Lincoln and the Latter-day Saints

[Scott Lloyd]

Today is Presidents Day, a holiday observed in the United States. 
 

The holiday has not always existed in my lifetime. When I was a boy, it was customary to observe the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, both occurring in February. Later, both observances were consolidated into one day, Presidents Day, created as a national holiday for that purpose. 

To this day, many still regard Washington and Lincoln as the two greatest U.S. presidents. I was brought up to admire President Lincoln in particular, and I still do. 

Later I learned that Lincoln was a contemporary of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, that he lived in Illinois when Joseph Smith did and likely met him. 

Lincoln’s presidency coincided with the early Utah period of Church history. I was relieved to learn that our 16th president had an attitude of tolerance toward the Latter-day Saints. He did not take part in the pervasive persecution and bigotry inflicted on the Church in those days, as this snippet from a Wikipedia entry shows:

”At the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was relieved to receive a telegraphed reassurance from Brigham Young that the Utah territory had no intent to secede from the United States. Lincoln's policy for dealing with the Mormons was to leave them alone. He told a Mormon messenger, ’You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.’^[25] In 1862, congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act with the purpose of outlawing polygamy in Mormon territories. However, as part of his decision to leave the Mormons alone, Lincoln choose not to enforce the law”

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

....................................

”At the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was relieved to receive a telegraphed reassurance from Brigham Young that the Utah territory had no intent to secede from the United States. Lincoln's policy for dealing with the Mormons was to leave them alone. He told a Mormon messenger, ’You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.’^[25] ..............................

We have been over this before at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69628-the-lincoln-hypothesis/

Another version of this is from T. B. H. Stenhouse, quoting Lincoln in 1862:

Quote

“Stenhouse, when I was a boy on the farm in Illinois there was a great deal of timber on the farms which we had to clear away. Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn, and too heavy too move, so we plowed around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.”

The upshot was that Lincoln fully intended to deal with the Mormons after the Civil War.  Meantime, he would just plow around that stump.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

However, as part of his decision to leave the Mormons alone, Lincoln choose not to enforce the law”

Kind of like modern day sanctuary cities!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have been over this before at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69628-the-lincoln-hypothesis/

Another version of this is from T. B. H. Stenhouse, quoting Lincoln in 1862:

The upshot was that Lincoln fully intended to deal with the Mormons after the Civil War.  Meantime, he would just plow around that stump.

How is it “the upshot” that he “intended to deal with them” later? That’s not clear to me from the anecdote. 

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Kind of like modern day sanctuary cities!

I don’t like or agree with sanctuary cities, but logically speaking, this is not a bad comparison. 

[Bob Crockett]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

”At the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was relieved to receive a telegraphed reassurance from Brigham Young that the Utah territory had no intent to secede from the United States. Lincoln's policy for dealing with the Mormons was to leave them alone. He told a Mormon messenger, ’You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.’^[25] In 1862, congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act with the purpose of outlawing polygamy in Mormon territories. However, as part of his decision to leave the Mormons alone, Lincoln choose not to enforce the law”

So wrong.

Lincoln signed it.  It was the basis later for federal incarceration of many fathers in the territory.  Lincoln might have been dead, but he didn't have to sign the legislation.  It was the foundation for disestablishment of the Church, a terrible crime perpetrated against the Saints.  By the Republican Party, I add.  Democrats, Catholics and Jews stood up in defense against disestablishment; didn't work.

It is no wonder that Brigham Young feared for the wholesale slaughter of the Saints when suddenly he found himself out of Mexican Territory and back in the U.S.  I appreciate the fact of patriotism today, but at or about time of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. was hell bent to exterminate the Saints.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

So wrong.

Lincoln signed it.  It was the basis later for federal incarceration of many fathers in the territory.  Lincoln might have been dead, but he didn't have to sign the legislation.  It was the foundation for disestablishment of the Church, a terrible crime perpetrated against the Saints.  By the Republican Party, I add.  Democrats, Catholics and Jews stood up in defense against disestablishment; didn't work.

 

It’s not wrong to say he chose not to enforce it. Perhaps things would have been different for a while, at least, had he not been assassinated. 

[Bob Crockett]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not wrong to say he chose not to enforce it. Perhaps things would have been different for a while, at least, had he not been assassinated. 

It is not fair to lionize Lincoln over this.  Congress, not President Lincoln, did not allocate funds for enforcement during his lifetime.  That came later, after his death.  None of that could have happened had Lincoln simply vetoed the law, as urged by civil libertarians.

The law was the first legislation to criminalize polygamy.  Many latter-day saints became felons under the law.  The law was challenged in the Supreme Court and Mr. Reynolds lost and continued his timei in the pen.  So, I don't see how anybody could possibly pat Lincoln on the back for this legislation.

