1840s oppression of Mormons in Illinois

[USU78]

No, he was being taken to stand trial so that the law of the land could decide whether or not he would be "in any way destroyed."

The key thing you are disregarding here is "by the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land." The law of the land didn't grant the Nauvoo municiple judge the authority to rescind the arrest warrent signed by the governor.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that it did. In that case, even though legal, it was a foolish move because from the outside perspective the Nauvoo judge was blatantly partial. By using his military to be taken to that judge, Joseph Smith played into the hands of the people who were trying to portray him as the theocratic dictator of a militarized city-state that wasn't subject to state law.

It may have saved Joseph's skin for a little while, but it did immense harm to the good-will that the Saints desperately needed in Illinois.

JSJr's argument through his attorney was that detention in Carthage and/or extradition to Missouri meant certain death for him. Events proved him correct.

If the state cannot ensure the safety of persons arrested such that arrest = assassination, then the only reasonable conclusion is that arrest itself is a "taking" that must be prevented by habeas corpus. Humanity invented habeas corpus to preserve the demands of humanity for justice when the formalities subvert justice. Getcher nose outta that there book. The Nauvoo municipal court's writs saved lives: the county court sought to take them without trial. No amount of whining about "the forms weren't observed! city courts are supposed to be subordinate to county courts!" can change the fact that the only justice that was subverted throughout that shameful business was the right of JSJr not to have his life taken without due process of law.

The charges in Missouri you admit were bogus. Thus the extradition petition was insupportable. Thus the arrest warrants were improperly issued. Whether they got quashed directly or were effectively quashed via habeas corpus is quite irrelevant.

Justice was done and the State of Illinois' precious laws were not subverted . . . until the Governor intervened.

You want a black hat? Look to Springfield.

[Analytics]

JSJr's argument through his attorney was that detention in Carthage and/or extradition to Missouri meant certain death for him. Events proved him correct.

That's not true. He never went to Missouri, so we'll never know what would have happened here.

What we do know is that his choices (i.e. taking Walker's advice, paying for it with his vote, but failing to deliever the other votes that were implied to go along with it) did in fact save him from whatever whould have happened in Missouri, but the cost was the good will of the people in Illinois. It was that loss of good will that eventually caught up with him and the saints.

The charges in Missouri you admit were bogus. Thus the extradition petition was insupportable. Thus the arrest warrants were improperly issued. Whether they got quashed directly or were effectively quashed via habeas corpus is quite irrelevant.

Fair enough. But that doesn't address the issue of whether the Nauvoo Municiple Judge had the legal authority to quash them, and it certainly doesn't address the issue of whether it was wise of him to save his own skin by proving that Nauvoo really was a theocratic militarized city state whose citizens weren't subject to state law.

If he was willing to go like a lamb to the slaughter in order to ensure the safety of his people, that was the time to do it. If he was going to insist on saving his own skin, he should have tried to do so through legal channels that wouldn

[Vance]

Fair enough. But that doesn't address the issue of whether the Nauvoo Municiple Judge had the legal authority to quash them, . . .

An issue that may have been resolved through the courts, had JS not been murdered that is.

and it certainly doesn't address the issue of whether it was wise of him to save his own skin by proving that Nauvoo really was a theocratic militarized city state whose citizens weren't subject to state law.

Wait, I thought he was murdered in Carthage? Are you saying that he called the Nauvoo militia to come and save his skin?

Funny, I missed that part of history.

If he was willing to go like a lamb to the slaughter in order to ensure the safety of his people, that was the time to do it.

Really? Are you claiming that he would have survived IF he would have gone along as you propose?

What evidence do you have that the out come would have been different?

Edited to add,

Or are you saying that he should have been willing to go to his death earlier than he did?

If he was going to insist on saving his own skin, he should have tried to do so through legal channels that wouldn

[Analytics]

An issue that may have been resolved through the courts, had JS not been murdered that is.

Wait, I thought he was murdered in Carthage? Are you saying that he called the Nauvoo militia to come and save his skin?

Funny, I missed that part of history....

I can tell. You have no idea what we

[Jeff K.]

One wonders, even about hindsight. In Classical Rome, Jews had a particular position of freedom. While everyone else was forced to show obediance to the emperor by burning incense, Jews were given a special dispensation and were not forced to do so because their religion commanded them not to. Christians were seen, originally, as a Jewish sect and therefore were found to be free from the requirement also..... for a time. When the growth of the church among gentiles exceeded the Jews who were joined, it was deemed inapproapriate to list them as a Jewish sect, opening up a very long and dangerous road to persecutions and martyrdoms. Was it a miscalculation to allow an excess of gentile members (remember the arguments between Paul and James) or an unavoidable process for the Lord's church.

