Joseph Smith for President book details Mormonism founder's frustration with states rights

 

Review by Doug Gibson

The ill-fated decision by LDS Church prophet and founder Joseph Smith, Jr., to seek the U.S. presidency in 1844 is mostly regarded as a footnote in U.S. history. Smith was martyred in late June of the presidential season, before he was formally nominated by supporters. 

Nevertheless, it retains strong interest within Mormon history, and most older active Mormons were taught of and retain a knowledge of Smith's campaign. I recall a church-sponsored book being published to some fanfare nearly 50 years ago. 

One hundred and seventy-seven years later, a scholarly book on Smith's campaign is published. It's "Joseph Smith for President -- The Prophet, the Assassin, and the Fight for American Religious Freedom, Oxford University Press. (Amazon link is here) The author is Spencer W. McBride, and he's written a concise, informative account of a campaign largely derided by the elite media of 1844, but was an extremely serious effort from Mormon missionaries and adherents who tub-thumped Smith's candidacy intensely in 1844. 

Readers may be surprised at the progressivism of Smith's campaign. Its platform included closing prisons, the mass freeing of convicts, an end to slavery and having a national bank to prevent currency instability. But, as McBride points out, the genesis of Smith's campaign was to diminish states rights as a chief political belief and policy. Latter-day Saints of that time had already suffered greatly in various states, most notably Missouri. In fact, as McBride notes, legal and political forces were still actively trying to extradite Smith and other Mormons back to Missouri. A chief reason for Nauvoo's charter of government, including having essentially an army, was to stop outside efforts to arrest Smith.

Long before modern efforts using the federal government to correct regional and state prejudices and inequities, Mormons actively sought from the federal government restitution -- for both physical persecutions and financial losses -- for what they had endured in Missouri. McBride's book shows how easy it was in that era to contact and lobby the president of the United States. Knock on the White House door and request the president's ear.

Access was easier then, but getting results was perhaps as frustrating as today. President Martin Van Buren made it clear he would not help the Mormons, candidly admitting of future political liabilities. Undaunted, Mormon representatives took their requests to the U.S. Congress. They eagerly responded to sympathetic voices from members of Congress, but fell prey to the usual political games of Congress. They achieved progress in committee, but never got close to achieving majority support in Congress. 

A constant argument against Smith's and the Mormon's request for restitution was that the state, rather than the federal government, needed to correct its injustices. Petitions to presidential candidates of that era, including Lewis Cass and Henry Clay, also proved fruitless. Obviously, any chance of restitution, or even mercy, from Missouri was an impossibility. 

Hence the presidential campaign of Joseph Smith, nominated by the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Whether General Smith -- of Nauvoo's militia -- actually believed he could win, or was using his candidacy to enhance political status for Mormonism, is still open to debate. The campaign effort was serious, with missionaries called to preach his candidacy, a pamphlet of campaign positions published, newspapers and presidential candidates lobbied, a nominating convention planned, and a nationwide search for a vice presidential candidate.

As McBride notes, easterner James Arlington Bennet, a famous author and newspaper publisher, was asked to be vice president to Smith. A bit of an opportunist, Bennet had been baptized but was not active in the church. His chief goal, explains McBride, was to become governor of Illinois. He had previously accepted an honorary position in the Nauvoo militia. Prominent Mormon Willard Richards, a friend of Bennet's, presented him with an invitation to join the ticket. As McBride notes, Bennet was blunt with his refusal, believing there was no chance Smith could win the office.

More efforts to get a vice presidential candidate -- outside of the inner circle of the church -- were unsuccessful. Even an obscure Southern states politician turned a deaf ear to a request. Eventually, longtime Mormon leader Sidney Rigdon was nominated. It was a safe but still curious choice, as the pair's relationship was strained, primarily due to polygamy.

On June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed in a jail in Carthage, Ill. Polygamy, fears of Mormonism's political strength, unpopular political chicanery and backstabbing, bigotry, a prejudiced interpretation of "Christianity," and outrage over a bad decision by Smith to destroy a newspaper opposed to his leadership; all contributed to a mob killing the brothers. In today's world of immediate news, it's hard to comprehend that weeks after the murders, the news hadn't spread far. Missionaries were still campaigning for Smith after his death, unaware of the slaughter. 

The Mormons proved themselves far less bloodthirsty than the mob that killed the Smiths. The killers' leaders and eggers-on escaped consequences. Mormons wanted out of the United States, a sentiment that made Utah a more desirable exodus location than say, Texas, which was in the process of U.S. assimilation. The Mormons would, however, eventually learn that moving to Utah would not free them from national oversight.

"Joseph Smith for President" provides a fair, detailed look at the Quixotic presidential campaign/ McBride compares the Mormons' experience of oppression with similar occurrences suffered by Jews and Catholics in the 19th century United States. He draws states rights as a tool oppressors have used to maintain discrimination, whether against religions or ethnicities. He also points to an ugly consequence of such discrimination justified for religious purposes: the oppressors claim divine approval for their bigotry. 

With states unable to police against bigotry, it becomes imperative for the federal government to correct injustice, something Joseph Smith realized 180 years ago. His platform did not just to protect Mormonism, but other religious alternatives to the prevailing Christianity of the time.

