession would result in civil war, let alone a war of the magnitude that the U.S. Civil War attained.  I challenge you to cite anyone in the antebellum era that predicted such a thing, with the exception of Joseph Smith.

Since you brought this up, and since I hate to turn down a challenge, here you are:

Jackson publicly broadcast his opposition to nullification in the administration's newspaper, the Washington Globe. . . . Shortly after its birth, the newspaper accused John C. Calhoun of driving "the people of South Carolina, and of the whole South, into a league of revolt," and when the nullifiers persisted in their activities, it stepped up the attack, signalling Jackson's identification of nullification with "CIVIL WAR AND DISUNION" and proclaiming his intention to "PRESERVE THE UNION AT EVERY HAZARD."

-- Richard B. Latner, "The Nullification Crisis and Republican Subversion," Journal of Southern History 43 (1977): 20. Quotations in this paragraph in the order cited are from the Washington Globe, March 2, 1831; November 29, 1832; emphasis in original.

Link to comment
Luckily there are hundreds of old newspaper articles from that era on the web, and you can read them for yourself --- you do not have to rely upon the later ponderings of Jacksonian Era historians.

No doubt there are hundreds of old newspaper articles. But what do they say? Not what you think they do.

There is a major misconception at work here, for the so-called Nullification Crisis had nothing to do with the slavery issue, but rather it was an economic conflict whose basis was in what South Carolina deemed to be a punitive tariff on manufactured goods. In response, South Carolina threatened to nullify the federal law.

Had Federal troops entered South Carolina, to keep it from succeeding from the Union -- THAT would have been the beginnings of civil war, then and there.

Poppycock!!!! None of the other southern states supported South Carolina in her opposition to the federal government! South Carolina stood alone! Jackson sent ships to Charleston harbor to intimidate South Carolina, but there was absolutely never any risk of civil war during this crisis! It was little more than a polical poker game. The civil war predicted by Joseph Smith was one with its roots in the slavery issue and whose divisions would be between the

Link to comment
But the threat of secession was not understood as a prelude to civil war!  In fact, I would assert that no president except Abraham Lincoln would have gone to war to preserve the union in 1861.  Secession would have resulted in the dissolution of the United States, but it was not envisioned in 1832 that secession would result in civil war, let alone a war of the magnitude that the U.S. Civil War attained.  I challenge you to cite anyone in the antebellum era that predicted such a thing, with the exception of Joseph Smith.

Since you brought this up, and since I hate to turn down a challenge, here you are:

Jackson publicly broadcast his opposition to nullification in the administration's newspaper, the Washington Globe. . . . Shortly after its birth, the newspaper accused John C. Calhoun of driving "the people of South Carolina, and of the whole South, into a league of revolt," and when the nullifiers persisted in their activities, it stepped up the attack, signalling Jackson's identification of nullification with "CIVIL WAR AND DISUNION" and proclaiming his intention to "PRESERVE THE UNION AT EVERY HAZARD."

-- Richard B. Latner, "The Nullification Crisis and Republican Subversion," Journal of Southern History 43 (1977): 20. Quotations in this paragraph in the order cited are from the Washington Globe, March 2, 1831; November 29, 1832; emphasis in original.

See my reply to Uncle Dale above.

The facts are that not a single southern state sided with South Carolina in her attempt to nullify the federal tariff law! There was never any credible risk of civil war at the time. The perceived threat is a product of late 20th century historical hyperbole.

Link to comment

Poppycock!!!! ....

Well, you have your views and I have mine, I suppose.

If your views are closer to those of early 19th century era historical studies, then

so be it. As for the newspaper articles, I can place a few from the Jacksonian

Globe on the web -- there are already a few later ones from that paper at

my old newspaper articles web-site.

However, my original offer was to go through a list of the Smith text items, with

Mr/Ms jgoldenrockwell, and determine which of the "predictions" in the text could or

could not have been logically derived in 1832.

Once that is done, you and I can argue back and forth over historical perceptions.

My point is this ---- That the Mormons of the early 1830s had already determined

that a great deal of the biblical prophecies of end-times destruction would occur in

the Americas, rather than in the Old World Holy Land. Because of this, they were

anticipating a world-destroying conflict, to commence within the 1830s, during which

Jackson County, MO would be their "city of refuge" from the "wrath that was to come."

My position is, that the wording of the 1832 Smith text derives MUCH more from this

Mormon transference of "Zion" from Palestine, to Missouri; than to any divine

message to the Saints and Gentiles, supposedly conveyed by Smith.

But, we can cover THAT ground, after jgoldenrockwell weighs in again.

UD

Link to comment
Luckily there are hundreds of old newspaper articles from that era on the web, and you can read them for yourself --- you do not have to rely upon the later ponderings of Jacksonian Era historians.

But if you did, you would find them saying things like:

  • "The forces of compromise, chilled by the specter of civil war, were already at work -- and Calhoun, in this crisis, finally, the moderate, was playing his part" (Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln [New York: Norton, 2005], 385),
    or
  • "As South Carolina sped toward nullification, possible disunion and civil war, the President countered with several effective actions" (Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson [New York: Twayne Publishers, 1966; New York: HarperCollins, 1999], 152).

Never mind the curious title of William W. Freehling's book, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).

Hear! Hear!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...