"He lived great, and he died great"

[Calm]

I really liked the article I linked to for providing context, Julie.  It is written from a believing bias, but contains a lot of info, the most I have seen.

Well written, so a good read, imo.

[Nevo]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you keep making it sound like the print shop was burned when the only thing that was burned were the unsold copies of the paper?  I think that’s disingenuous and misleading on your part. 

Unsold copies of the paper weren't the only thing burned. Charles Foster, who was present, said they "destroyed the Press and all the materials, by throwing them into the street and setting the whole on fire" (Letter to the Editor, St. Louis Evening Gazette, 12 June 1844, 2). Foster also alleged in the Warsaw Messenger that they "injured the building very materially." John Taylor, writing in the Nauvoo Neighbor on 12 June 1844, stated that "the city Marshall at the head of the police in the evening took the press, materials and paper into the street and burnt them." Francis Higbee's complaint on the same date accused Joseph Smith and the city council of "unlawfully burning & destroying the printing press Type & fixtures."

William Law's purported diary also contains this description: "The Marshal had the office door broken open by sledges, the press & type carried out into the street and broken up, then piled the tables, desks, paper &c on top of the press and burned them with fire. The Marshal said his instructions were to burn the houses of the proprietors if they offered any resistance" (William Law diary, 10 June 1844, in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 56).

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Unsold copies of the paper weren't the only thing burned. Charles Foster, who was present, said they "destroyed the Press and all the materials, by throwing them into the street and setting the whole on fire" (Letter to the Editor, St. Louis Evening Gazette, 12 June 1844, 2). Foster also alleged in the Warsaw Messenger that they "injured the building very materially." John Taylor, writing in the Nauvoo Neighbor on 12 June 1844, stated that "the city Marshall at the head of the police in the evening took the press, materials and paper into the street and burnt them." Francis Higbee's complaint on the same date accused Joseph Smith and the city council of "unlawfully burning & destroying the printing press Type & fixtures."

William Law's purported diary also contains this description: "The Marshal had the office door broken open by sledges, the press & type carried out into the street and broken up, then piled the tables, desks, paper &c on top of the press and burned them with fire. The Marshal said his instructions were to burn the houses of the proprietors if they offered any resistance" (William Law diary, 10 June 1844, in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 56).

According to Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 231, the order from the city council was to “destroy the printing press from which issues the Nauvoo Expositor and pie the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous hand bills found in said establishment.” 

This was according to city council minutes. 

On page 232 of that source, Joseph Smith is quoted as saying to Gov. Ford: 

“If it is deemed that we did wrong in destroying the press, we refuse not to pay for it; we are desirous to fulfill the law in every particular and are responsible for our acts.”

Also on that page, he is quoted as writing in a letter to Ford:

”If we have erred in judgment it is an official act, and belongs to the sipreme court to correct it, and assess damages versus the city to restore property abated as a nuisance.”

So I stand by my understanding that Joseph expressed willingness to pay restitution for the property loss. 

And I remain unconvinced that there was burning of anything other than printed matter. 

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Professional historians Glen Leonard and James B. Allen disagree with you on the matter of restitution. I’n The Story of the Latter-day Saints, they wrote on page 208:

“[Joseph] also satisfied the governor concerning the city council's action and offered to pay for the property damaged if that would appease those plotting his destruction.”

I looked again at the account in the History of the Church and it turns out I stopped reading too soon. It does indeed say, on page 579, "Joseph said we were willing to pay for the press, as he did not want the owners to suffer any loss by it, [i. e. its suppression] neither did he wish such a libelous paper to be published in Nauvoo."

To see if I could save face at all, I went to Willard Richards's diary, which is the primary source for the conversation with Ford.

Richards recorded: "Joseph said we were willing to pay for it." Now that's a bit more ambiguous than the History of the Church's version (which is a much later expansion of Richards's notes), but it's not unreasonable to assume "it" was the destroyed printing press. [Edited to add: The letter to Ford that you mention above also supports this reading.] Although, I will point out that Joseph doesn't make this offer until things have gotten really serious. In the days following the suppression of the Expositor, he was defiant and wasn't making any concessions to the Laws and Higbees--as indicated by his fining of Francis Higbee for "malicious prosecution." I think it's fair to say that the offer of restitution was made under some duress.

Quote

Leonard and Allen also wrote that several members of the council were later acquitted in a jury trial.

No, that is still wrong. I double-checked.

