Mormon Militarism?

This will wind up last week's topic (see here and here) by reviewing the recent remarks of BYU professor Richard Bennett (to a gathering in Southern California) on militias in pre-Civil War America and the significance of militias in understanding the LDS experience in Missouri, Illinois, and Utah in the 19th century. He did an earlier book, Mormons at the Missouri: Winter Quarters, 1846-52 (U. of Oklahoma Press, 2004). His more recent research on militias, to be published in an upcoming book, goes a long way toward making several messy episodes (Zion's Camp, the Missouri War of 1838 and the Danites, the Nauvoo Legion, and the Utah War of 1857 and Mountain Meadows) more understandable. It also helps to counter the occasional characterizations of LDS attempts at self-defense as evidence of Mormon militarism.

Missouri
Missouri in the 1830s was the far edge of the frontier, a rough if not lawless place. Bennett explained the failure of the Mormons in Missouri (in Jackson County, then in Clay County, then again in Caldwell County) with reference to the place, the time, and the people.

(1) The Place — Missouri was actually part of the Southern frontier, part of "Little Dixie," with a slave culture and, worse, a threatened slave culture. Don't forget the Missouri Compromise of 1820 brought Missouri into the Union as a slave state, and the Southerners who immigrated there weren't about to forget it. They bargained hard for slavery there, and they weren't about to let a bunch of Jesus-preaching Yankees who thought African-Americans were something more than property mess up their peculiar institution. The Mormons who went to Missouri just weren't prepared for the ready willingness of Southerners in Missouri to resort to violence (often under the color of local authorities) to defend their way of life.

(2) The Time — The 1830s were a turbulent era in US history. There was a lot of ethnic friction in cities that complemented the sort of violence that was a part of slave culture in the South. Significantly, there were no standing police forces to "enforce" domestic peace. The response to civil disturbance was usually to call out the militia.

(3) The People — The Mormons in Missouri caused some of their own problems. Bennett described Zion's Camp (1834) as a paramilitary force of questionable legitimacy, but nevertheless an understandable attempt at assisting displaced Mormons in Missouri. Initial communications from Missouri indicated that the governer and the militia in Missouri would assist the Mormons in regaining their homes and property; Zion's Camp was just extra Mormon manpower to lend comfort and assistance to the displaced Mormons and support to the governor and Missouri militia enforcing rule of law there. Zion's Camp was not really intended to be an army in the field, despite the inflated rhetoric. They were, after all, just a bunch of farmers and shopkeepers.

Learning from the Zion's Camp debacle, in Caldwell County (1836-38) the Mormons set up an official militia, the 53rd Regiment in the Missouri militia (nicknamed "the Army of Israel"). This was not the same thing as the Danites, a secret group organized by Sampson Avard (and the degree to which he had official sanction for his actions is a debated question). The Battle of Crooked River (in which David Patten, an LDS apostle, was killed) was actually a clash between two militias, the LDS militia and another Missouri unit. Making the militia official didn't make much difference in LDS efforts at self-defense. It still ended badly.

Nauvoo
The Nauvoo experience is best understood, according to Bennett, with reference to the failures in Missouri. Unofficial groups like Zion's Camp and the Danites were seen as a big problem. In Nauvoo, everything would be above board. Hence the powers written into the Nauvoo charter and the fully sanctioned formation of the Nauvoo Legion as a unit of the Illinois militia. The Legion could respond to orders from both the Governor (of Illinois) and the Mayor (of Nauvoo). Initially the Mayor was John C. Bennett; later it was Joseph Smith. The Nauvoo Legion was quite an outfit, but it was a defensive force that saw little actual use. Its presence augmented local fears. But when it was disbanded in 1845, opposition to Mormons didn't go away, it was just emboldened.

My Comments
My summary really doesn't do justice to Bennett's presentation — you should really buy the book when it comes out to get the full story. I like the fact that it takes a new but relevant theme, gets the history right, then applies it to get a better understanding of the LDS experience during that period. I think this sort of in-depth topical treatment is what is now called for in LDS history: general histories and biographies have pretty much run their course at this point (see here for the latest general history).