Mormonism, secularism cited as sin within USA by late 19th century Protestant America

---

At the 2013 Mormon History Association gathering, in Layton, Utah, there was a discourse delivered by Leigh Eric Schmidt, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. Schmidt, who is not a member of the Mormon Church, delivered a fascinating address titled, “Mormons, freethinkers and the limits of toleration.” It primarily dealt with how Mormonism, as well as atheism and proponents of secularism, were received by a late-19th century America that was dominated by Protestantism.

In that era, Schmidt explained, freethinkers and Mormons were, of course, miles apart in ideas. The coalition of freethinkers included atheists, agnostics, critics of organized religion, and critics of the era’s rigid sexual mores. Mormons, on the other hand, followed a rigid ecclesiastical authority and professed to follow strong morals. But there was that polygamy thing, which in an era of Protestantism and Republicanism, was considered as libertine and immoral. An example — in 1887, Schmidt said, Mormonism, secularism and atheism were proclaimed as “sin within (the) land” by Presbyterian leaders.

To sum up, 120-plus years ago, atheists and Mormons were both outcasts, oddities to be gawked at by most, and pursued and prosecuted by the more zealous advocates of a approved religious-state.  As Schmidt noted, two separate pieces of legislation, the Edmunds-Tucker Act and the Comstock Act, were in essence “religious tests” for both public comportment as well as “fitness” tests to run for public office. The former was directed at Mormons, the latter politically active freethinkers. Both fell outside of boundaries of American Christianity drawn by Protestants.

In his discourse, Schmidt included an overview of two prominent secularists of that era — Robert Ingersoll and D.M. Bennett — and recapped their visits to Utah as well as their viewpoints on Mormonism. For Ingersoll, who regarded secularism as the best religion — Ingersoll idealized the moral, secular family spending time together in the home on Sundays — Mormonism was an abomination. As Schmidt noted, the conservative freethinker regarded the Utah religion as “horrible” and founded on ignorant superstition.  Ingersoll, Schmidt added, was a monogamist and was not sympathetic to the LDS Church’s persecution by the government.

Schmidt related an interesting 1877 account in which Ingersoll, a frequent traveling lecturer, spoke at the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City. During the lecture, Ingersoll praised the virtues of families and the proper raising of children. In an interesting contrast, notes Schmidt, the anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune proclaimed the lecture as an attack on polygamy. However, the Mormon Church-owned Deseret News “loved the speech,” said Schmidt, and wondered in its coverage why Schmidt often referred to domestic life in Utah as prostitution. The remarks were probably ironic, since the editors were certainly aware of Ingersoll’s harsh views on polygamy.

As for D.M. Bennett, the founder of the periodical “The Truth Seeker,” he was a far more radical secularist than Ingersoll. Bennett was also an advocate of free love. His efforts led to his arrest and conviction under the Comstock law. He served 13 months in prison.  As the masthead of “The Truth Seeker” noted, it was “Devoted to: science, morals, free thought, free discussions, liberalism, sexual equality, labor reform, progression, free education and whatever tends to elevate and emancipate the human race.” Conversely, the masthead also noted that religion tended to produce the opposite.

Schmidt noted that Bennett, also a traveling lecturer, visited Salt Lake City often. He also spoke in Ogden. Utah charmed him, and he wrote about his visits in a travel guide he published. He spoke warmly of its Mormon inhabitants, even publicly expressing his opinion that Protestants had no right to criticize Mormons, adding that the residents of Utah were more moral than their critics. However, Bennett was careful to remind his readers that his comments should not be interpreted as approval for Mormon theology. In my opinion, Bennett may have felt empathy for Mormon men jailed for polygamy, as he had experienced the same for his advocacy of morals that were criminally prosecuted.

Schmidt also talked more about the secular publication, “The Truth Seeker,” and its off and on empathy with the Utah Mormons. The famous secular cartoonist, Watson Heston, drew cartoons that included Mormons as being persecuted by mainstream Christianity of that era. In fact, one of his “Truth Seeker” cartoons, “An Example of Christian Consistency,” was reprinted in an 1896 Mormon missionary magazine in Tennessee, Schmidt told the audience. (Although I can’t find a copy of the cartoon “An Example of Christian Consistency,” below is another cartoon from Heston, “The Amusement of the Saints in Heaven,” that offers readers a look at his style.)

However, Heston was no fan of the Utah Mormons, Schmidt said. He was a particularly harsh opponent of polygamy, seeing it as a threat to American womanhood. In fact, Heston’s conservative secularism eventually moved him away from “The Truth Seeker.”

It was an interesting lecture from Schmidt. In fact, I just bought one of his books via Amazon (1). As the secularist movement radicalized and began advocating moral issues at odds with most of America in the late 19th century, its influence waned and adherents moved away, to liberal churches or to the secular Sunday afternoons in the family hearth so treasured by Ingersoll.

Still, as Schmidt noted in his lecture, there were secular activists of that era who saw the potential for a “probable but meaningful alliance” between freethinkers and Mormons. The time frame for this was the latter half of the 19th century, when both were despised by chief opinion-makers.

Ironically, as the 20th century began, Mormonism began a slow but consistent march toward conformity, conservatism and traditionalism while organized freethinker movements became more radical and its organized number declined.

One wonders if events will ever transpire to bring the twain — Mormons and freethinkers — together as allies.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally posted at StandardBlogs.

1) The Schmidt book I purchased is “Heaven’s Bride: The Unprintable Life of Ida C. Craddock, American Mystic, Scholar, Sexologist, Martyr and Madwoman,” Basic Books, 2010. Buy it here.