Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs

[Dunamis]

I do not like the tone of this thread. Do not use our boards to tell us what you "think", demand "answers" and then respond rudely to what is offered.

If you are upset with Brigham or Ralph or your dog Rover, telling us once how much you don't like them is adequate. Otherwise, move on, folks. And move now if you have nothing more to offer than how you "feel".

"Put up or shut up, bub?" You immediately received several responses in kind. That is how it starts and you started it. Rollo, I'm thinking I liked you better when you had a 10 post cap.

[Brackite]

Hello There,

I will be leaving this discussion thread after this Post. I know how you Good and Nice People here know how I believe, think, and feel on this matter and situation here.

Edited to add that comment of Brigham Young stealing (taking) Henry Jacob

[StoneyburnSaint]

And I find it very offensive that a Man who already had at least 12 wives of his own has to go out and steal another man

[Rollo Tomasi]

Am I being unclear, or are you being obtuse?

Allen:

1. You were being unclear (at least to me, because you kept going on about marriage licenses and the effect of "presentism," etc.). I'm glad we apparently have finally agreed on this issue.

2. I think this "laws of Iowa" debate we are having is a red herring. Brigham Young "married" Zina Jacobs in Nauvoo, Illinois on February 2, 1846 (the basis for his later behavior in Mt. Pisagh, Iowa in taking Zina and the boys as his "property," and sending Henry on a mission to England); therefore, the legal divorce between Henry and Zina should have happened in Illinois at that time. Do you disagree? If not, do you have any evidence that a legal divorce occurred in Illinois (or anywhere else)?

[Pace Nielsen]

...the legal divorce between Henry and Zina should have happened in Illinois at that time. Do you disagree?

As simple as that question is, it isn't simple to answer.

1) These people were being persecuted and driven from the state. Did they have the opportunity to find someone who could perform divorces? Who could they trust?

2) From what I understand, Brigham was busy night and day in the temple doing ordinances until they left. Did the others have time to get a legal divorce (and from whom)? Did they understand at that time, that a legal divorce was important?

3) Was the issue like that of baptisms for the dead, in that their understanding of it developed over time? Apparently Brigham had to make a statement about other men walking in shoes. Who's to say that these people just didn't realize that a proper divorce should happen (if possible). Maybe they thought what Brigham did was a valid thing (although not techincally legal under US law), and that now that they were in Iowa (with little culture and society) they just winged it.

[cdowis]

Stoney: steal another man

[Blink]

Stoney: steal another man

[Teancum]

BY said the Henry that he (BY) was Jospeh's proxy.  Therefore Ziana was not Henry's property but Brigham.  She belinged to Brigham according to Brigham

Are you ready to slame Mr. Young now or later?

Huh? Too many typos. Zina spoke for herself. We have her words. She is not a potted plant. I "belong" to my husband, too. So what? Zina still has a mouth and she used it. Are you going to go back into the 19th century with Brigham? That is what I am seeing here and that is what I have said. I don't see much changing in attitudes towards women when what they say becomes inconvenient and I find it disturbing.

Let me try again.

BY said Zina was HIS PROPERTY.

He uses this concept to tell Henry to get packing.

Whether or not Zina wanted to be with BY has nothing to do with the fact that he believed he had property rights. So, as you are really adament that women not be treated like property I wondered how you felt about BY's comments. Understand?

As for Zina, certianly she was going to take the position that the life she was living and still in was the one she prefrred. and possibly she really did prefer it.

Still, that just means that she abandoned Henry for someone else. Whether Henry deserved it or not can still be debated.

Teancum

[Teancum]

I would aks you once again, do you have any criticism of BY for stating that Ziana and he chidlren were his property?

I think it was customary speech in the 19th century. Do we like it now? Of course not. I counter much worse things in my studies of early Christianity and sometimes it is difficult to keep my 21st century sensibilities on the shelf. But it has to be done if you are going to understand and learn from something rather than sit in judgement as a morally superior being with the benefit of centuries of armchair hindsight paid for with other people's pain and suffering.

Certian norms were the norm then and now.