One could say that things might have different had he not been assassinated. I don't see it.  He signed deeply troublesome legislation against the Church and its members whereupon it had a life of its own.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is not fair to lionize Lincoln over this.  Congress, not President Lincoln, did not allocate funds for enforcement during his lifetime.  That came later, after his death.  None of that could have happened had Lincoln simply vetoed the law, as urged by civil libertarians.

I’m not lionizing him over it. I’m merely pointing out that Lincoln showed a measure of tolerance for the Saints when so many others of that time period did not, a demonstrable fact. And his signing of the law does not negate the fact that he pledged not to enforce it. It was his assassination, not his free will, that stopped him from following through on the pledge. The law could not have had “a life of its own” without a willing executive to enforce it. 
 

It shows the weakness of your argument when you have to put up straw men to attack.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not lionizing him over it. I’m merely pointing out that Lincoln showed a measure of tolerance for the Saints when so many others of that time period did not, a demonstrable fact. And his signing of the law does not negate the fact that he pledged not to enforce it. It was his assassination, not his free will, that stopped him from following through on the pledge. 
 

It shows the weakness of your argument when you have to put up straw men to attack.

Which argument is a straw man?   I've been published in this area -- well indirectly as to the subject matter.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Which argument is a straw man?   I've been published in this area -- well indirectly as to the subject matter.

 

It’s a straw man to say I’m “lionizing” Lincoln over his pledge not to enforce the anti-polygamy legislation. All I did was say he showed a measure of tolerance thereby. 
 

And it’s a straw man to hold forth about how the Morrill Act was oppressive and harmful to the Saints, as though I had denied that; I have not. 
 

You don’t think Lincoln deserves credit for promising to leave the Church alone. I get that. But it’s an expression of opinion on your part. 
 

That’s not how you couched it, though. You came at me with two words: “So wrong.” I was not wrong in the point I made: that Lincoln pledged not to bother the Saints and that he showed a measure of tolerance thereby  

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not about to debate what you said in your opening post.  

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I'm not about to debate what you said in your opening post.  

Heh. Fine with me. I’m not asking you to. 

[Bob Crockett]

This BYU article is a good summary of Lincoln's relationship with the Saints.  https://rsc.byu.edu/civil-war-saints/abraham-lincoln-mormons.   Very conflicted relationship.  

However, I note the author misspells the word "block" when it should be "bloc."  

She notes that when one of Brigham Young's sons went to negotiate with Lincoln over polygamy, Lincoln made a joke of it -- how could a man with one wife possibly want another.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

This BYU article is a good summary of Lincoln's relationship with the Saints.  https://rsc.byu.edu/civil-war-saints/abraham-lincoln-mormons.   Very conflicted relationship.  

However, I note the author misspells the word "block" when it should be "bloc."  

She notes that when one of Brigham Young's sons went to negotiate with Lincoln over polygamy, Lincoln made a joke of it -- how could a man with one wife possibly want another.

 

Good article. 

It sustains my impression about Lincoln’s attitude toward the Latter-day Saints, as reflected in this excerpt:

”Lincoln filled key positions which inherently involved interaction with LDS Church leaders. Lincoln’s attitude of restraint and even unconcern toward the Mormons became important in the history of the Church during the Civil War when he was president. Such an attitude may have been in part because of his associations with Latter-day Saints during his early political career.

”As Brigham Young was establishing communities in the West, Lincoln made several executive decisions that affected their lives and history. Lincoln is known for his ability to value people despite individual differences, a characteristic that led to generous decisions in his assessment of the Latter-day Saints. He could have demanded that a moral high ground be maintained in his positions; instead, he consistently took a stance of toleration.”

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How is it “the upshot” that he “intended to deal with them” later? That’s not clear to me from the anecdote. 

Lincoln fully intended to deal harshly with the Mormon problem after the Civil War, and he was by no means alone in that intention.  The ruling elite of America had decided that the "twin relics of barbarism" were slavery and polygamy.  There is no doubt that Lincoln and Brigham Young were great men, but each had major flaws.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Lincoln fully intended to deal harshly with the Mormon problem after the Civil War, and he was by no means alone in that intention.  The ruling elite of America had decided that the "twin relics of barbarism" were slavery and polygamy.  There is no doubt that Lincoln and Brigham Young were great men, but each had major flaws.

You keep asserting that Lincoln intended to “deal harshly” with the Saints, yet have not given any substantiation for that assertion. I read the Woodger piece that Bob Crockett linked to, searching in vain for any indication of such “harsh” intent on the part of Lincoln toward the Church. What I saw instead was indication of a general leave-them-alone inclination on Lincoln’s part as well as a mutual respect, if not amiability, that culminated with celebration in Salt Lake City after Lincoln’s second inaugural and subsequent mourning after his assassination. 
 

