The 1838 "Mormon War" in Missouri

[Uncle Dale]

In 1839 the LDS First Presidency issued an explanation for the

recent "war" with the Missourians. The long article was published

in two pamphlet editions and serialized in the Nauvoo "Times & Seasons,"

where it was supplemented with additions from a contemporary apostolic

version of the events, penned by Parley P. Pratt. Another report, along

the same lines, was written and published by John P. Greene.

The LDS explanations of that conflict with the Gentile Missourians

provide essentially the same message.

1. That the only reason for Missourian animosity was the Mormon religion.

2. That the main reason for the conflict, was to enable the Missourians

to seize and gain ownership of the lands owned by the Church and by

individual Mormons, in western Missouri.

Although speaking specifically of the earlier conflict in Jackson County,

this 1839 quote from a member of the LDS First Presidency sums it all up:

"They [the Missourians] did not attempt to charge the saints with crime;

it was their religion, and their religion only, to which they took exception."

Is this a truthful summary of the "on again - off again" 1833-1838 conflict?

Was there really a "mob" of many hundreds of Missourians, who had no complaints

against the Mormons, other than their divergent religious doctrines? Did that

"mob" really wage a five year "war," simply in order to steal the Mormons' land?

Uncle Dale

[jwhitlock]

Was there really a "mob" of many hundreds of Missourians, who had no complaints

against the Mormons, other than their divergent religious doctrines? Did that

"mob" really wage a five year "war," simply in order to steal the Mormons' land?

Uncle Dale

It's a possibility.

However, I suspect that there were also other underlying reasons - on the Missourian side - that were used to justify the persecution of the Mormons. Certainly the issue of slavery, for instance, was one of them.

On the other hand, I understand why the saints would think that it was solely because of their religion that they were being targeted. After all, their enemies spoke over and over about "the Mormons". The single binding characteristic of the people the Missourians targeted was that they shared a common religion, and it was always about "the Mormons". They were identified by their religion, they were condemned in the name of their religion, and the persecution was against "Mormons". There was a very real and very heavy emphasis on targeting them by the characteristic of their religion.

In addition, the attacks made on the Mormons were made by what can only be characterized as "mobs".

Given the above, and the fact that their land was stolen in the end by the Missourians, is probably enough justification for understanding why the saints had the perspective they did. I'd probably have thought the same thing, in their place.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Given the above, and the fact that their land was stolen in the end by the Missourians, is probably

enough justification for understanding why the saints had the perspective they did. I'd probably have

thought the same thing, in their place.

I can understand how Saints living at a distance from the scene of action might have

thought such things. And when they read the 1839 article prepared by the LDS First Presidency,

I can see why those same Saints might have put 100% trust into the reliability of that report.

But I have a luxury my ancestors there at Far West did not enjoy -- I can look at past events

from the perspective of documented history, and without a need to affirm Joseph Smith,

Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon as my leaders.

I notice that the LDS leadership was still selling titles to plots of land in Missouri as

late as 1840, as a sort of swap for ownership of land at Nauvoo and in Iowa -- so the

State of Missouri did not actually appropriate ALL of the Mormon-owned land in that state.

These, and other, historical facts lead me to believe that the 1839 report published by

the Church is a one-sided justification of the Mormon actions, and is not reliable as an

accurate and godly account of what actually happened in Missouri.

Nevertheless, I read this in Clark V. Johnson's 2003 paper, "A Test of Faith: The Book of

Mormon in the Missouri Conflict" ---

In sum, members of the church living in Missouri in the 1830s suffered the same persecution

as their ancient counterparts. They were robbed of their property, whipped, beaten, slandered,

and jailed because of their belief in the Book of Mormon and in the divine calling of the

Prophet Joseph Smith.

Those who chose to deny the Book of Mormon escaped the tribulation heaped upon those who refused.

For, as a mob had assured several men whom they held at bayonet point, if "they denied the

Book of Mormon, and confessed it to be a fraud... they might enjoy the privileges of citizens."

The Book of Mormon had indeed become a test of faith.

That doesn't seem to square with the generally benevolent treatment received by the Whitmers,

Hiram Page, and other Latter Day Saints, who stayed on in Missouri, throughout the "war,"

and were never forced to give up their profession of the Book of Mormon, etc.