The behavior of BY and Zina was resoundly condemdned by their society as much as it is ours.

Their only excuse may be that they really believed what they were doing was of God.

Teancum

[juliann]

Teancum, you keep flipping from the property thing to being naughty. It is as if you are just trying to find something to be mad about. First, women were considered property in that time....yet despite that, Utah had some of the most progressive policies of the time....the vote, education and most relevant to this...quickie divorces. The rest of the states were flooding to Utah to get them. Few seem to be aware of that as they proclaim how trapped all the women were.

As to be naughty...well, sure it looks bad. To us. I suspect that civil law did not mean much to a group of people who had suffered greatly because of it...and remained vulnerable as the government tried to destroy the church. I suspect that to them a temple sealing trumped a civil marriage.

I just have to sit back and look at all of this indignation and moralizing at the expense of a group of strangers who had suffered unbelievable hardship and torment with amazement. How many situations in the 19th century can we not feel superior over while sitting in our plush chairs while ordering out ?

[Confidential Informant]

Just a quick FYI that may or may not be related to your discussion here.

It is completely possible that the Iowa Territory didn't have any divorce laws in the applicable time period.

Remeber, Iowa was a territory not yet a state and therefore it was subject to federal, not states law.

However, divorce is strictly a state-law function.

While hardly conclusive, I ran a Westlaw search for any divorce cases in Iowa between the years of 1840-1844. I got zip.

C.I.

[Pace Nielsen]

Blink,

No. From a legal perspective, she was only legally married to one person (Henry), at least while she was in the United States. From a definitional perspective, she only had one partner at a time (Henry first, and then Brigham second). From a moral perspecitve, I suppose she thought of herself as divorced from Henry and married to Brigham. Whether these divorces and marriages were legal, in the eyes of the law, in Iowa, in my opinion, is moot considering that the saints were being driven unlawfully from their lands.

So on all these fronts, the answer is no, she was not living in polyandry (the way most people would understand the word).

Best,

Pace

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 2. I think this "laws of Iowa" debate we are having is a red herring. Brigham Young "married" Zina Jacobs in Nauvoo, Illinois on February 2, 1846 (the basis for his later behavior in Mt. Pisagh, Iowa in taking Zina and the boys as his "property," and sending Henry on a mission to England); therefore, the legal divorce between Henry and Zina should have happened in Illinois at that time. Do you disagree? If not, do you have any evidence that a legal divorce occurred in Illinois (or anywhere else)?

It is not a red herring, as it is clear from the evidence provided in this thread that Zina and Henry were living together as husband and wife when they moved to Mt. Pisgah in 1846.

To answer your question I had to do some more research. I hope you will find it useful.

Critics are quick to say that Henry and Zina never received a "legal and lawful" divorce when they apparently split, permanently, in Mt. Pisgah, Iowa.

Mt. Pisgah is no longer in existence, although there are some monuments there and a cemetery. It was in use by Mormons from 1846 until 1852. On current maps it is in Union County, in Southwestern Iowa, about 4 miles south and 1 mile west of Lorimor. In 1846 the area was an "unincorporated" part of Iowa, meaning that it was not in any particular county. If you get out your own atlas and find the location of Mt. Pisgah, then compare it to an 1846 map of Iowa, you can see what being "unincorporated" means. You can find maps at either of the following locations:

http://www.kcpl.lib.mo.us/localhistory/med...?mediaID=162820

http://iagenweb.org/jasper/maps/1846gb.htm

Note on the maps that Mt. Pisgah, in Southwestern Iowa, is in the middle of what is shown as Indian territory (the Potawatomi Indians). Union County was not created until 1853, seven years after Zina and Henry were there and a year after the Saints stopped using Mt. Pisgah. According to county histories, the first permanent settlers didn't come into this area (what would become Union County) until 1849.

Henry and Zina were in Mt. Pisgah relatively early in 1846. This was, essentially, the frontier; it was literally the "wild, wild West." At the time, divorces were granted by District Courts, as specified in the Revised Statues of the Territory of Iowa, Revised and Comiled by a Joint Committee of the Legislature--Session 1842-43, Chapter 65, pages 169-172. (I contacted the Iowa State Law Library and had them fax me a copy.)

