History of Salt Lake City, Part 53

Author: Tullidge, Edward Wheelock
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Salt Lake City, Star printing company
Number of Pages: 1194

USA > Utah > Salt Lake County > Salt Lake > History of Salt Lake City > Part 53

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

" Here I must close. I have spoken to you, face to face, frankly, truthfully, fearlessly. I have said nothing but for your own good. Let me counsel you once more to obedience to the law, and thanking you for the patient hearing you have given me, and for the hospitalities our party have received, both from Mormon and Gentile citizens, I bid you all good night and good bye."

" AMERICAN HOUSE, BOSTON, MASS., " October 20th, 1869.

" To the Editor of the Deseret Evening News :

"DEAR SIR-I have read with a great deal of interest the speech of the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, delivered in Salt Lake City, October 5th, containing strictures on our institutions, as reported in the Springfield Republican, wherein there is an apparent frankness and sincerity manifested. It is pleasant, always, to listen to sentiments that are bold, unaffected and outspoken ; and however my views may differ-as they most assuredly do-from those of the Hon. Vice-President of the United States, I cannot but admire the candor and courtesy manifested in

407

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

the discussions of this subject ; which, though to him perplexing and difficult, is to us an important part of our religious faith.

" I would not, however, here be misunderstood ; I do not regard the speech of Mr. Colfax as something indifferent or meaningless. I consider that words pro- ceeding from a gentleman occupying the honorable position of Mr. Colfax, have their due weight. His remarks, while they are courteous and polite, were evidently calmly weighed and cautiously uttered, and they carry with them a significance, which I, as a believer in Mormonism, am bound to notice; and I hope with that honesty and candor which characterize the remarks of this honorable gentle- man.

" Mr. Colfax remarks :

" ' I have no strictures to offer as to your creeds on any really religious question. Our land is a land of civil and religious liberty, and the faith of every man is a matter between himself and God alone ; you have as much right to wor- ship the Creator, throught a president and twelve apostles of your church organi- zation, as I have through the ministers and elders and creed of mine; and this right I would defend for you with as much zeal as the right of any denomination throughout the land.'

" This certainly is magnanimous and even-handed justice, and the sentiments do honor to their author ; they are sentiments that ought to be engraven on the heart of every American citizen.

" He continues :

"' But our country is governed by law and no assumed revelation justifies any one in trampling on the law.'

" At first sight this reasoning is very plausible, and I have no doubt that Mr. Colfax was just as sincere and patriotic in the utterance of the latter as the for- mer sentences ; but with all due deference permit me to examine these words and their import.

" That our country is governed by law we all admit; but when it is said that 'no assumed revelation justifies any one in trampling on the law;' I should respectfully ask, what ! not if it interferes with my religious faith, which you state ' is a matter between God and myself alone?' Allow me, sir, here to state that the assumed revelation referred to is one of the most vital parts of our religious faith ; it emanated from God and cannot be legislated away; it is part of the 'Everlasting Covenant' which God has given to man. Our marriages are sol- emnized by proper authority ; a woman is sealed unto a man for time and for eternity, by the power of which Jesus speaks, which 'sealed on earth and it is sealed in heaven.' With us it is ' Celestial Marriage; ' take this from us and you rob us of our hopes and associations in the resurrection of the just. This is not our religion ? You do not see things as we do. Your marry for time only, 'un- til death does you part.' We have eternal covenants, eternal unions, eternal associations. I cannot, in an article like this, enter into details, which I should be pleased on a proper occasion to do. I make these remarks to show that it is considered, by us, a part of our religious faith, which I have no doubt did you understand it as we do, you would defend, as you state, ' with as much zeal as the right of every other denomination throughout the land.' Permit me here to say,

. 408

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

however, that it was the revelation (I will not say assumed) that Joseph and Mary had, which made them look upon Jesus as the Messiah ; which made them flee from the wrath of Herod, who was seeking the young child's life. This they did in contravention of law, which was his decree. Did they do wrong in protecting Jesus from the law ? But Herod was a tyrant. That makes no difference; it was the law of the land, and I have yet to learn the difference between a tyran- nical king and a tyrannical Congress. When we talk of executing law in either case, that means force,-force means an army, and an army means death. Now I am not sufficiently versed in metaphysics to discover the difference in its effects, between the asp of Cleopatra, the dagger of Brutus, the chalice of Lucretia Borgia, or the bullet or sabre of an American soldier.