The Morrell anti-bigamy act that Lincoln signed into law? Apparently, neither Lincoln nor the Church leaders saw in that anything greater than empty symbolism aimed at placating some of the ambient anti-Mormon sentiment of the day. Oppression of the Saints over polygamy would not build up steam until after Lincoln’s death. 
 

And the “twin relics” plank in the Republican Party platform? Old news. History has shown again and again that U.S. presidents do not feel bound to give strict fealty to party platforms; Lincoln was no exception in that regard.  
 

Incidentally, that BYU Religious Studies Center article that Bob linked to is very good. I thank him for the link and highly recommend it. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

I agree that Lincoln refusing to act against the Saints was not an act of tolerance. From day one he was dealing with impending succession and for the rest of his Presidency he was dealing with the Civil War. He could not have persecuted the saints or enforced anti-polygamy legislation if he wanted to. He would never have gotten away with sending troops to Utah to enforce marriage laws while General Lee was that close to DC.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that Lincoln refusing to act against the Saints was not an act of tolerance. From day one he was dealing with impending succession and for the rest of his Presidency he was dealing with the Civil War. He could not have persecuted the saints or enforced anti-polygamy legislation if he wanted to. He would never have gotten away with sending troops to Utah to enforce marriage laws while General Lee was that close to DC.

As I said, I see no indication of any intent on Lincoln’s part of aggression against the Church even after the war. What we do have are reports of his intent to “let [them] alone” if they let him alone and to treat them as a knotty, green stump in a field and merely plow around them. 
 

Incidentally, this is a common error, but “succession” does not mean secession. They are separate words with distinct spellings, pronunciations and meanings. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You keep asserting that Lincoln intended to “deal harshly” with the Saints, yet have not given any substantiation for that assertion. I read the Woodger piece that Bob Crockett linked to, searching in vain for any indication of such “harsh” intent on the part of Lincoln toward the Church. What I saw instead was indication of a general leave-them-alone inclination on Lincoln’s part as well as a mutual respect, if not amiability, that culminated with celebration in Salt Lake City after Lincoln’s second inaugural and subsequent mourning after his assassination. 

The Morrell anti-bigamy act that Lincoln signed into law? Apparently, neither Lincoln nor the Church leaders saw in that anything greater than empty symbolism aimed at placating some of the ambient anti-Mormon sentiment of the day. Oppression of the Saints over polygamy would not build up steam until after Lincoln’s death. 
 

And the “twin relics” plank in the Republican Party platform? Old news. History has shown again and again that U.S. presidents do not feel bound to give strict fealty to party platforms; Lincoln was no exception in that regard.  
 

Incidentally, that BYU Religious Studies Center article that Bob linked to is very good. I thank him for the link and highly recommend it. 

There may have been mutual respect between Brigham and Honest Abe, but that was only a temporary situation brought on by Brigham's marvelous leadership qualities -- particularly his brilliance in dealing with Johnston's Army (the largest U.S. army ever assembled), which was sent specifically to put down the Mormon problem. I see the standoff more akin to FDR and Stalin, having more to do with Realpolitik than Mr Nice Guy relations.  In Abe's view, the Mormons were the "stump" in the field around which he would temporarily plow.  After the Civil War was over, he had every intention to pull out that stump.

You interpretation is bit on the Pollyanish side, while mine is more cynical.  It is no accident that the American elites came down so hard on our people after the Civil War, very nearly disestablishing the Church.  Whether accommodation was good for us is still a valid question in my mind, but it is a reality which we must accept.  We have met the enemy and they is us now.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, I see no indication of any intent on Lincoln’s part of aggression against the Church even after the war. What we do have are reports of his intent to “let [them] alone” if they let him alone and to treat them as a knotty, green stump in a field and merely plow around them. 
 

Incidentally, this is a common error, but “succession” does not mean secession. They are separate words with distinct spellings, pronunciations and meanings. 

I think you are reading way too much into a metaphor given by Lincoln directly to a potential enemy. If Lincoln planned to deal with the saints he would have been a fool to say so openly.

For the latter I blame autocorrect.

[Bob Crockett]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You interpretation is bit on the Pollyanish side, while mine is more cynical.  It is no accident that the American elites came down so hard on our people after the Civil War, very nearly disestablishing the Church. 

That sums it up.   I think the tendency of Church members to beatify certain people, such as Lincoln, or Thomas More, or even George Washington for that matter, reflects a sort of idol worship.  They are just men, perhaps better than some, but in the end, sinners like the rest of us.