Am I missing something here?

UD

[jwhitlock]

That doesn't seem to square with the generally benevolent treatment received by the Whitmers,

Hiram Page, and other Latter Day Saints, who stayed on in Missouri, throughout the "war,"

and were never forced to give up their profession of the Book of Mormon, etc.

Am I missing something here?

UD

Possibly, though since neither of us were there, we are left to our own perspectives on what happened.

I feel that it is rare that an entire group of people, without exception, will experience persecution evenly in any situation. Some will die, and some will be relatively unaffected. However, the perspective of the event in general among the group being persecuted is often molded primarily by those who suffer the most. And for many, in this case, the suffering and persecution was very real and very religiously driven.

As I write this, I'm trying to remember what the membership status of Hiram Page and the Whitmers was at this time, which may have a bearing on your comment above.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Unk,

If Mormons didn't have such a habit of mixing religious and secular affairs, it might not have been such a problem. But the Gentiles feared that a Mormon majority in their counties and state would mean a Mormon takeover and the construction of a Mormon kingdom, and possibly severe disenfranchisement for non-Mormons. In their view, it was mob the Mormons now or be mobbed by them later. If later Mormon history (think Nauvoo and Utah) is any indication, then these fears were exaggerated but not wholly unjustified.

[Uncle Dale]

...

As I write this, I'm trying to remember what the membership status of Hiram Page and the Whitmers was at this time, which may have a bearing on your comment above.

They had been driven from the Church, along with Oliver Cowdery and Cowdery's relatives,

earlier in 1838. Cowdery himself went back to Ohio, but there was a group of about twenty

Mormons, gathered around David Whitmer, who lived at Richmond, in the midst of the turmoil,

unmolested.

The difference between these Saints, and my own ancestors at Far West and Diahamen, is

that the Whitmers, W. W. Phelps, Orson Hyde, William Smith, Thomas B. Marsh, George M. Hinkle,

and others continued to believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic office,

but they were not engaged in any of the 1838 hostilities with the Gentiles. Since they were

not subject to any direct command from the Church leaders at Far West, I suppose that these

"fringe" Saints were more trusted and better tolerated by their non-LDS neighbors.

I do not think that the Missourians were all that upset with the fact that one person

or another believed in ancient Nephites, or in the need for adult baptism, etc. I do

not think that it was the basic doctrines of Mormonism that so antagonized the Missourians.

UD

[charity]

Hi Unk,

If Mormons didn't have such a habit of mixing religious and secular affairs, it might not have been such a problem.

The religious/secular affairs dichotomy is a false one. D&C 29:34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; "

[jwhitlock]

I do not think that the Missourians were all that upset with the fact that one person

or another believed in ancient Nephites, or in the need for adult baptism, etc. I do

not think that it was the basic doctrines of Mormonism that so antagonized the Missourians.

UD

I'm not sure that the Missourians had a real good idea of what doctrines the Church held. Certainly, most people in the U.S. at that point had rather skewed viewpoints of the Church and its members. Even today, plenty of people don't really understand what we believe.

However, that wasn't really the point of what the leaders said, as posted in your OP. It was a religious persecution, not a doctrinal persecution. If anything, what Mormons believed was greatly misrepresented. So, we need to concentrate on the religious persecution aspect as "Mormons". I doubt it had that much to do with doctrines that were not well understood in the first place.

[Uncle Dale]

...I doubt it had that much to do with doctrines that were not well understood in the first place.

I tend to agree with that -- although the 1839 article from the LDS First Presidency

(2nd edition available on the web at archive.org) does not provide much detail on this.

As Chris Smith mentions, the LDS Church's temporal affairs certainly caught the

attentions of the Missourians, as early as 1832-33, when they were only settled

in Jackson County.

If there was one Mormon doctrine that the Missourians DID understand, it was that

the Mormons were especially intent upon "gathering" to what they viewed was their

God-given "Promised Land" -- a modern Canaan, wherein the Missourians were Canaanites,

and the incoming tide of Mormon settlers were "the Israelites."

I think it was THAT part of Mormon doctrine, more so than a belief in Nephites,

or communitarianism, or dislike for slavery, that caught the Missourian's attention.