Edited July 2, 2018 by Nevo

[USU78]

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

Coming to this thread late, but Joseph Smith et al. were charged on 12 June 1844 with the crime of riot for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor. The relevant Illinois statute appears to be here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873;view=1up;seq=238

Thank you. Could never have held up, though points for prosecutorial creativity. Official actions by definition cannot constitute riot, though if official acts foment riot, the remedy therefor is not legal, but rather political.

Illinois made the mistake of continuing to pursue legal means by pursuing treason charges, but the facts never fit either charge.

Since we have to impute competence to Illinois officialdom (they knew/should have known the charges were bogus and would never withstand habeas corpus), this leads inescapably to pretextual judicial murder.

Kill Joseph. Scatter the Mormons.

Edited July 2, 2018 by USU78

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

Unsold copies of the paper weren't the only thing burned. Charles Foster, who was present, said they "destroyed the Press and all the materials, by throwing them into the street and setting the whole on fire" (Letter to the Editor, St. Louis Evening Gazette, 12 June 1844, 2). Foster also alleged in the Warsaw Messenger that they "injured the building very materially." John Taylor, writing in the Nauvoo Neighbor on 12 June 1844, stated that "the city Marshall at the head of the police in the evening took the press, materials and paper into the street and burnt them." Francis Higbee's complaint on the same date accused Joseph Smith and the city council of "unlawfully burning & destroying the printing press Type & fixtures."

William Law's purported diary also contains this description: "The Marshal had the office door broken open by sledges, the press & type carried out into the street and broken up, then piled the tables, desks, paper &c on top of the press and burned them with fire. The Marshal said his instructions were to burn the houses of the proprietors if they offered any resistance" (William Law diary, 10 June 1844, in Lyndon W. Cook, William Law [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 56).

Thanks again, Nevo for showing up and correcting some of the misrepresentations (or misunderstandings) here and for also supplying some very interesting information on this.  I love that you go right to the actual sources.

(I wish you'd post more on here....I always enjoy reading and learning from you!)

Edited July 2, 2018 by ALarson

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Thanks again, Nevo for showing up and correcting some of the misrepresentations (or misunderstandings) here and for also supplying some very interesting information on this.  I love that you go right to the actual sources.

(I wish you'd post more on here....I always enjoy reading and learning from you!)

Thanks. I'm just sorry that, in my attempt to "set the record straight," I got the facts wrong and introduced another misunderstanding. Physician, heal thyself! I'll try to be more careful in the future.

I've been posting less for a couple of reasons. Some of it is just fatigue. After 15+ years on the board, I find I just don't have much left to say about most things. When I do post, I mostly just repeat myself. But the main reason is that I have less free time than I used to, with a new baby in the house and a new job. This weekend was a long weekend in Canada so I've been on a posting bender.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Thanks. I'm just sorry that, in my attempt to "set the record straight," I got the facts wrong and introduced another misunderstanding. Physician, heal thyself! I'll try to be more careful in the future.

I've been posting less for a couple of reasons. Some of it is just fatigue. After 15+ years on the board, I find I just don't have much left to say about most things. When I do post, I mostly just repeat myself. But the main reason is that I have less free time than I used to, with a new baby in the house and a new job. This weekend was a long weekend in Canada so I've been on a posting bender.

I can relate to that. Once upon a time, these issues seemed of possibly eternal significance. Not so much anymore. 

Hope the new baby is doing well. 

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

The Nauvoo Municipal Court was never going to reimburse William Law and he knew it.

And you know that how? 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Thank you. Could never have held up, though points for prosecutorial creativity. Official actions by definition cannot constitute riot, though if official acts foment riot, the remedy therefor is not legal, but rather political.

Illinois made the mistake of continuing to pursue legal means by pursuing treason charges, but the facts never fit either charge.

Since we have to impute competence to Illinois officialdom (they knew/should have known the charges were bogus and would never withstand habeas corpus), this leads inescapably to pretextual judicial murder.

Kill Joseph. Scatter the Mormons.

Hence the title of the Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill book “Carthage Conspiracy.” The conspiracy being to use legal maneuvering or other means at hand to get Joseph away from Nauvoo so he would be more vulnerable to their murderous intent. If the Expositor incident had not been available some other excuse would have been sought. I believe the bogus charges of perjury and adultery in May, already referred to in this thread, were in line with that effort. 

Edited to add: 

The charge of treason, bizarre as it is, is another example of what you call “prosecutorial creativity.” It was based on the declaration of martial law in Nauvoo, but in making that declaration, the municipal government was acting within its authority to protect the residents of the city. 