" I have, sir, written the above in consequence of some remarks which follow : " ' I do not concede that the institution you have established here, and which is condemned by the aw, is a question of religion.'

" Now, with all due deference, I do think that if Mr. Colfax had carefully ex- amined our religious faith he would have arrived at other conclusions. In the ab- sence of this I might ask, who constituted Mr. Colfax a judge of my religious faith ? I think he has stated that ' the faith of every man is a matter between him- self and God alone.'

" Mr. Colfax has a perfect right to state and feel that he does not believe in the revelation on which my religious faith is based, nor in my faith at all ; but has he the right to dictate my religious faith ? I think not ; he does not consider it religion, but it is nevertheless mine.

" If a revelation from God is not a religion, what is ?

" His not believing it from God makes no difference; I know it is. The Jews did not believe in Jesus but Mr. Colfax and I do; their unbelief did not alter the revelation.

" Marriage has from time immemorial, among civilized nations, been con- sidered a religious ordinance. It was so considered by the Jews, It is looked upon, by the Catholic clergy, as one of their sacraments. It is so treated by the Greek Church. The ministers of the Episcopal Church say, in their marriage formula, ' What God has joined together, let not man put asunder ;' and in some of the Protestant churches their members are disfellowshipped for marrying what are termed unbelievers. So I am in hopes, one of these times, should occasion require it, to call upon our friend, Mr. Colfax, to redeem his pledge.

" ' To defend for us our religious" faith, with as much zeal as the right of every other denomination throughout the land.'

" I again quote :

" 'But to you who do claim it as such, I reply that the law that you denounce only re-enacts the original prohibition of your own Book of Mormon, on its 118th page, and your Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in its chapter on marriage.'

" In regard to the latter of these I would state that it was only considered a portion of the discipline of our Church, and was never looked upon as a revela- tion. It was published in the appendix to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants long before the revelation concerning Celestial Marriage was given. That, of course, superseded the former. The quotation from the Book of Mormon, given

409

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

by Mr. Colfax, is only partly quoted. [ cannot blame the gentleman for this : he has many engagements without examining our doctrines. I suppose this was was handed to him. Had he read a little further he would have found it stated : ' " For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me I will com- mand my people ; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.'

" In answer to this I say the Lord has commanded and we obey the command.

" I again quote :

" And yet while you assume that this later revelation gives you the right to turn your back on your old faith and to disobey the law, you would not yourselves tolerate others in assuming rights for themselves under revelations they might claim to have received, or under religions they might profess.'

" Mr. Colfax is misinformed here. All religions are tolerated by us, and all revelations or assumed revelations. We take the liberty of disbelieving some of them ; but none are interfered with. And in relation to turning our back on our old religion we have never done it.

" Concerning our permitting the Hindoos to burn their widows, it is difficult to say what we should do. The British government has tolerated both polygamy and the burning of Hindoo widows in India. If the Hindoos were converted to our religion they would not burn their widows; they are not likely to come to Utah without. Whose rights have we interfered with ? Whose property have we taken ? Whose religious or political faith or rights have been curtailed by us ? None. We have neither interfered with Missouri nor Illinois; with Kansas. Nebraska, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, California, nor any other State or Territory. I wish we could say the same of others, I hope we shall not be condemned for crimes we are expected to commit. It will be time enough to atone for them when done. We do acknowledge having lately started co-operative stores. Is this anything new in England, Germany, France or the United States? We think we have a right, as well as others, to buy and sell of and to whom we please. We do not interrupt others in selling, if they can get customers. We have com- menced to deal with our friends. We do acknowledge that we are rigid in the enforcement of law against theft, gambling, debauchery and other civilized vices. Is this a crime ? If so, we plead guilty.