According to the same source, there were only three District Courts established in the Iowa Territory, and these covered only the eastern-most counties of the state. There were no district courts that covered the unincorporated areas (the "Indian lands"), nor were there any in 1846 in any of the counties bordering the unincorporated areas. The unsettled nature of divorces during territorial days is further underscored by the fact that even though District Courts were given jurisdiction over divorces in 1842-43, the state legislature was, itself, granting some divorces into the early 1850s. (The fact that a legislative body handled what is essentially a judicial task is interesting. Separation of powers back then doesn't seem to be as clear cut as we want to view it today--unsettled, indeed.)

Critics who complain of Henry and Zina not having a "legal and lawful" divorce, and of Brigham not having a "legal and lawful" marriage to Zina, fail to point out what constitutes "legal and lawful" when it comes to a frontier where there is little established government. Who, exactly, should they have gone to in order to satisfy our modern sensibilities of what constitutes "legal and lawful?"

Let's use a present-day scenario. Suppose that a married couple moves from the United States to someplace where there is no government--perhaps a small island in the South Pacific. How would this couple go about getting a divorce? What law would hold jurisdiction over them?

Or, consider a case where a married couple moves to the "outback" of a country such as Canada or Australia. They move there with a couple score other couples, but the nearest "civilization" and government authority is hundreds of miles away. How would this couple get a divorce? What would constitute a "legal and lawful" divorce

[Blink]

Just a quick FYI that may or may not be related to your discussion here.

It is completely possible that the Iowa Territory didn't have any divorce laws in the applicable time period.

Remeber, Iowa was a territory not yet a state and therefore it was subject to federal, not states law.

However, divorce is strictly a state-law function.

While hardly conclusive, I ran a Westlaw search for any divorce cases in Iowa between the years of 1840-1844. I got zip.

C.I.

So we know a few things:

1) Zina was legally married to Henry under Illinois law, according to the legal documents of the time. We have no record anywhere of a writ of divorcement that would legally, according to the state of Illinois, dissolve this marriage.

2) Zina was sealed to Joseph. This was not a legal marriage, but rather was a religious ceremony, and thus was unimportant to the state of Illinois.

3) Zina was married "for time" to Brigham in Nauvoo, just a few days prior to the exodus.

This where my understanding breaks down. Was Zina's marriage to Brigham, for time, while she was still married legally to Henry, legal under Illinois law? It appears it was not, since she would have had to be divorced from Henry and we have no record of a legal divorce.

It appears that Zina is therefore guilty of bigamy, under Illinois law, the instant she married Brigham in Nauvoo if the marriage was performed as a legal ceremony, rather than a religious one. If the ceremony was only a religious one, similiar to the ceremony that sealed Zina to Joseph, then Zina and Brigham were not married at all and Zina was not guilty of bigamy.

Whether or not the Saints at that time considered Illinois law to apply to them is immaterial. Unless Zina's marriage to Henry was 1) not legally binding for any reason or 2) ended via a legal divorce in Illinois, Zina's lifelong relationship to Brigham was legally invalid, according to the state of Illinois.

This whole discussion reminds me of the admonition that God's house is a house of order. A more confusing situation would be difficult to find than this pioneer episode in church history. So could someone correct me where I am wrong in this analysis:

1) Illinois was a state and was not subject to federal law regarding marriage. Zina and Henry were married according to Illinois law. Their marriage was recognized as valid by both the state of Illinois and the federal government. Because Zina's marriage to Henry was not dissolved, the marriage to Brigham in 1846 was not legal and was not legally recognized by either Illinois state or the federal government.

2) Utah was a territory of the US starting in 1850, and would have been under federal law governing territories. Territorial law covered many aspects of life that federal law did not cover, including marriage and divorce.

3 ) Federal law takes precedence over territorial law, if a federal statue exists that covers the situation.

4) Between 1850 and 1862, plural marriages performed in Utah territory were recognized as legally valid outside Utah territory. [Were they?]