Unfortunately, there was nothing like the nearly even division of Whigs and Democrats

in Missouri, that the Saints had exploited in Ohio. In Ohio, by supporting the

Jacksonians against the Whigs, the Mormons gained powerful political allies. But in

western Missouri everybody was already a Jacksonian Democrat, and the Mormons could

not side with one political faction, against another, to gain local allies.

Also, I'm still troubled over this 1838-39 characterization of all opposition to

the Mormons as being the work of a "mob." I do not see much historical support for

that identification --- unless we lump just about every non-LDS into a great "mob."

UD

[handys003]

UD it's always about land and power. You should know by history of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy. It's all the same just a different variation.

[jwhitlock]

As Chris Smith mentions, the LDS Church's temporal affairs certainly caught the

attentions of the Missourians, as early as 1832-33, when they were only settled

in Jackson County.

Initially, the saints were poor and didn't appear to pose much of a threat. However, as they got organized, settled in, more of them came in, and they started to prosper, that caught their attention. It is just as likely that the Missourians were motivated by envy, as anything else, in this respect. It still goes on in our society today.

If there was one Mormon doctrine that the Missourians DID understand, it was that

the Mormons were especially intent upon "gathering" to what they viewed was their

God-given "Promised Land" -- a modern Canaan, wherein the Missourians were Canaanites,

and the incoming tide of Mormon settlers were "the Israelites."

Yep. That certainly didn't help the situation any.

I think it was THAT part of Mormon doctrine, more so than a belief in Nephites,

or communitarianism, or dislike for slavery, that caught the Missourian's attention.

Yet there's a difference between being perceived as a poor, small group of rather eccentric religionists, and being perceived as a growing, prosperous (as they got settled) and organized group of eccentric religionists. The first group can be ignored or dismissed. The second cannot.

I still think that the slavery factor was a strong influence in what went on.

Also, I'm still troubled over this 1838-39 characterization of all opposition to

the Mormons as being the work of a "mob." I do not see much historical support for

that identification --- unless we lump just about every non-LDS into a great "mob."

The saints tended to be far better organized, cohesive, and identifiable as a group than the Missourians. It is probably that those who opposed the saints didn't have much choice other than to appeal to the baser sentiments and stoke a mob frenzy. It didn't even have to involve "all" the Missourians; just a fraction of them. Indeed, the numbers of mobbers thrown around seem to indicate that while a majority of the population may have approved of the persecution, they didn't actively take part.

Again, I think it's important to point out that the opposition to the saints took different forms. There was political persecution, there was mob persecution, and there was societal persecution. The mob aspect, even though undertaken by a minority of the Missourians, would have had a far greater influence in shaping the saints' perspective of what was going on because of its immediate and violent effects.

[Uncle Dale]

UD it's always about land and power. You should know by history of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy. It's all the same just a different variation.

I know all too well the story of the haole take-over of Hawaii, as it was largely

carried out by the Honolulu Freemasons, and eventually helped place in a position

of power Elder Gilbert Waller, a prominent Reorganized LDS, who had plans to become

Governor of the Territory. --- Sad stuff.

UD

[handys003]

I know all too well the story of the haole take-over of Hawaii, as it was largely

carried out by the Honolulu Freemasons, and eventually helped place in a position

of power Elder Gilbert Waller, a prominent Reorganized LDS, who had plans to become

Governor of the Territory. --- Sad stuff.

UD

Oh no you didn't just say that! Now your going to be lumped into a Freemason hater like me!

[Uncle Dale]

...

It didn't even have to involve "all" the Missourians; just a fraction of them.

...

Here is where I think the 1839 report is especially problematic.

I'm reading from the first edition of "Appeal to the American People"

(which I can post to the web, if anybody is interested), on page 12,

where the First Presidency reports:

While these brutalities were going on, the public papers were constantly employed in

giving publicity to the foulest lies that could be created.... In this business were

employed some of the leading, (some, did I say) better say all the leading men of the County.

... In this the government of the State, has identified itself in the number of the

plunderers, and become one with those villains.

Although the specific subject being addressed on page 12 is the 1833 Jackson County

expulsion of the Saints, the same message is carried over, on subsequent pages,

to the 1834-35 troubles in Clay County and the 1838 troubles in Daviess County.