" But permit me here to return to the religious part of our investigations ; for if our doctrines are religious, then it is confessed that Congress has no juris- isdiction in this case and the argument is at an end. Mr. Webster defines religion as ' any system of faith and worship, as the religion of the Turks, of Hindoos, of Christians.' I have never been able to look at religion in any other light. I do not think Mr. Colfax had carefully digested the subject when he said 'I do not concede that the institution you have established here, and which is condemned by law, is a question of religion.'

" Are we to understand by this that Mr. Colfax is created an umpire to de- cide upon what is religion and what is not, upon what is true religion and what is false? If so, by whom and what authority is he created judge? I am sure he has not reflected upon the bearing of this hypothesis, or he would not have made such an utterance.

" According to this theory no persons ever were persecuted for their religion,

410

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

there never was such a thing known. Could anybody suppose that that erudite, venerable, and profoundly learned body of men,-the great Sanhedrim of the Jews ; or that those holy men, the chief priests, scribes and pharisees, would persecute any body for religion ? Jesus was put to death,-not for his religion- but because he was a blasphemer : because he had a devil and cast out devils, through Beelzebub the prince of devils ; because he, being a carpenter's son, and known among them as such, declared himself the Son of God. So they said, and they were the then judges, Could anybody be more horrified than those Jews at such pretensions? His disciples were persecuted, proscribed and put to death, not for their religion, but because they 'were pestilent fellows and stirrers up of sedition,' and because they believed in an ' assumed revelation' concerning ' one Jesus, who was put to death, and who, they said, had risen again.' It was for false pretensions and a lack of religion that they were persecuted. Their religion was not like that of the Jews ; ours, not like that of Mr. Colfax.

" Loyola did not invent and put into use the faggot, the flame, the sword, the thumbscrews, the rack and gibbet to persecute anybody, it was to purify the church of heretics, as others would purify Utah. His zeal was for the Holy Mother Church. The Nonconformists of England and Holland, the Hugenots of France and the Scottish Covenanters were not persecuted or put to death for their religion ; it was for being schismatics, turbulent and unbelievers. Talk of religion, what horrid things have not been perpetrated in its name! All of the above claimed that they were persecuted for their religion. All of the perse- cutors, as Mr. Colfax said about us, did ' not concede that the institution they had established, which was condemned by the law, was religion ;' or, in other terms, it was an imposture or false religion. What of the Quakers and Baptists of New England ?

" You say we complain of persecution. Have we not cause to do it? Can we call our treatment by a milder term? Was it benevolence that robbed, pillaged and drove thousands of men, women and children from Missouri, was it Chris- tian philanthropy that, after robbing, plundering, and ravaging a whole commu- nity, drove them from Illinois into the wilderness among savages ?

" When we fled as outcasts and exiles from the United States we went to Mex- ican Territory. If not protected we should have been at least unmolested there. Do you think, in your treaty with Mexico, it was a very merciful providence that placed us again under your paternal guardianship? Did you know that you called upon us in our exodus from Illinois for 500 men, which were furnished while flee- ing from persecution, to help you to possess that country ; for which your tender mercies were exhibited by letting loose an army upon us, and you spent about forty millions of dollars to accomplish our ruin? Of course we did not suffer; " religious fanatics" cannot feel : like the eels the fishwoman was skinning, " we have got used to it." Upon what pretext was this done ? Upon the false fabri- cations of your own officers, and which your own Governor Cumming afterwards published as false. Thus the whole of this infamous proceeding war predicated upon falsehood, originating with your own officers and afterwards exposed by them. Did Government make any amends, or has it ever done it ? Is it wrong to call this persecution ? We have learned to our cost " that the king can do no

411

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

wrong." Excuse me, sir, if I speak warmly. This people have labored under accumulated wrongs for upwards of thirty years past, still unacknowledged and unredressed. I have said nothing in the above but what I am prepared to prove. What is all this for? Polygamy? No-that is not even pretended.