The onus is put of Joseph Smith by some. But regardless of what Joseph Smith did, the simple and bold statements regarding the falling away of other churches, would, I think, have led to the same persecution, the same attacks, and I think the same martyrdom. Excuses, rumor and inuendo were simply used to help justify these attacks.

[Analytics]

On one more note, would have Joseph Smith had a fair trial in Missouri? Would he have been murdered there?

Of course we can only speculate. But it might be helpful to remember that Porter Rockwell was in fact in Missouri when the assassination attempt took place. He was arrested and stood trial. There was a scant amount of circumstantial evidence, but nothing conclusive. He was acquitted and returned safely to Illinois.

If Porter Rockwell could get a fair trial in Missouri, why not Joseph Smith?

[ttribe]

On one more note, would have Joseph Smith had a fair trial in Missouri? Would he have been murdered there?

Of course we can only speculate. But it might be helpful to remember that Porter Rockwell was in fact in Missouri when the assassination attempt took place. He was arrested and stood trial. There was a scant amount of circumstantial evidence, but nothing conclusive. He was acquitted and returned safely to Illinois.

If Porter Rockwell could get a fair trial in Missouri, why not Joseph Smith?

Uhhh...have you read the account of the "trial" that landed JS in Liberty Jail (and in which he was originally sentenced to be shot by firing squad)? Thank the Heavens for Doniphan.

[Analytics]

Uhhh...have you read the account of the "trial" that landed JS in Liberty Jail (and in which he was originally sentenced to be shot by firing squad)? Thank the Heavens for Doniphan.

That doesn

[Jeff K.]

Porter Rockwell was not seen as being nearly as important or notorious as Joseph Smith. Apples are not oranges. Joseph Smith himself was already sentenced once to dies by firing squad so it is almost impossible to surmise that somehow the same people putting him on trial would come up with a different conclusion. Only now it was with a more powerful lynch mob mentality.

[ttribe]

That doesn

[Vance]

I can't imagine how you'd think these two situations were comparable.

In addition, Rockwell had incontrovertible proof that he wasn't involved. The victim was still alive.

JS would not have been able to PROVE his innocence, which is what he would have needed to do, because he was ASSUMED GUILTY UNTIL proven innocent.

[Analytics]

I can't imagine how you'd think these two situations were comparable.

Seriously? Joseph Smith was being charged with ordering Porter Rockwell to attempt to murder Boggs. They were close associates being accused of conspiring together to commit the same crime. Is it really that unreasonable to think that since one of them did in fact get a fair trial the other might have as well?

[LeSellers]

Here

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Seriously? Joseph Smith was being charged with ordering Porter Rockwell to attempt to murder Boggs. They were close associates being accused of conspiring together to commit the same crime. Is it really that unreasonable to think that since one of them did in fact get a fair trial the other might have as well?

It is impossible to say one way or the other. I would suggest stop talking about it all together. It is a giant unprovable hypothetical. I am not big on hypotheticals.

[Analytics]

Eh, not quite.

By 1842, Thomas C. Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, had already been running editorials protesting the existence of Nauvoo and its LDS inhabitants....

Note I said "relatively". Would it be fair to say that before the Boggs assasination attempt, the Mormons and non-Mormons were getting along as peacefully as the Republicans and Democrats do now?

The rabble rousing promulgated by Sharp started as soon as he (and a partner) bought the Warsaw Signal, n

[USU78]

History of the Church, 4:370

[Calm]

Seriously? Joseph Smith was being charged with ordering Porter Rockwell to attempt to murder Boggs. They were close associates being accused of conspiring together to commit the same crime. Is it really that unreasonable to think that since one of them did in fact get a fair trial the other might have as well?

In the case of John D. Lee, he was offered a full pardon for evidence against Brigham Young. It would seem to indicate that there was a significant difference in feelings toward the leader of the Church and those of less import (at least in the view of nonMormons). That they were willing to excuse a mass murderer in order to be able to arrest and try and hopefully (from their POV) jail the church leader would seem to indicate that a less prominent LDS would have a greater chance at a fair trial than the church's leader.