I won't attempt any lengthy reflections on the material. I think it shows that the charges about Mormon militarism one sometimes hears are pretty much off-base. Mormons tried every available approach for living in peace, but circumstances were such that they really had no winning strategy in these conflicts. They could appeal for help from the governor or authorities, as in Jackson County — that didn't work. They could organize official militia units and try to defend themselves, as in Caldwell County — that didn't work. They could get an official charter for the city, get involved in state politics, and work with the governor to make it clear Mormons just wanted to run a peaceful city and not be hassled by the locals — that didn't work. Sorry, frontier America just wasn't willing to tolerate groups of Mormons living as Mormons. You could be a lot of things in frontier America, but Mormon wasn't one of them.

With no winning strategy, the final solution for the Mormons boiled down to hard choices between (1) dispersing so there was no identifiable community of Mormons (and there was no guaranty that would stop aggression aimed at isolated Mormon settlements or families), or (2) lighting out for the territories. Brigham Young and the main body of Mormons boldly chose the second option, heading out across the plains to Utah. It was something I believe no other religious group could have managed. But those who weren't up to the arduous trek or who didn't want to follow polygamous leaders (and there were thousands that fit this description) dispersed to places outside Nauvoo and tried to keep their vision of Mormonism alive under various leaders including Sidney Rigdon, James Strang, and eventually Joseph Smith III. But that's another story.

Comments

[Clark Goble]

I'm looking forward to this book and to see how it compares to past discussions of the era.

[J. Stapley]

This is an excellent review, thanks Dave. Was this the book that Compton was working on as well?

I am not very familiar with the Missouri wars (btw, to bad Patten died, he is the source for some of the most interested Mormon folk lore. Had he lived perhaps we could have gotten a confirmation or denial!), but it seems to me that both the Nauvoo and the Utah militias (under the direction of Church leaders) when faced with the potential of war didn't execute. There was no Nauvoo war and the Utah war was posturing for the most part.

[Dave]

J., I believe the co-authors on the upcoming book are Susan Easton Black and Donald Cannon.

[Seth R.]

I just finished reading a book detailing the US efforts during the War of 1812.

I think most Americans underestimate the extent to which everything east of the Atlantic seaboard in the early to mid 1800s was, quite simply, a horrible unregulated mess.

Many assumptions we have about what constitutes civil society just didn't apply back then.

Realize that in 1812 (around when Joseph Smith born), white settlers were still being massacred by powerful indian tribes (often at the encouragement of British fur traders/spies). If you wanted protection in those days, you did it with your own rifle. And this was in Ohio!

The population of Ohio today rarely associates itself with this kind of lawlessness and violence. That image is reserved for Wyoming and California, and other such places that constitute the "old West."

The main problem is that the period following the Revolutionary War, yet preceeding the Civil War, is very poorly covered by most K-12 history curricula.

This is mainly because the whole period was largely one of failures. We had that shining national success of the Revolution. Then there was the heroic epic of the Civil War, followed by equally epic expansion into the western US (glamorized by moviemaker Ford).

But that period between the Revolution and the Civil War?

Well, no one wants to talk about THAT. Except the Mormons ...

And that's just where our historical problem lies.

Our glory days, our founding, our epics, all occurred smack dab in the middle of a period the rest of America is trying mighty hard to forget.

So when Mormon history is discussed among the gentiles, it is almost always discussed without reference to the uncomfortable larger period of US failure that surrounded it.

The result is that Mormon history inevitably gets compared to the best moments in US history. And we look like monsters.

[Seth R.]

Just looked it up. Joseph was born in 1805.

[Dave]

Seth, I agree it's hard for present-day Americans to get a handle on what America was like in the pre-Civil War years. The growing conflict over slavery sort of crowds out other plot lines. If Mormons have a hard time getting the historical drift of the times in that era, it is even harder for others (who sympathize with no actors of that era) to do so.

[Seth R.]

I think slavery is something of an exception. The rule is that we ignore the unflattering moments in US history.

Slavery is a special case due to the unique politics surrounding it. It also has a large and vocal advocacy group ensuring that we don't forget about it (much as many Americans would like to).

If it weren't for slavery, I doubt there'd be any study of this time period at all.

[annegb]

I tell ya, on a personal note, I'm glad to be here in the heart of Mormonism for at least one reason and that is that every home has guns and ammunition and despite our peacefulness, if somebody invaded Utah, they'd have a fight on their hands.