Again, I point out, the Catholics, Jews and Democrats arose in Congress to defend the Saints from imperial tyranny.   When the Church told the Saints to join standard political parties, it was tough to get the Saints into the Republican party.  It was Republican leadership who led the charge against Reed Smoot, subpoenaing apostles and the president of the church to ask them about their sex lives.  

Furthermore, the Republicans around 1875 or so tried to get a constitutional amendment  to make the United States a Christian nation.  The man leading the charge for that amendment, Justice Roberts, sat on the Supreme Court to hear the Reynolds case.  The Republican party approved an amendment to the amendment outlawing the Catholic Church.

So of much of this sprung from the attitude of the Republic party during the Lincoln administration.  The Republicans were not a party of tolerance. 

Today, things have changed among Church members, in part because of Reed Smoot's popularity and decision to run as a Republican.   

Edited February 18, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think you are reading way too much into a metaphor given by Lincoln directly to a potential enemy. If Lincoln planned to deal with the saints he would have been a fool to say so openly.

For the latter I blame autocorrect.

Whatever you think I’m reading into the analogy, it and the other statement appear to be all we have from Lincoln directly addressing his attitude regarding the Saints. So far, I’ve seen nothing to even hint at, let alone compel, the conclusion that Lincoln intended to go after the Church and its leaders once the war was off his plate. For now, I have to put the notion under the heading of pure and so far baseless conjecture. 
 

Did you read the piece by Woodger? It’s very informative and analytical. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There may have been mutual respect between Brigham and Honest Abe, but that was only a temporary situation brought on by Brigham's marvelous leadership qualities -- particularly his brilliance in dealing with Johnston's Army (the largest U.S. army ever assembled), which was sent specifically to put down the Mormon problem. I see the standoff more akin to FDR and Stalin, having more to do with Realpolitik than Mr Nice Guy relations.  In Abe's view, the Mormons were the "stump" in the field around which he would temporarily plow.  After the Civil War was over, he had every intention to pull out that stump.

You interpretation is bit on the Pollyanish side, while mine is more cynical.  It is no accident that the American elites came down so hard on our people after the Civil War, very nearly disestablishing the Church.  Whether accommodation was good for us is still a valid question in my mind, but it is a reality which we must accept.  We have met the enemy and they is us now.

It was Buchanan, not Lincoln, who sent Johnston’s Army. By the time Lincoln came along, the folly of “Buchanan’s blunder” was quite well understood. It was not so much a matter of Brigham Young having faced down the nation as it was that it became clear the venture was stupid to begin with. 
 

If we take the clear, perspicuous meaning of the stump-in-the-field analogy, we have to conclude that Lincoln meant by it that he intended to ignore the Latter-day Saints and “plow around” them. The notion that he was going to take out the stump later seems at this point to be invented from whole cloth. From what I can see, Lincoln never said or did anything to signal that intent. 
 

You keep making a priori assertions about what Lincoln had “every intention” of doing. I’m open to consideration of anything to substantiate that, but so far you have provided nothing. 
 

You say I’m being Pollyanna, but my view is informed by that excellent scholarly and analytical article that Bob Crockett linked us to. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

That sums it up.   I think the tendency of Church members to beatify certain people, such as Lincoln, or Thomas More, or even George Washington for that matter, reflects a sort of idol worship.  They are just men, perhaps better than some, but in the end, sinners like the rest of us.

Again, I point out, the Catholics, Jews and Democrats arose in Congress to defend the Saints from imperial tyranny.   When the Church told the Saints to join standard political parties, it was tough to get the Saints into the Republican party.  It was Republican leadership who led the charge against Reed Smoot, subpoenaing apostles and the president of the church to ask them about their sex lives.  

Furthermore, the Republicans around 1875 or so tried to get a constitutional amendment  to make the United States a Christian nation.  The man leading the charge for that amendment, Justice Roberts, sat on the Supreme Court to hear the Reynolds case.  The Republican party approved an amendment to the amendment outlawing the Catholic Church.

So of much of this sprung from the attitude of the Republic party during the Lincoln administration.  The Republicans were not a party of tolerance. 

Today, things have changed among Church members, in part because of Reed Smoot's popularity and decision to run as a Republican.   

Bob, have you considered how your rhetoric tends to get overwrought very quickly? Earlier you said I was “lionizing” Lincoln When I merely pointed out that he showed tolerance toward the Saints in an era when it was not politically fashionable to do so. 
 

Now you’re accusing me by implication of “idol worship” and “beatifying “ Lincoln because I expressed admiration for him on Presidents Day. You have gone over the top on this. 
 

The rest of your post turns into a screed against the historical Republican Party. I seem to have unintentionally triggered you. I had no idea your partisanship was so close to the surface. 
 

I remind you this is a thread about Abraham Lincoln and his attitude toward the Church and its leaders and members, not about the Republican Party. 
 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd