More on the Utah War

I recently attended a presentation on the Utah War by historian David Bigler. For background on the Utah War of 1857-58, see my earlier post; this post will give a few of the interesting details in Bigler's presentation that adds to the basic story. He called it the United States' "First Civil War" (although it was the Mormons' third war). My notes are a little sketchy; for more complete coverage, see his book Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896, a history of 19th-century Utah that (I'm told) doesn't pull any punches.

First, Bigler noted that land policy and surveying played a significant role in difficulties between Mormon settlers and the US government. When Mormons moved into the valley, various tracts of land were granted to settlers as individuals or families, and some of the resources were used communally. But when Utah was formally organized as a US Territory in 1850 (with Brigham Young as Territorial Governor), the US Land Office sent out government surveyors to survey the land as a prelude to public sale. You can see how this would become a flashpoint — the government did not recognize whatever title the Mormon settlers had to the land from LDS officials, and there was no guarantee the Mormon settlers already on the land would be able to purchase their tracts in a public sale. Predictably, the government surveyors met hostility in 1854-55 when they tried to lay property markers. [Even today, feds aren't particularly welcome out West.] Essentially, the Mormons were engaging in what is called "nullification" of federal land law. This became an issue in 1857 in the reports directed to President Buchanan that Utah was in a state of rebellion.

Federal judges weren't any more welcome than the surveyors. They were in competition with Utah's own probate courts (local courts authorized by the Territorial Legislature, but basically run by local LDS bishops) and it was apparently an exasperating experience for the federal judges. By 1856, all eight US district court judges had left Utah in frustration. This, too, found its way into the reports sent to President Buchanan.

The second big issue was the Mormon opinion of and relations with Native Americans. In simple terms, the Mormons viewed the Indians as descended from Israel (to American ears, a noble heritage), with Book of Mormon passages implying the Indians had a potentially promising future. That fact that some of those passages implied Indian resurgence would come at the expense of the Gentiles (i.e., the Euro-Americans who spent most of the 19th century displacing Native Americans) did not sit well with most Americans and it was 180 degrees out of synch with those who lived on the frontier.

But the political conflict came with the federal government's Office of Indian Affairs and those appointed as agents to the various tribes. They were jealous to protect their power (a formal monopoly on dealing with the Indians) and resented the contact between Mormons and Indians. Lest you think the Mormons were interfering with Uncle Sam's good works, consider what a rotten deal Indians got at every turn. Some agents were unscrupulous and corrupt, and used their position to make every dollar they could at the expense of their supposed wards, the Indian tribes. But even the sober and honest among them did little good for the Indians. It's no wonder the Indians had more sympathy for the Mormons than for the US government, but that result certainly didn't help the government's view of the Mormons.

So what I took away from the presentation was that difficulties with federal land policy and the Mormon view of the Indians were two issues that played a central role in creating the perception in Washington DC that Utah was in a state of rebellion. This led directly to the President appointing a new governor and sending a few thousand federal troops to accompany him to Utah. There were other topics Bigler touched on briefly: the religious fervor whipped up by LDS Reformation of 1856-57; Brigham Young's declaration of martial law in late 1857 and closure of the overland trails (which cut the country in half); militias that were formed in Nevada to march east against Utah; and the ultimate resolution of the crisis without serious fighting or significant bloodshed. Plenty more to talk about in a later post!

Comments

[Doc]

fascinating insights, can't wait to hear more.

[Clark Goble]

It's an interesting book, albeit perhaps a touch biased in a few places. But it definitely doesn't pull many punches.

[Hellmut]

What do you think is biased about it, Clark?

[Seth R.]

What people in America today don't get is that the United States is a colonial power and always has been.

The reality of the status of "Western States" is that they are still colonies. They are treated in much the same way and their relationship with Washington DC exhibits many of the same patterns that marked relationships between 19th century European colonial powers and their far-flung protectorates.

[Dave]

Seth: Yes, few people outside the West recognize how large a percentage of land in the Western states remains under federal ownership and control. The Department of the Interior might as well be named the Department of Western Lands and Territories. And, rather surprisingly, US territories like Samoa and Guam are actually administered through the Dept. of the Interior. As are Native American affairs as well. Interesting.

[Seth R.]

Not just that, but the primary economic relationship of the West with the rest of the US is one of resource extraction.

Then you've got the whole culture of the local people being largely funded with federal dollars. All those massive water projects - dams, irrigation, canals, pipelines - which allow the West to exist are federally funded almost in entirety. Farmers, ranchers, miners... all basically reliant on federal largess.

And paradoxically bitter about being so reliant. Much like the angry adolescent, who insists on his allowance, yet rages at his doting and overbearing parents.

And of course, tourism...

Whole bunch of interesting similarities. But you'd never get most Americans to admit to empire or colonialism.

[John Mansfield]

You can also add the vast military ranges to the relationship. Federal water projects and the dependence of western farmers and cities on them I recognize, but how are ranchers and miners dependent on federal largess? Do you think those activities would change much if the land that hosts them were privately held? There's plenty of oil drilling and cattle grazing on private land in Texas.

[Mark Butler]

I think it is a highly questionable proposition that the Western states (and states generally) couldn't provide for their own non-defense needs without the federal government taking their money and giving it back with a bunch of strings attached.

[Seth R.]

Mark,

No water. No people. No west. Period.

And almost every last dam in the West is nearly entirely federally funded.

Miners depend on federal tax break schemes to stay in business.

The same is doubly true of cattle ranchers. Almost the entire Western cattle industry is subsidized by the Bureau of Land Management and obscenely lopsided tax write-offs and loopholes. Not many people know that close to 80% of the cows in the West are actually owned by large corporations such as Anheuser-Busch. BLM permits are so ridiculously cheap and the tax loopholes so useful that raising cattle makes perfect sense as a side business, even though the lack of vegetation and rainfall makes places like Nevada, Utah and Wyoming HORRIBLE places to raise cows. Most cows in the US are actually raised in places like Florida and Louisiana where you only need one acre of land to feed a single cow, as opposed to 100 in the Intermountain West.

Western ranchers are every bit as much federal welfare cases as western farmers. Miners perhaps not so much, but be assured, there is a LOT of Congressional pork being dumped into all of these industries out here.

[John Mansfield]

The existence of pork and tax loopholes is a fairly low standard by which to dismiss an industry's viability. Is there any activity in America that isn't so tainted? There were people in the West before federal subsidies, though not as many. You've heard of the Mormons, for example, and there really were ranches and mines in the 19th Century. Even Las Vegas didn't use federal water supplies until 1971. There were almost 300,000 people in the county then, one sixth the current population.