Clearly, the conspirators were grasping at any excuse they could find, valid or not, to get Joseph in a position where they could kill him. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You have that worng. The publishers of the Expositor were not villains.  They were exercising their right of freedom of speach.  JS used force to destroy priviate property to try and prevent a newspaper from being published.  Really Scott,  I would think as a reporter you would have some connection to the idea of a free press.  Could JS do no worng in your eyes?

And this is why I believe the Joseph is not a martyr...but was killed (should not have been)..because he broke the law..this gives no good reason for the mob reaction..but Joseph, in my view..did not die because of his belief..he died because he was being exposed and chose to destroy the evidence. I wish that he had lived...it would have been a different story for the Saints and their journey west.

[Nevo]

14 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

And you know that how? 

Because all the historical evidence suggests that the Nauvoo Municipal Court was never going to find against Joseph Smith and the city council in favor of Law and his associates.

Previous civil suits against Smith brought by Francis Higbee had gone nowhere. Higbee sued Smith on 1 May 1844 in Hancock County Circuit Court "for being slandered before the Nauvoo City Council on Jan. 5, 1844, as a thief, fornicator, whoremaster, murderer, adulterer, perjurer, with 'rotten stinking [venereal] disease' that kept JS from coming near him" (in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, 507). On 6 May, "an arrest warrant was served on JS based on the slander complaint of Francis M. Higbee, but JS filed for a writ of habeas corpus from the Nauvoo Municipal Court." On 8 May, "writ of habeas corpus was granted by the Nauvoo Municipal Court dismissing the charges brought by Higbee with costs assessed against him."

On 7 June, the Expositor published its first (and only) issue "attacking the political powers in Nauvoo and specifically JS and Hyrum." On 10 June, the city council passed an ordinance providing that "if any person or persons should write or publish any false statement or libel against another citizen for the 'purpose of exciting the public mind against the chartered privileges, peace, and good order of the city' or should slander another, they would be deemed disturbers of the peace and fined up to five hundred dollars, and imprisoned for up to six months." The council also authorized the police and Nauvoo Legion to suppress the Expositor as a nuisance.

On 12 June, believing that libel ordinance was intended "by a form of law [to] rob us of our property, and get us into their prisons to take away our lives," William and Wilson Law and Robert D. Foster and their families left Nauvoo for Burlington, Iowa, where they found lodging in a hotel (William Law diary, in Cook, William Law, 56–57). David Kilbourne, who spoke with Law on the 12th, recorded in a letter three days later that "Mr.Law told me they intended to secure quarters for the women & children & return to Nauvoo to fight if necessary. Law told me he would just as soon live in h---l as in Nauvoo—that Joe would have no scruples to cause any man's life to be taken to carry out his plans. . . . The night after Law left two attempts were made to fire his mill & house" (in Hallwas and Launius, Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois, 161).

On 12 June, "based on a complaint filed by Francis M. Higbee in Carthage, JS and the city council and participating police were arrested by a Carthage constable and charged with riot . . . JS went before the Nauvoo Municipal Court with George W. Harris presiding on Justice Aaron Johnson's writ of habeas corpus and was acquitted." On 13 June, "presiding over the Nauvoo Municipal Court, JS discharged all of the other sixteen defendants in the Expositor matter. Francis Higbee was assessed all of the court costs for malicious prosecution" (Sustaining the Law, 510).

Given all this, what do you think the odds were that the Nauvoo Municipal Court would have found in favor of Law et al. in a civil suit in mid-June 1844?

[Nevo]

10 hours ago, Nevo said:

No, that is still wrong. I double-checked.

Okay, I'm out of this thread. Looks like Scott was right about this too. 😦

Allen and Leonard state:

"Authorized only to hold a preliminary hearing, the Nauvoo court had exceeded its authority in deciding a riot case with finality. A few days later, to quiet public indignation and at the suggest of the state circuit judge, Joseph Smith and fifteen others named in the complaint repeated the process of examination before justice Daniel H. Wells. Again they were discharged, but again the inquiring judge was only a justice of the peace without authority to acquit. A few of the defendants later submitted to a trial before a circuit court jury and were legally acquitted. This release came too late to calm the storm that eventually claimed two lives at Carthage" (pp. 206–207).

