The Mormon Question

Front matter

THE MORMON QUESTION.

BEING A

SPEECH OF VICE-PRESIDENT SCHUYLER COLFAX,

Speech of Vice-President Schuyler Colfax

OF

VICE-PRESIDENT SCHUYLER COLFAX,

DELIVERED ON THE PORTICO OF THE TOWNSEND HOUSE, SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 5, 1869.

Fellow Citizens:—I come hither in response to your call to thank the band from Camp Douglas for the serenade with which they have honored me, and to tender my obligations to the thousands before me, for having come from their homes and places of business “to speed the parting guest.”

As I stand before you, to-night, my thoughts go back to the first view I ever had of Salt Lake City, four years ago last June. After traveling with my companions, Gov. Bross and Mr. Bowles, who are with me again, and Mr. Richardson, whose absence we have all regretted, over arid plains, and alkali valleys, and barren mountains, day after day, our stage coach emerged from a canon one morning, and we looked down upon your city, covering miles in its area, with its gardens, green with fruit trees and shrubbery, and the Jordan, flashing in the sun beyond. And when, after stopping at Camp Douglas, which overlooks your city, to salute the flag of our country, and honor the officers and soldiers who keep watch and ward over it at this distant post, we drove down with your common council to the city, and saw its wide streets, and the streams which irrigate your gardens, rippling down all of them in their pebbly beds, I felt indeed that you had a right to regard it as a Palmyra in the desert. Returning now, with my family and friends, from a long journey on the Pacific coast, extending north to where the Columbia river tears its way through the mighty range which bars the way for all other rivers from the British to the Mexican line, we came to your city by the stage route from the railroad, through the fertile region that lines your lake shore, and find it as beautiful and attractive in its affluence of fruits and flowers as when we first visited it.

I am gratified too, that our present visit occurred at the same time with your Territorial Fair, enabling us to witness your advance in the various branches of industry. I was specially interested in the hours I spent there, yesterday, with some of your leading citizens, in your cotton manufactures from the cotton you raise in southern Utah, your woolen manufacturer, the silk manufacture you have recently inaugurated, your leather and harness, the porcelain, which was new to me, your furniture, your paintings, and pictures, the fancy work of the ladies, and the fruits and vegetables which tell their own story of the fertility of your soil. I rejoice over every indication of progress and self-reliance in all parts of the Union, and hope you may realize, by further development, how wise and beneficial such advancement is to communities like yours, remote from the more thickly settled portions of the Republic.

I have enjoyed the opportunity, also, of visiting your Tabernacle, erected since I was here before, the largest building in which religious services are held on the continent, and of listening to your organ, constructed here, which, in its mammoth size, its volume of sound, and sweetness of tone, would compare favorably with any in the largest cities in the Union. Nor did I feel any the less interest on my present, than on my former visit, in listening to your leading men in their places of worship, as they expounded and defended their faith and practice, because that faith and practice differed so widely from my own. Believing in free speech, as all of us should, I listened attentively, respectfully, and courteously, to what failed to convince my mind, and you will doubtless hear me with equal patience, while I tell you frankly wherein we differ.

But first let me say that I have no strictures to utter as to your creed 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 worship the Creator through a president and twelve apostles of your church organization 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 every other denomination throughout the land. But our country is governed by law, and no assumed revelation justifies any one in trampling on the law. If it did, every wrong-doer would use that argument to protect himself in his disobedience to it. The Constitution declares, in the most emphatic language, that that instrument and the laws made in conformity thereto, shall be the supreme law of the land. Whether liked or disliked, they bind the forty millions of people who are subject to that supreme law. If any one condemns them as unconstitutional, the courts of the United States are open, before which they can test the question. But, till they are decided to be in conflict with the Constitution, they are binding upon you in Utah as they are on me in the District of Columbia, or on the citizens of Idaho and Montana. Let me refer now to the law of 1862 against which you especially complain, and which you denounce Congress for enacting. It is obeyed in the other Territories of the United States, or if disobeyed its violation is punished. It is not obeyed here, and though you often speak of the persecutions to which you were subject in the earlier years of your church, you cannot but acknowledge that the conduct of the government and the people of the United States towards you, in your later years, has been one of toleration, which you could not have realized in any other of the civilized nations of the world.

I do not concede that the institution you have established here, and which is condemned by the law, is a question of religion. But to you who do claim it as such, I reply, that the law you denounce, only re-enacts the original prohibitions of your own Book of Mormon, on its 118th page, and your Book of Doctrines and Covenants, in its chapter on marriage; and these are the inspired records, as you claim them, on which your church was organized.