The LDS leaders portray ALL of the newspaper reports of that period as being nothing

but "lies." Some of the material then published by the Missourians may have indeed

been falsehood -- but certainly not all of it.

However, the report that nearly all the leading men in Jackson County were against

the Mormons building up their presence there is probably true. It would be far less

true to say the same thing of the entire state's leadership in 1838.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

Oh no you didn't just say that! Now your going to be lumped into a Freemason hater like me!

Nothing wrong with the Freemasons -- but we might have been better off

without their donating their lodge for the headquarters of the haole usurpers

in the days just before they deposed the Queen here.

Oh well -- too late to change that now.

UD

[Chris Smith]

Initially, the saints were poor and didn't appear to pose much of a threat. However, as they got organized, settled in, more of them came in, and they started to prosper, that caught their attention. It is just as likely that the Missourians were motivated by envy, as anything else, in this respect. It still goes on in our society today.

Not so much "envy" as fear.

Think of the fear people feel when they realize that whites will be a minority in some parts of the US in a few years, or when they see all those signs in Spanish or Cantonese going up in their neighborhoods. It's a fear that one will become an "outsider" in one's own homeland, and perhaps even gradually find oneself ostracized and forced to go elsewhere. This fear commonly manifests itself as "exclusion acts", "hate crimes", and various other kinds of reprehensible behavior.

Now add to that the fear people have felt concerning the election of religious "fanatics" to public office. As an example, what if Muslims began to immigrate to your community in the millions, and appeared close to having a majority and being able to control government offices? In the Missourians' minds, they were in a similar situation. Like the Muslims, Mormons were infamous for mixing religious and civil concerns. And given how militant some of their rhetoric was-- even in the Book of Mormon itself, which envisions the extermination of Gentile Americans who refuse to "repent" (i.e. convert)-- Missourians had no way of knowing whether they should be any less scared of a Mormon majority than most modern Americans are of a Muslim one.

All of this isn't to say that the Missourians' actions were justified-- just that it wasn't "envy", or "greed", or any other such vice that motivated them. It was a much more powerful and understandable emotion.

[Tsuzuki]

Did that

"mob" really wage a five year "war," simply in order to steal the Mormons' land?

I wouldn't be surprised considering what others around the same time did to the Cherokee.

"All I ask in this creation

Is a pretty little wife and a big plantation

Way up yonder in the Cherokee Nation."

- Popular Georgian song from the 1830s

[Cold Steel]

Ether 8 has Moroni warning the world of secret combinations built up to get power and gain. Parley P. Pratt, after his escape from Missouri (an escape which seemed to have miraculous overtones) reported that his captors openly boasted of their plans to seize the saints' property:

In the meantime, hundreds of the brethren crowded around us, anxious to take a parting look, or a silent shake of the hand; for feelings were too intense to allow of speech. In the midst of these scenes orders were given, and we moved slowly away, under the conduct of Gen. Wilson and his whole brigade. A march of twelve miles brought us to Crooked River, where we camped for the night. Here Gen. Wilson began to treat us more kindly; he became very sociable; conversing very freely on the subject of his former murders and robberies committed against us in Jackson. He did not pretend to deny anything; but spoke upon the whole as freely as if he had been giving the history of other ages or countries, in which his audience had no personal concern. Said he:

"We Jackson County boys know how it is; and, therefore, have not the extremes of hatred and prejudice which characterize the rest of the troops. We know perfectly that from the beginning the Mormons have not been the aggressors at all. As it began in '33 in Jackson County, so it has been ever since. You Mormons were crowded to the last extreme, and compelled to self-defence; and this has been construed into treason, murder and plunder. We mob you without law; the authorities refuse to protect you according to law; you then are compelled to protect yourselves, and we act upon the prejudices of the public, who join our forces, and the whole is legalized, for your destruction and our gain. Is not this a shrewd and cunning policy on our part, gentlemen?

"When we drove you from Jackson County, we burned two hundred and three of your houses; plundered your goods; destroyed your press, type, paper, books, office and all-tarred and feathered old Bishop Partridge, as exemplary an old man as you can find anywhere. We shot down some of your men, and, if any of you returned the fire, we imprisoned you, on your trial for murder, etc. Damn'd shrewdly done, gentlemen; and I came damn'd near kicking the bucket myself; for, on one occasion, while we were tearing down houses, driving families, and destroying and plundering goods, some of you good folks put a ball through my son's body, another through the arm of my clerk, and a third pierced my shirt collar and marked my neck. No blame, gentlemen; we deserved it. And let a set of men serve me as your community have been served, and I'll be damn'd if I would not fight till I died.