Having said so much with regard to Mr. Colfax's speech, let me now address a few words to Congress and to the nation. I hope they will not object for I too am a teacher. And first let me inquire into the law itself, enacted in 1862. The revelation on polygamy was given in 1843, nineteen years before the passage of the Congressional act. We, as a people, believe that revelation is true and came from God. This is our religious belief ; and right or wrong it is still our belief ; whatever opinions others may entertain it makes no difference to our religious faith. The Constitution is to protect me in my religious faith, and other persons in theirs, as I understand it. It does not prescribe a faith for me, or any one else, or authorize others to do it, not even Congress. It simply protects us all in our religious faiths. This is one of the Constitutional rights reserved by the peo- ple. Now who does not know that the law of 1862 in relation to polygamy was passed on purpose to interfere with our religious faith? This was as plainly and distinctly its object as the proclamation of Herod to kill the young children under two years old, was meant to destroy Jesus; or the law passed by Pharaoh in re- gard to the destruction of the Hebrew children, was meant to destroy the Israel- ites. If a law had been passed making it a penal offense for communities, or churches, to forbid marriage, who would not have understood that it referred to the Shaking Quakers, and to the priories, nunneries and priesthood of the Cath- olic Church? This law, in its inception, progress and passage, was intended to bring us into collision with the United States, that a pretext might be found for our ruin. These are acts that no honest man will controvert. It could not have been more plain, although more honest, if it had said the Mormons shall have no more wives than one. It was a direct attack upon our religious faith. It is the old story of the lamb drinking below the wolf, and being accused by it of fouling the waters above. The big bully of a boy putting a chip on his shoulder and daring the little urchin to knock it off.

" But we are graciously told that we have our appeal. True, we have an ap- peal. So had the Hebrew mothers to Pharaoh ; so had Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar ; so had Jesus to Herod ; so had Cæsar to Brutus ; so had those sufferers on the rack to Loyola ; so had the Waldenses and Albigenses to the Pope ; so had the Quakers and Baptists of New England to the Puritans. Why did they not do it? Please answer.

" Do statesmen and politicians realize what they are doing when they pass such laws? Do they know, as before stated, that resistance to law means force, that force means an army, and that an army means death ? They may yet find something more pleasant to reflect upon than to have been the aiders and abettors of murder, to be stained with the blood of innocence, and they may try in vain to cleanse their hands of the accursed spot.

"It is not the first time that Presidents, Kings, Congresses and statesmen have tried to regulate the acts of Jehovah. Pharaoh's exterminating order about the Hebrew infants was one of acknowledged policy. They grew, they increased

412

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

too fast. Perhaps the Egyptians had learned, as well as some of our Eastern re- formers, the art of infanticide ; they may have thought that one or two children was enough and so destroyed the balance. They could not submit to let nature take its vulgar course. But in their refined and polite murders, they found them- selves dwindling and decaying, and the Hebrews increasing and multiplying ; and no matter how shocking it might be to their refined senses, it stood before them as a political fact, and they were in danger of being overwhelmed by the superior fecundity of the Hebrews. Something must be done; what more natural than to serve the Hebrew children as they had served their own ? and this, to us and the Christian world, shocking act of brutal murder, was to them simply what they may have done among themselves ; perhaps more politely a la Madam Restelle, but not more effectually. The circumstances are not very dissimilar. When Jesus was plotted against by Herod and the infants put to death, who could com- plain? It was law : we must submit to law. The Lord Jehovah, or Jesus the Savior of the world, has no right to interfere with law. Jesus was crucified ac- cording to law. Who can complain ? Daniel was thrown into a den of lions strictly according to law. The King would have saved him, if he could ; but he could not resist law. The massacre of St. Bartholomew was in accordance with law. The guillotine of Robespierre of France, which cut heads off by the thou- sand, did it according to law. What right had the victims to complain ? But these things were done in barbarous ages. Do not let us, then, who boast of our civilization, follow their example ; let us be more just, more generous, more for- bearing, more magnanimous. We are told that we are living in a more enlight- ened age. Our morals are more pure (? ) our ideas more refined and enlarged, our institutions more liberal. . Ours,' says Mr. Colfax, ' is a land of civil and re- ligious liberty, and the faith of every man is a matter between himself and God alone," providing God don't shock our moral ideas by introducing something that we don't believe in. If He does let Him look out. We won't persecute, very far be that from us ; but we will make our platform, pass Congressional laws and make you submit to them. We may, it is true, have to send out an army, and shed the blood of many ; but what of that ? It is so much more pleasant to be proscribed and killed according to the laws of the Great Republic, in the ‘ asylum for the oppressed,' than to perish ignobly by the decrees of kings, through their miserable minions, in the barbaric ages.