5) Federal marriage law changed in 1862 with passage of the Morrill Act which outlawed plural marriage. Marriages which had been recognized as valid, prior to 1862, were not longer recognized.

Were Utah pioneer marriages and divorces recognized by the federal government? Were monogamous marriages performed in Utah territory considered valid? If Utah pioneers, married in Utah prior to it becoming a territory or prior to 1862, moved to PA or NY, would their marriage(s) have been recognized as valid?

At what point does a marriage become a legal action, rather than a purely religious action? Were marriages performed in Utah territory legal and religious, or just religious?

[Confidential Informant]

This whole discussion reminds me of the admonition that God's house is a house of order. A more confusing situation would be difficult to find than this pioneer episode in church history.

It is only confusing because we don't have all the details. I'm sure that if Zina, Henry and Brigham were here to explain the thought process it would make perfect sense, especially in the context of their time and place.

C.I.

[awyatt]

Blink said: 3) Zina was married "for time" to Brigham in Nauvoo, just a few days prior to the exodus.

This where my understanding breaks down. Was Zina's marriage to Brigham, for time, while she was still married legally to Henry, legal under Illinois law? It appears it was not, since she would have had to be divorced from Henry and we have no record of a legal divorce.

It appears that Zina is therefore guilty of bigamy, under Illinois law, the instant she married Brigham in Nauvoo if the marriage was performed as a legal ceremony, rather than a religious one. If the ceremony was only a religious one, similiar to the ceremony that sealed Zina to Joseph, then Zina and Brigham were not married at all and Zina was not guilty of bigamy.

According to all the historians, Zina was "sealed for time" to Brigham in Nauvoo. (The exact citations are earlier in this thread.) Thus, the ceremony--in the eyes of the state--would have been very similar to the religious sealing of Zina to Joseph; it was not a marriage. It also means that Zina did not commit bigamy according to Illinois law.

Blink said: Whether or not the Saints at that time considered Illinois law to apply to them is immaterial. Unless Zina's marriage to Henry was 1) not legally binding for any reason or 2) ended via a legal divorce in Illinois, Zina's lifelong relationship to Brigham was legally invalid, according to the state of Illinois.

But once the Saints left the jurisdiction of Illinois, what law was valid? (See my earlier, most recent, post.)

Blink said: So could someone correct me where I am wrong in this analysis:

1) Illinois was a state and was not subject to federal law regarding marriage. Zina and Henry were married according to Illinois law. Their marriage was recognized as valid by both the state of Illinois and the federal government. Because Zina's marriage to Henry was not dissolved, the marriage to Brigham in 1846 was not legal and was not legally recognized by either Illinois state or the federal government.

Brigham and Zina were not married in 1846; they were sealed.

Blink said: 2) Utah was a territory of the US starting in 1850, and would have been under federal law governing territories. Territorial law covered many aspects of life that federal law did not cover, including marriage and divorce.

This is correct, although it appears that when a geographical area became a territory, existing relationships of people living in that territory became "grandfathered in" and were recognized by the territorial authority--with the notable exception of that "relic of barbarism," polygamy.

Blink said: 3 ) Federal law takes precedence over territorial law, if a federal statue exists that covers the situation.

Legal historians can correct me on this, but while this may be true today, it is not all that clear during the early and mid 1800s. This is why we fought the Civil War--not over slavery (although that was the catalyst), but over states' rights and whether they were "trumped" by federal law.

Blink said: 4) Between 1850 and 1862, plural marriages performed in Utah territory were recognized as legally valid outside Utah territory. [Were they?]

No, I don't think they were.

Blink said: 5) Federal marriage law changed in 1862 with passage of the Morrill Act which outlawed plural marriage. Marriages which had been recognized as valid, prior to 1862, were not longer recognized.

I believe that act was passed so that the government would have a club with which to beat the Mormons, who were largely ignoring what the country wanted them to do when it came to marriage.

Blink said: Were Utah pioneer marriages and divorces recognized by the federal government? Were monogamous marriages performed in Utah territory considered valid? If Utah pioneers, married in Utah prior to it becoming a territory or prior to 1862, moved to PA or NY, would their marriage(s) have been recognized as valid?