"It was repeatedly insinuated, by the other officers and troops, that we should hang you prisoners on the first tree we came to on the way to Independence. But I'll be damn'd if anybody shall hurt you. We just intend to exhibit you in Independence, let the people look at you, and see what a damn'd set of fine fellows you are. And, more particularly, to keep you from that G-d damn'd old bigot of a Gen. Clark and his troops, from down country, who are so stuffed with lies and prejudice that they would shoot you down in a moment."

Such was the tenor of the conversation addressed by Gen. Wilson to his prisoners. Indeed, it was now evident that he was proud of his prey, and felt highly enthusiastic in having the honor of returning in triumph to Independence with his prisoners, whom his superstition had magnified into something more than fellow citizens-something noble or supernatural, and worthy of public exhibition.

As we arose and commenced our march on the morning of the 3d of November, Joseph Smith spoke to me and the other prisoners, in a low, but cheerful and confidential tone; said he: "Be of good cheer, brethren; the word of the Lord came to me last night that our lives should be given us, and that whatever we may suffer during this captivity, not one of our lives should be taken." Of this prophecy I testify in the name of the Lord, and, though spoken in secret, its public fulfilment and the miraculous escape of each one of us is too notorious to need my testimony. In the after part of the day we came to the Missouri River, which separated us from Jackson County. Here the brigade was halted and the prisoners taken to a public house, where we were permitted to shave, change our linen, and partake of some refreshment. This done, we were hurried to the ferry and across the river with the utmost haste in advance of the troops. This movement was soon explained to us. The truth was, Gen. Clark had now arrived near the scene of action, and had sent an express to take us from Gen. Wilson and prevent us from going to Jackson County-both armies being competitors for the honor of possessing the wonderful, or, in their estimation, royal prisoners.

There were many reasons the Missourians might have felt justified in doing what they did, though they weren't shared by neighboring states. Abolition and immigration were two primary fears of the Missourians.

The following appeared in the St. Louis (Mo.) Saturday News. The primary problem stated therein is abolition:

"THE MORMONS-That self-afflicted class of people who has chosen the fancy name of Mormons has elicited some sympathy and well intended compassion from some of our charitable citizens, and two meetings have been called to devise means of relieving their present wants. Although many of the Mormons deserve hanging, as an atonement for their criminal proceedings and corrupt intentions, they are truly objects of charity.

"But if this intrinsically vagrant race (the Mormons) would relieve themselves from the humiliating necessity of asking charity, they should mind their own business,...abandon abolition, and apply themselves to hard labor, as those do who are actively engaged in attempting their relief.

"No attempt should be made to retain a single Mormon within the boundaries of Missouri. A colonization society might find advantageous employment in sending them all off to Botany Bay."

But Pratt also quotes sources closer to home:

From the Quincy (Ill.) Argus, March 16, 1839:

"We give in today's paper the details of the recent bloody tragedy acted in Missouri-the details of a scene of terror and blood unparalleled in the annals of modern, and, under the circumstances of the case, in ancient history; a tragedy of so deep, and fearful, and absorbing interest that the very life blood of the heart is chilled at the simple contemplation. We are prompted to ask ourselves if it be really true that we are living in an enlightened, a humane and civilized age, in an age and quarter of the world boasting of its progress in everything good and great, honorable, virtuous and high minded; in a country, of which, as American citizens, we could ask whether we are living under a Constitution and laws, or have not rather returned to the ruthless times of the stern Atilla-to the times of the fiery Hun-when the sword and flame ravaged the fair fields of Italy and Europe, and the darkest passions held full revel in all the revolting scenes of unchecked brutality and unbridled desire?