" My mind wanders back upwards of thirty years ago, when in the State of Missouri, Mr. McBride, an old gray-haired venerable veteran of the Revolution, with feeble frame and tottering steps, cried to a Missouri patriot : 'Spare my life, I am a Revolutionary soldier, I fought for liberty, would you murder me? What is my offense, I believe in God and revelation ?' This frenzied disciple of a mis- placed faith said, 'take that, you God d-d Mormon,' and with the butt of his gun he dashed his brains out, and he lay quivering there,-his white locks clotted with his own brains and gore on that soil that he had heretofore shed his blood to redeem-a sacrifice at the shrine of liberty ! Shades of Franklin, Jeffer- son and Washington, were you there ! Did you gaze on this deed of blood ? Did you see your companion in arms thus massacred ? Did you know that thousands of American citizens were robbed, disfranchised, driven, pillaged and murdered,

413

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

for these things seem to be forgotten by our statesmen. Were not these murderers punished ? Was not justice done to the outraged ? No. They were only Mor- mons, and when the Chief Magistrate was applied to, he replied ' Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.' Oh. blessed land of religious freedom ! What was this for. Polygamy ? No. It was our religion then, it is our religion now. Monogamy or polygamy, it makes no difference. Let me here seriously ask : have we not had more than enough blood in this land? Does the insatiate moloch still cry for more victims ?

" Let me here respectfully ask with all sincerity, is there not plenty of scope for the action of government at home? What of your gambling hells? What of your gold rings, your whisky rings, your railroad rings, manipulated through the lobby into your Congressional rings. What of that great moral curse of the land, that great institution of monogamy-Prostitution ? What of its twin sister -Infanticide ? I speak to you as a friend. Know ye not that these seething in- famies are corrupting and destroying your people ? and that like the plague they are permeating your whole social system ? that from your gilded palaces to your most filthy purlieus, they are festering and stewing and rotting? What of the thirty thousand prostitutes of New York City and the proportionate numbers of other cities, towns and villages, and their multitudinous pimps and paramours, who are, of course, all, all, honorable men ! Here is ample room for the Christian, the philanthropist, and the statesman. Would it not be well to cleanse your own Augean stables? What of the blasted hopes, the tortured and crushed feelings of the thousands of your wives whose whole lives are blighted through your intrigues and lasciviousness? What of the humiliation of your sons and daughters from whom you can not hide your shame? What of the thousands of houseless and homeless children thrown ruthlessly, hopelessly and disgracefully upon the world as outcasts from society, whose fathers and mothers are alike ashamed of them and heartlessly throw them upon the public bounty, the living memorials of your in. famy ? What of your infanticide, with its murderous, horrid, unnatural, disgust- ing and damning consequences? Can you legislate for these monogamic crimes, or shall Madam Restell and her pupils continue their public murders and no re- dress ? Shall your fair daughters, the princesses of America, ruthlessly go on in sacrificing their noble children on the altar of this Moloch-this demon ? What are we drifting to? This 'bonehouse,' this "powder magazine' is not in Salt Lake City, a thousand miles from your frontiers ; it is in your own cities and towns villages and homes. It carouses in your secret chambers, and flaunts in the public highway ; it meets you in every corner, and besets you in every condition. Your infirmaries and hospitals are reeking with it ; your sons and daughters, your wives and husbands are degraded by it. It extends from Louisiana to Minnesota, and from Maine to California. You can't hide yourselves from it; it meets you in your magazines and newspapers, and is disgustingly placarded on your walls,-a iving, breathing, loathsome, festering, damning evil. It runs through your very blood, stares out your eyes and stamps its horrid mark on your features, as indeli- bly as the mark of Cain ; it curses your posterity, it runs riot in the land, wither- ing, blighting, corroding and corrupting the life blood of the nation.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Salt Lake City, Part 53

Author: Tullidge, Edward Wheelock Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Salt Lake City, Star printing company Number of Pages: 1194

Author: Tullidge, Edward Wheelock
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Salt Lake City, Star printing company
Number of Pages: 1194