I don't know what their source is for the bolded claim. I haven't seen mention of jury trial acquittal anywhere else unless they're referring to the two Nauvoo policemen tried in 1846. But it's possible I've overlooked it. Have been doing that a lot lately.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Okay, I'm out of this thread. Looks like Scott was right about this too. 😦

Allen and Leonard state:

"Authorized only to hold a preliminary hearing, the Nauvoo court had exceeded its authority in deciding a riot case with finality. A few days later, to quiet public indignation and at the suggest of the state circuit judge, Joseph Smith and fifteen others named in the complaint repeated the process of examination before justice Daniel H. Wells. Again they were discharged, but again the inquiring judge was only a justice of the peace without authority to acquit. A few of the defendants later submitted to a trial before a circuit court jury and were legally acquitted. This release came too late to calm the storm that eventually claimed two lives at Carthage" (pp. 206–207).

I don't know what their source is for the bolded claim. I haven't seen mention of jury trial acquittal anywhere else unless they're referring to the two Nauvoo policemen tried in 1846. But it's possible I've overlooked it. Have been doing that a lot lately.

Please don’t leave the thread on my account. 

You’re a formidable debater, but you readily acknowledge error, a quality that is all too rare around these parts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And this is why I believe the Joseph is not a martyr...but was killed (should not have been)..because he broke the law..this gives no good reason for the mob reaction..but Joseph, in my view..did not die because of his belief..he died because he was being exposed and chose to destroy the evidence. I wish that he had lived...it would have been a different story for the Saints and their journey west.

Please read and consider “Carthage Conspiracy” (a scholarly book written while Dallin Oaks was a law professor, many years before he became a General Authority in the Church)  before hastily concluding that Joseph was killed “because he broke the law” or that he wasn’t a martyr. The events are far more complicated than you realize. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please read and consider “Carthage Conspiracy” (a scholarly book written while Dallin Oaks was a law professor, many years before he became a General Authority in the Church)  before hastily concluding that Joseph was killed “because he broke the law” or that he wasn’t a martyr. The events are far more complicated than you realize. 

I will do that.  I would love to..and thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/1/2018 at 11:56 PM, sunstoned said:

You have that worng. The publishers of the Expositor were not villains.  They were exercising their right of freedom of speach.  JS used force to destroy priviate property to try and prevent a newspaper from being published.  Really Scott,  I would think as a reporter you would have some connection to the idea of a free press.  Could JS do no worng in your eyes?

I reverence freedom of the press as I do the other three pillars of liberty in the First Amendment, but none of these is absolute. It is not at all difficult to think of examples in which each is and ought to be limited:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

No one is allowed to shout “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. 

FREEDOM OF RELIGION 

No one may invoke free exercise of religion to justify murder or larceny or even violation of local zoning ordinances. 

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

This is subject to time, place and manner restrictions. The Constitution does not give me license to hold my political rally on your private property without your permission, for example. 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

There is no constitutional right to publish libel about a person, for example. Doing so can subject one to civil penalties. 

In the case of the Expositor, it was suppressed because it was inciting violence (Calm pointed this out). Even today, incitement to riot is not constitutionally protected. 

We can argue reasonably about whether destruction of the press was illegal. But given its nefarious intent, the newspaper was rightly suppressed. I think that is beyond reasonable dispute. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I reverence freedom of the press as I do the other three pillars of liberty in the First Amendment, but none of these is absolute. It is not at all difficult to think of examples in which each is and ought to be limited:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

No one is allowed to shout “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. 

FREEDOM OF RELIGION 

No one may invoke free exercise of religion to justify murder or larceny or even violation of local zoning ordinances. 

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

This is subject to time, place and manner restrictions. The Constitution does not permit me to hold my political rally on your private property without your permission, for example. 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

There is no constitutional right to publish libel about a person, for example. Doing so can subject one to civil penalties. 

In the case of the Expositor, it was suppressed because it was inciting violence (Calm pointed this out). Even today, incitement to riot is not constitutionally protected. 

We can argue reasonably about whether destruction of the press was illegal. But given its nefarious intent, the newspaper was rightly suppressed. I think that is beyond reasonable dispute. 

I don't remember an incitement to violence in the Expositor. Maybe I'll have to reread it, but can you point me to it? I'm not saying that's incorrect, but all I can recall is that it used some purple prose to "expose" what was going on in the church. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

[JSJr] was killed (should not have been)..because he broke the law..this gives no good reason for the mob reaction..but Joseph, in my view..did not die because of his belief..he died because he was being exposed and chose to destroy the evidence. I wish that he had lived...it would have been a different story for the Saints and their journey west.

A considerable stretch.  Perhaps it would be simpler if you were merely to say, "I believe JSJr was a criminal.  I believe he was killed because he was a criminal.  Nothing you say will dissuade me from this belief.  I don't care about jurisdictional matters or evidentiary sufficiency.  I don't care about the evidence of animus and bloodthirstiness of those behind the Expositer.  I don't care that JSJr's arrest would never hold up to legal challenge.  I have my belief.  I'll die with my belief."