"We have no language sufficiently strong for the expression of our indignation and shame at the recent transaction in a sister State, and that State Missouri, a State of which we had long been proud, alike for her men and history, but now so fallen, that we could wish her star stricken out from the bright constellation of the Union. We say we know of no language sufficiently strong for the expression of our shame and abhorrence of her recent conduct. She has written her own character in letters of blood, and stained it by acts of merciless cruelty and brutality that the waters of ages cannot efface. It will be observed that an organized mob, aided by many of the civil and military officers of Missouri, with Governor Boggs at their head, have been the prominent actors in this business, incited too, it appears, against the Mormons by political hatred, and by the additional motives of plunder and revenge. They have but too well put in execution their threats of extermination and expulsion, and fully wreaked their vengeance on a body of industrious and enterprising men, who had never wronged or wished to wrong them, but, on the contrary, had ever comported themselves as good and honest citizens, living under the laws and having the same rights with themselves, to the sacred immunities of life, liberty and property."

It was murderous behavior designed, in Moroni's words, to get power and gain to the point of murder and rapine.

.

[daz2]

Jeff Walker makes a good case in a recent BYU Studies article that a desire for the Mormon land was a factor in the conflict. Article can be downloaded for $2 http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7873 The piece is discussed in a thread by John Hamer at bcc http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/29/a-land-war-in-missouri/

[USU78]

Possibly, though since neither of us were there, we are left to our own perspectives on what happened.

I feel that it is rare that an entire group of people, without exception, will experience persecution evenly in any situation. Some will die, and some will be relatively unaffected. However, the perspective of the event in general among the group being persecuted is often molded primarily by those who suffer the most. And for many, in this case, the suffering and persecution was very real and very religiously driven.

As I write this, I'm trying to remember what the membership status of Hiram Page and the Whitmers was at this time, which may have a bearing on your comment above.

Not every Jew in medieval Germany was forced to kiss the hind end of swine.

Yet some were so forced.

Does this mean the Jews of Germany, as a group, were not persecuted, since some escaped smooching the swiney hiney?

[Uncle Dale]

Jeff Walker makes a good case in a recent BYU Studies article that a desire for the Mormon land was a factor in the conflict. Article can be downloaded for $2 http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7873 The piece is discussed in a thread by John Hamer at bcc http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/03/29/a-land-war-in-missouri/

Perhaps so -- but, as far as I can tell, the Mormons owned less than 1% of the

land in Jackson, Clay, Ray, and Daviess counties -- and perhaps something like

20% of the land in Caldwell county.

But, even in those cases, it was primarily pre-emption rights (as squatters)

that constituted the Mormons' land rights. As far as actual acreage, bought

and paid for, they owned practically nothing outside of Far West. Even their

much mentioned land acquisitions in De Witt never seem to have been paid for.

What value was it to the Missourians, to try and confiscate something like 2%

of the land in western Missouri -- most of which was mortgaged?

If local newspaper reports can be relied upon, in 1834 a great number of

Missourians were lined up, south of the river, ready to resist, with their

lives, a threatened LDS invasion by Smith's "Zion's Camp."

It makes no sense to me, that hundreds of Missourians were ready to die,

fighting Mormons, just to steal a hunk of their land -- and especially so,

when we consider that hundreds of thousands of acres were then available

for purchase and settlement for a very low price. It makes no sense to me.

The argument I've heard, is that it was the Mormon's "improvements" upon

the land, that made it a particularly alluring prize to dastardly Missourians.

But then we read Pratt, Rigdon and other writers, saying that these same

Missourians were destroying houses, out-buildings, fences, mills, livestock,

etc., to such an extent as to leave Daviess and Caldwell counties barren.

Again, it makes no sense, if it were the "improvements" upon the land that

the Missourians coveted.

Finally, it is argued, that in the siege of Far West, the residents were

forced to turn over their property deed to the State. That may have been

true -- but Far West and the adjoining farm lands was but a tiny fraction

of Caldwell county. Even if they lost that heavily mortgaged land, they

retained considerable real estate in the immediate area, which was later

swapped for land in Illinois and Iowa.

And, of the confiscated, free and clear land in Far West, confiscated by

the State in 1838, how much of it ended up in the hands of "the mob" (as

Mormons called all of their Missouri opponents)??? Very little, it would

seem. The town fell into ruin, and remained unoccupied, except for a

handful of Gentile farmers, from that time onward.

If the 1838 Missouri War was fought by "the mob" to obtain Mormon land

and improvements upon Mormon land, the Gentile victors ended up with

almost nothing for their struggle.