[Analytics]

In the case of John D. Lee, he was offered a full pardon for evidence against Brigham Young. It would seem to indicate that there was a significant difference in feelings toward the leader of the Church and those of less import (at least in the view of nonMormons). That they were willing to excuse a mass murderer in order to be able to arrest and try and hopefully (from their POV) jail the church leader would seem to indicate that a less prominent LDS would have a greater chance at a fair trial than the church's leader.

Isn't it relatively common to cut deals to criminals who turn on their bosses?

Your example indicates that they weren't able to convict Brigham Young of anything because they didn

[Analytics]

History of the Church, 4:370

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't it relatively common to cut deals to criminals who turn on their bosses?

Your example indicates that they weren't able to convict Brigham Young of anything because they didn

[USU78]

Did you notice that appealing to a non-Mormon judge produced fair results? And it also didn

[Analytics]

A, you miss the point. You were touting on the next prior page that Missouri didn't do anything against JSJr...

I never said--much less "touted"--any such thing. CFR.

...and JSJr didn't try to use habeas corpus until and antiMormon feeling didn't arise until AFTER BOGGES GOT HIMSELF SHOT.

No, I said the Saints got along "relatively" peacefully in Illinois and had general sympathy from their neighbors there until that incident.

The irony of you blaming the victim in the Boggs atempted murder is off the charts, BTW.

But it was a nice dodge. Bet you were a wrestler in school. Am I right?

As usual, no.

[USU78]

I never said--much less "touted"--any such thing. CFR.

I refer the gentle reader to A's post # 129 on the next prior page.

No, I said the Saints got along "relatively" peacefully in Illinois and had general sympathy from their neighbors there until that incident.

And you are quite wrong. The folks who welcomed them to Illinois after the Mormon Missouri Long March from Ray/Clay Counties to the river (at bayonet point) and beyond remained on pretty good terms with the Mormons. It was the stinkers in Hancock County that were the principal problem, not the great folks in Adams County.

The irony of you blaming the victim in the Boggs atempted murder is off the charts, BTW.

Just been learning from Analytics, who continues throughout this here thread to blame JSJr for his own death at the hands of mobsters with the winking approval of elected officials with their eyes on the polls. Right ain't right. Might is right. And religious dissenters are fair game for exclusion from public life.

Silly stuff that, ignoring Bogges' being one of the main movers in the "Git that Joe Smith" movement in Missouri, after being probably responsible for the JSJr escape in April 1839. Pride of one's legacy only rarely leads one to attempted judicial murder. Lilburn's a rare bird indeed.

I never blamed Cousin Lilburn for the assassination attempt, A. You misread me. I joked about Danites be responsible, because it's just as absurd as blaming JSJr for being in on the attempt. Ain't a bit of evidence for such a thing.

[Calm]

Isn't it relatively common to cut deals to criminals who turn on their bosses?

IOW, they treat "bosses" differently than they treat the 'underlings. Using the example of an underling, Rockwell, and assuming that they would treat his "boss" the same way is a stretch, as someone said before IIRC, it's comparing apples and oranges.

[Analytics]

I refer the gentle reader to A's post # 129 on the next prior page.

That post neither says nor implies me claiming that "Missouri didn't do anything against JSJr" or anything even remotely like that. Your accusation is proven false.

In response to me saying, "No, I said the Saints got along "relatively" peacefully in Illinois and had general sympathy from their neighbors there until that incident," you replied,

And you are quite wrong. The folks who welcomed them to Illinois after the Mormon Missouri Long March from Ray/Clay Counties to the river (at bayonet point) and beyond remained on pretty good terms with the Mormons. It was the stinkers in Hancock County that were the principal problem, not the great folks in Adams County.

Do you know what the word "relative" means? If so, do you think things got worse for the Saints after that incident, or do you think that the Saints got along with their neighbors in Illinois after that just as well as before?

Just been learning from Analytics, who continues throughout this here thread to blame JSJr for his own death at the hands of mobsters with the winking approval of elected officials with their eyes on the polls. Right ain't right. Might is right.

No, my point is that right is right and reality is reality. I've never blamed Joseph Smith for his own murder, but he is responsible for the choices he made. If somebody rapes a girl in an dark ally in the bad part of town, the raper is to blame for his crime: 100%. But that doesn't change the fact that the girl is still responsible for he choice of putting herself in that situation.

That's my view of things. I doubt you understand and I'm sure you don't agree. That's fine.