Perhaps it would save everybody time and bandwidth?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, USU78 said:

A considerable stretch.  Perhaps it would be simpler if you were merely to say, "I believe JSJr was a criminal.  I believe he was killed because he was a criminal.  Nothing you say will dissuade me from this belief.  I don't care about jurisdictional matters or evidentiary sufficiency.  I don't care about the evidence of animus and bloodthirstiness of those behind the Expositer.  I don't care that JSJr's arrest would never hold up to legal challenge.  I have my belief.  I'll die with my belief."

Perhaps it would save everybody time and bandwidth?

Seems to be putting a lot of words into her mouth. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't remember an incitement to violence in the Expositor. Maybe I'll have to reread it, but can you point me to it? I'm not saying that's incorrect, but all I can recall is that it used some purple prose to "expose" what was going on in the church. 

See Calm’s posts on this thread. 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems to be putting a lot of words into her mouth. 

Please read for content.  I did not "put words in her mouth," but rather suggested intentionality.  That may be evidenced by, but is not limited to words spoken/written.

I remain agnostic on (a) your own willingness fairly to evaluate the evidence, and (b) your own slavish devotion to a point of view.

[jkwilliams]

On 7/1/2018 at 7:45 AM, Calm said:

I don't know whether you missed it or are ignoring it, but the problem with the Expositor was it was inciting violence more than exposing anything.

Why does the physical violence only need to be against the Prophet/Mayor for the City Council to take action?  

On top of that, calling to repeal the Charter so that the city/Mormons would lose their main form of self defense, the Nauvoo Legion...highly incendiary for the community.

Quoted before

 

 

I'm not sure the quotes you give suggest an incitement to violence. Here is the section in question.

Quote

The question is asked, will you bring a mob upon us? In answer to that, we assure all concerned, that we will be among the first to put down anything like an illegal force being used against any man or set of men. If any one has become amenable to the law, we wish to have him tried impartially by the laws of his country. We are among the number who believe that there is virtue and integrity enough in the administrators of the law, to bring every offender to justice, and to protect the innocent. If it is necessary to make a show of force, to execute legal process, it will create no sympathy in that case to cry out, we are mobbed. There is such a thing as persons being deceived into a false sympathy once, who, the second time, will scrutinize very closely, to know who, or which party, are the persecutors. It is not always the first man who cries out, stop thief, that is robbed. It is the upright, honest, considerate and moral precepts of any class that will be respected in this or any other enlightened age — precepts which have for their end the good of mankind, and the establishment of fundamental truths. On the other hand, paradoxical dogmas, new systems of government, new codes of morals, a new administration of the laws by ignorant, unlettered, and corrupt men,  must be frowned down by every lover of his country. The well-being of society demand it at our hands. Our country, by whose laws we are protected, asks us for a manifestation of that patriotism which should inspire every American citizen — the interests of the State of Illinois require it, and as a citizen of Illinois, we intend to respond to the voice of duty, and stand the hazard of the die.

The "show of force" seems to be speaking of the "legal process" being carried out, which they say should not be considered being "mobbed." 

I can see where you get the idea of calling for a mob, but it seems more that that they "assure all concerned" they will "put down anything like an illegal force being used against any man or set of men." Either way, it's not as clear-cut as you make it sound.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Please read for content.  I did not "put words in her mouth," but rather suggested intentionality.  That may be evidenced by, but is not limited to words spoken/written.

I remain agnostic on (a) your own willingness fairly to evaluate the evidence, and (b) your own slavish devotion to a point of view.

Do you really think she was saying "Joseph was a criminal," facts be damned? That's how I read what you said. 

As Scott said, the issues surrounding the Expositor and the murders of Joseph and Hyrum are complicated and defy easy answers, though I will say that it was murder, and there was no justification for it. Full stop. If you think I'm unwilling to fairly evaluate the evidence and have a slavish devotion to a point of view, that's your prerogative. 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not sure the quotes you give suggest an incitement to violence. Here is the section in question.

The "show of force" seems to be speaking of the "legal process" being carried out, which they say should not be considered being "mobbed." 

I can see where you get the idea of calling for a mob, but it seems more that that they "assure all concerned" they will "put down anything like an illegal force being used against any man or set of men." Either way, it's not as clear-cut as you make it sound.

I dare say no mob ever acknowledged itself to be illegal or unjustified.