No -- the land itself was not the reason for the war. Nor was the

improvements upon the land. Nor was expected real estate value increases.

Seizing Mormon land was a minor side-show, to the real reason for the

1838 Mormon War --- which I think was to prevent LDS expansion into

the counties bordering Caldwell county (especially Daviess).

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...The following appeared in the St. Louis (Mo.) Saturday News.

The primary problem stated therein is abolition:...

St. Louis was far, far from western Missouri, and the Whig newspapers published

there (like the "Republican") were infamous for criticizing every little things

that happened in the Jacksonian hinterland. They were also notoriously unreliable

as good news sources for happenings in the west (where their reporters never went).

I'd have to see that exact issue of the "Saturday News," in order to confirm your

transcription. But my own assessment (after reading hundreds of other contemporary

reports from western Missouri) is that the Mormons' views on the Blacks and on

slavery in general, was not a major reason for Missourian animosity.

In one way there was a comparison made, however -- and that may be seen in

contemporary reports of western Missourian concern over the great poverty of

the incoming LDS settlers. They were sometimes reported to be as poor as the

local Negroes -- and thus, just as much in need of external financial support.

Had the Mormons then (1836-38) loudly advertised Joseph Smith's later opinion,

(that slavery ought not to be abolished outright) I doubt very, very much that

the Missourians would have suddenly embraced the newcomers as Christian brethren

and fellow slavery-supporters.

No -- Mormon views on slavery were a side issue. The Missourians EXPECTED

Yankees to be anti-slavery, just as they expected their Illinois neighbors

to be anti-slavery. It was a threat to the local economy and social order,

but not one that could change Missouri into a free-state. It was more a

threat to social cohesion -- just like the Mormons' refusal to fellowship

Missourians with a friendly glass of whiskey was a threat to social cohesion.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Not so much "envy" as fear.

...

On pages 16-17 of the 1839 LDS First Presidency article I've been

quoting from, the writer (assumed to be First Counselor Rigdon) at

this point in the account, talks about Daviess county, c. 1837-38.

However, the writer fails to mention the fact that the Missouri

Legislature had created Caldwell county as a sort of reservation

for the Mormons, and neighboring Daviess county as a Gentile place.

Of course there was no legal basis for this "gentleman's agreement,"

but everybody concerned knew that the Mormons were to remain in

Caldwell county, and not attempt to colonize neighboring Daviess.

Under the leadership of the Whitmers, Cowdery and Phelps, the

original gentleman's agreement was largely abided by. A few Mormons

moved into Daviess, but there was nothing like a colonization.

Then, at the beginning of 1838, Smith and Rigdon arrived from

Kirtland, and threw out the LDS leadership at Far West.

None of this is mentioned in the "Appeal to the American People,"

which presents Daviess as being totally open to LDS colonization.

The writer complains that there was insufficient timber and good

land in Caldwell County, for the great masses of Mormons gathering

there, following the abandonment of Kirtland. The 1838 flood of

Mormons into Daviess is mentioned, but without reference to the inevitable

bad feelings it would bring.

Rigdon's own July 4, 1838 "war of extermination" speech at Far West

is also left unmentioned in this LDS article. Also passed over is

Joseph Smith's identification of Daviess as the homeland of Adam

and Eve, along with all the incentives for Mormon colonization

that "revelation" brought to the gathering hordes of settlers.

Finally, the LDS article makes no mention of the fact that the

impact of the "gathering" in Daviess and Caldwell might have been

lessened, by having the incoming Mormons settle in a dispersed area,

intermixing with their Gentile neighbors.

This is what Joseph's brother William later advocated, and it was

the course later taken by the Reorganized LDS, who experienced

remarkably little conflict with the Gentiles. But the writer(s)

of the LDS article present the "gathering" as an immutable

precept, mitigated only by the addition of branch colonies on

its outer fringes.

I don't think that it was mere "fear" that so upset the Gentiles

of Daviess county in 1838 --- I think it was the dissolution of

the Whitmer-Phelps-Cowdery administration and the resulting

flood of LDS colonists into Gentile Daviess, breaking the prior

"gentleman's agreement" that the Mormons occupy Caldwell.

Of course Joseph Smith claimed to have then been directed by

revelation by God Almighty -- and if God was commanding the

Saints to fill up Daviess county, then God must have good reason

for such a dangerous development....