Nope, I don't think they were valid in other states/territories, nor would they have been recognized as such.

Blink said: At what point does a marriage become a legal action, rather than a purely religious action? Were marriages performed in Utah territory legal and religious, or just religious?

The Saints recognized them as legal in God's eyes, but they obviously weren't legal in the eyes of the Federal government.

-Allen

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is not a red herring ....

Allen:

1. It

[rongo]

Were Utah pioneer marriages and divorces recognized by the federal government?

A humorous aside on this portion of Blink's questions:

This very question was used by Brigham Young's counsel in getting Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning's vexatious and extortionate (is that even a word? ) alimony suit dismissed on a good technicality. Ann Eliza was the infamous "Wife #27" (actually #19) who became prominent as an anti-Mormon lecturer. When she sued for court fees plus $200,000 (an astronomical sum in thoses days), Young's defense was simple:

Were they legally married?  If so, that would oppose the very approach that the federal government was taking against Mormon polygamy.  Granting legal status for purposes of the alimony suit would set dangerous precedent or subject it to being overturned on appeal.

Since it was deemed necessary to preserve the illegal status of Mormon polygamous marriages, the suit was dismissed. As a plural wife, they were not married in the eyes of the law, hence could not be divorced, hence no alimony could be due.

[Blink]

According to all the historians, Zina was "sealed for time" to Brigham in Nauvoo. (The exact citations are earlier in this thread.) Thus, the ceremony--in the eyes of the state--would have been very similar to the religious sealing of Zina to Joseph; it was not a marriage. It also means that Zina did not commit bigamy according to Illinois law.

Okay, I agree with you.

Blink said: Whether or not the Saints at that time considered Illinois law to apply to them is immaterial. Unless Zina's marriage to Henry was 1) not legally binding for any reason or 2) ended via a legal divorce in Illinois, Zina's lifelong relationship to Brigham was legally invalid, according to the state of Illinois.

But once the Saints left the jurisdiction of Illinois, what law was valid? (See my earlier, most recent, post.)

Are laws invalidated, just because someone moves away from their jurisdiction? The law was still valid. The marriage, performed under Illinois law, was still valid. Zina's sealing to Brigham had no bearing on whether the Zina's marriage to Henry was still valid. The exodus a few days later had no bearing on whether the law (and Zina and Henry's marriage) itself was still valid. It appears to me that according to the state of Illinois and the federal government (once Zina and Brigham moved back into federal territory), Zina and Henry's marriage was valid. That she was living with Brigham by then had no bearing on the validity of her marriage to Henry. (At least, as far as I can tell, it wasn't illegal to live with a man who wasn't your husband, even if you're married to someone else, until much later in the 1800's.)

This is correct, although it appears that when a geographical area became a territory, existing relationships of people living in that territory became "grandfathered in" and were recognized by the territorial authority--with the notable exception of that "relic of barbarism," polygamy.

Was this true in Utah's case? That polygamous marriages only were not recognized by the federal government? Then monogamous marriages solemnized prior to Deseret becoming Utah Territory were recognized as valid?

Blink said: 3 ) Federal law takes precedence over territorial law, if a federal statue exists that covers the situation.

Legal historians can correct me on this, but while this may be true today, it is not all that clear during the early and mid 1800s. This is why we fought the Civil War--not over slavery (although that was the catalyst), but over states' rights and whether they were "trumped" by federal law.

I wasn't talking about states' laws or rights. I was talking about territorial laws. It appears that many aspects of what states considered normal self-governance weren't at all normal for territories. (One reason why territories wanted to be states; there were so many more opportunities for self-governance). According to what I've read, shortly after Deseret became Utah Territory, the Territorial government enacted several territorial laws along the lines of what Deseret had enacted. The federal government allowed those laws to stand, as long as they didn't conflict with federal law. If they conflicted, federal law took precedence. Is this incorrect?

Blink said: 5) Federal marriage law changed in 1862 with passage of the Morrill Act which outlawed plural marriage. Marriages which had been recognized as valid, prior to 1862, were not longer recognized.