UD

[Chris Smith]

Hi Unk,

But why did the "gentleman's agreement" exist in the first place? With respect to the original Jackson County expulsion, Pratt tells us, "Political demagogues were afraid that we would rule the county." John Corrill says they saw that "if let alone they would in a short time become a majority and, of course, rule the county." Here are the specific grievances cited by the July 20, 1833 meeting that expelled the Mormons from that county:

They represent that the Mormonites number some 1200 souls in that county, and that each successive spring and autumn pours forth its swarms among them, with a gradual falling off in the character of those who compose them, until they have now nearly reached the low condition of the black population. That the citizens have been daily told that they are to be cut off, and their lands appropriated to the Mormons for inheritances; but they are not fully agreed among themselves as to the manner in which this shall be accomplished, whether by the destroying angel, the judgement of God, or the arm of power. The committee express their fears that, should this population continue to increase, they will soon have all the offices of the county in their hands; and that the lives and property of other citizens would be insecure, under the administration of men who are so ignorant and superstitious as to believe that they have been the subjects of miraculous and supernatural cures; hold converse with God and his angels and possess and exercise the gift of divination, and of unknown tongues; and, are withal, so poor as to be unable to procure bread and meat. The committee say that one of the means resorted to by them, in order to drive us to emigrate, is an indirect invitation to the free brethren of color in Illinois, to come like the rest to the land of Zion. True, the Mormons say this was not intended to invite but to prevent emigration; but this weak attempt to quiet our apprehensions is but a poor compliment to our understanding." The invitation alluded to, contained all the necessary directions and cautions to enable the free blacks, on their arrival there, to claim and exercise their right of citizenship. Finally, the committee say --

Of their pretended revelations from Heaven -- their personal intercourse with God and his Angels -- the maladies they pretend to heal by the laying on of hands -- and the contemptible gibberish with which they habitually profane the Sabbath, and which they dignify with the appellation of unknown tongues, we have nothing to say. Vengeance belongs to God alone. But as to the other matters set forth in this paper, we feel called on by every consideration of self-preservation, good society, public morals, and the fair prospects, that if not blasted in the germ, await this young and beautiful country...

As you can see, the committee specifically denies that the Mormons' religious practices are a cause for the expulsion, though they do take the opportunity to ridicule them. And the black issue comes up, but it is not Mormon abolitionism that was the problem but rather the supposed invitation to free negroes to enter the state (which the settlers elsewhere explained might corrupt their slaves and cause an uprising). The key concern here is self-preservation. The settlers feared ongoing Mormon immigration, and what would happen if Mormons were allowed to achieve a majority and to rule the county. Mormons had been fairly open about their intentions to "take possession of this county," and so the old residents felt they had to take action to prevent that from happening.

When the Mormons started violating their agreement to stay in Caldwell, I'm sure there was anger that they had broken their word. But I also think it raised the same old fears.

Peace,

-Chris

[littlechild]

In 1839 the LDS First Presidency issued an explanation for the

recent "war" with the Missourians. The long article was published

in two pamphlet editions and serialized in the Nauvoo "Times & Seasons,"

where it was supplemented with additions from a contemporary apostolic

version of the events, penned by Parley P. Pratt. Another report, along

the same lines, was written and published by John P. Greene.

The LDS explanations of that conflict with the Gentile Missourians

provide essentially the same message.

1. That the only reason for Missourian animosity was the Mormon religion.

2. That the main reason for the conflict, was to enable the Missourians

to seize and gain ownership of the lands owned by the Church and by

individual Mormons, in western Missouri.

Although speaking specifically of the earlier conflict in Jackson County,

this 1839 quote from a member of the LDS First Presidency sums it all up:

"They [the Missourians] did not attempt to charge the saints with crime;

it was their religion, and their religion only, to which they took exception."

Is this a truthful summary of the "on again - off again" 1833-1838 conflict?

Was there really a "mob" of many hundreds of Missourians, who had no complaints

against the Mormons, other than their divergent religious doctrines? Did that

"mob" really wage a five year "war," simply in order to steal the Mormons' land?

Uncle Dale

Why don't YOU tell US how it went down, since you obviously have better information and a more enlightened method of communicating it than did the people who were on the scene at the time?