I believe that act was passed so that the government would have a club with which to beat the Mormons, who were largely ignoring what the country wanted them to do when it came to marriage.

The government's motives make no difference. I'm not trying to discern "why"; I'm trying to get a handle on "what" happened "when" and "how" that effected marriages in Utah territory.

Blink said: At what point does a marriage become a legal action, rather than a purely religious action? Were marriages performed in Utah territory legal and religious, or just religious?

The Saints recognized them as legal in God's eyes, but they obviously weren't legal in the eyes of the Federal government.

What is it that makes a marriage valid? That a government considers it legal and binding? That society considers it a marriage? That the partners themselves consider it valid? Currently, gay marriages are not considered legally valid in the eyes of most of society. Slaves once were married in their own eyes by jumping over a broomstick together, but the marriages meant nothing to their owners, because they were not legally valid. FLDS marriages are, after the first one, not considered legally valid, yet gays who have gone through a marriage ceremony, slaves who jumped the broomstick together, and FLDS polygamous partners considered themselves married. Is that enough? Or does society have a stake in marriages too, to the point where they can legally define what is a marriage and what isn't? If only the Saints themselves recognized the validity of the marriages they performed, how does that make them any different from the gays who get married today? Were they, in reality, as unmarried as gays today are, because society and the government did not recognize the validity of their marriages?

Setting aside the Saints opinions, does God recognize "legal"? What marriages are "legal" in God's eyes? Are Muslim polygamous marriages "legal" to God? I'm not sure how this thought process works, so perhaps you could explain?

Moderator: Asking a poster what God thinks is goading. I let this post out of the queue to warn you that your "*** for tat" pattern of leading questions will no longer be released. Saying "I read" and then demanding verification from other posters is needling no matter how sophisticated the language is.

[awyatt]

Rollo Tomasi said: 1. It

[Rollo Tomasi]

I have this strong, sneaking suspicion that the issue is only a "red herring" because it suits your purposes for it to be.

Allen:

1. I think this could be said of both of us. I

[Blink]

Moderator: Asking a poster what God thinks is goading. I let this post out of the queue to warn you that your "*** for tat" pattern of leading questions will no longer be released. Saying "I read" and then demanding verification from other posters is needling no matter how sophisticated the language is.

I was not intending to goad anyone, and I apologize if it appears to you or Allen that I was.

Allen said:

The Saints recognized them as legal in God's eyes,

That is what I was responding to. I'm sorry if you think my response was inappropriate.

Here is where I read what I was referring to when I said "I read":

First, regarding the enactment of Deseret's laws into Utah Territorial law:

In the first session of the territorial legislature in October, the legislature adopted all the laws and ordinances previously enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Deseret.

I found that at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Territory.

Regarding the federal government's right to override territorial law:

The United States government has constitutional power to enact laws governing territories, and under that authority Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1862), making bigamy in a territory a crime punishable by a fine and five years in prison.

I found that at: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/h...slation_EOM.htm

I don't recall demanding verification from anyone. I asked questions, because I didn't know the answer and from what Allen's been saying, he might know. He seems like a knowledgable person who is civil in his conversations with people who don't think like he does. I certainly had no intent to be uncivil. I intended no demand for verification or anything else. Again, my apologies. Perhaps you will allow this post out of the queue too, so Allen can see my apologies also.

[Dale]

Hi,

I am symphatecic to Brigham Young on this one it's forgiveable that he ignored law on the need for a divorce thing. Also if polyandry was allowed under sealing then she had two husbands one later treated as a divorce. But because Brigham Young felt Henry's marital priveleges were over she wasn't permitted to continue living with Henry. Only God can decide whether to support that decision or not.

If Brigham Young was a prophet & D.&C. 132 true then he didn't make a mistake. If it wasn't true then the matters still God's business to judge not mine or yours. Brigham Youngs dead now & his mistakes are between him & God. I am a man with my own sins & leave matters of moral judgement of other mens mortal decisions to God.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Nighthawke]

BY said the Henry that he (BY) was Jospeh's proxy.

[Dale]

Hi,

Nighhawke good comments they add to my understanding of the issue.

Sincerely,

Dale