The Book of Mormon, on the same page, speaks twice of the conduct of David and Solomon, as “a grosser crime,” and those who follow their practice as “waxing in iniquity.” The Book of Doctrines and Covenants is the discipline and creed of your church; and in its chapter on marriage, it declares, that as the Mormon church has been charged with the crimes of fornication and polygamy, it is avowed as the law of the church, that a man shall have but one wife, and a woman but one husband, till death shall part them.

I know you claim that a subsequent revelation annulled all this; but I use these citations to show you that the Congressional law, which you denounce, only enacted what was the original and publicly proclaimed and printed creed on which your church was founded. And yet, while you assume that this later revelation gives you the right to turn your back on your old faith and 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. The Hindoos claim, as part of their religion, the right to burn widows with the dead bodies of their husbands. If they were to attempt it here, as their religion, you would prevent it by force. If a new revelation were to be proclaimed here, that the strong men should have the right to take the wives of the weaker men, that the learned men should take the wives of the unlearned, that the rich men should take the wives of the poor, that those who were powerful and influential should have the right to command the labor and the service of the humbler, as their bond-slaves, you would spurn it, and would rely upon the law and the power of the United States to protect you.

But you argue that it is a restraint on individual freedom; and that it concerns only yourselves. Yet you justify these restraints on individual freedom in everything else. Let me prove this to you. If a man came here and sought to establish a liquor saloon on Temple street without license, you would justify your common council, which is your municipal congress, in suppressing it by force, and punishing the offender besides. Another one comes here and says that he will pursue his legitimate avocation of bone-boiling on a lot in the heart of your city. You would expect your council to prevent it, and why? Because you believe it would be offensive to society and to the people around him. And still another says, that as an American citizen he will establish a powder mill on a lot he has purchased, next door to this hotel, where we have been so hospitably entertained. You would demand that this should be prevented, because it was obnoxious to the best interests of the community. I might use other illustrations as to personal conduct which you would insist should be restrained, although it fettered personal freedom, and the wrong-doer might say only concerned himself. But I have adduced sufficient to justify Congress in an enactment they deemed wise for the whole people for whom they legislated. And I need not go further to adduce other arguments as to the elevation of woman; for my purpose has been in these remarks, to indicate the right of Congress to pass the law and to insist on obedience to it.

One thing I must allude to, personal to myself. The papers have published a discourse delivered last April by your highest ecclesiastical authority, which stated that the President and Vice President of the United States were both gamblers and drunkards. (Voices in the crowd, “He did not say so”) I had not heard before that it was denied; but I am glad to hear the denial now. Whether denied or not, however, I did not intend to answer railing with railing, nor personal attack with invective. I only wished to state publicly in this city, where the charge is said to have been made, that it was utterly untrue as to President Grant; and as to myself, that I never gambled to the value of a farthing, and have been a total abstinence man all the years of my manhood. However I may differ on political questions or others from any portion of my countrymen, no one has ever truthfully assailed my character. I have valued a good character far more than a political reputation or official honors, and wish to preserve it unspotted while life shall last.

A few words more and I must conclude. When our party visited you four years ago, we all believed that, under wise counsels, your city might become the great city of the interior. But you must allow me to say that you do not seem to have improved these opportunities as you might have done. What you should do to develop the advantages your position gives you, seems obvious. You should encourage, and not discourage, competition in trade. You should welcome, and not repel, investments from abroad. You should discourage every effort to drive capital from your midst. You should rejoice at the opening of every new store, or factory, or mechanic shop, by whomsoever conducted. You should seek to widen the area of country dependent on your city for supplies. You should realize that wealth will come to you only by development, by unfettered competition, by increased capital.

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.

References:

Elder Taylor's Reply to Vice-President Colfax's Speech

TO VICE-PRESIDENT COLFAX’S SPEECH.

American House, Boston, Mass., October 20, 1869. To the Editor of the Deseret News:—Dear Sir, I have read with a great deal of interest the speech of the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, delivered in Salt Lake City, Oct. 5, 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 the discussion 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 proceeding from a gentleman occupying the honorable position of Mr. Colfax, have their due weight. His remarks, while they were 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 gentleman.

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 worship the Creator, through a President and Twelve Apostles of your Church organization, 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 every other 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 former 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 justifes 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 solemnized by proper authority; a woman is sealed unto a man for time and for eternity, by the power of which Jesus speaks, which “seals 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 not our religion? You do not see things as we do. You marry for time only, “until 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, 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 tyrannical 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 law, is a question of religion.”

Now, with all due deference, I do think that if Mr. Colfax had carefully examined our religious faith he would have arrived at other conclusions. In the absence 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 himself 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 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 considered a religions 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 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 revelation. 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 by Mr. Colfax, is only partly quoted. I cannot blame the gentleman for this: he has many engagements, without examining our doctrines. I suppose this was handed to him. Had he read a little farther he would have found it stated:

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me I will command 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 here 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 or sell of and to whom we please. We do not interrupt others in selling, if they can get customers. We have commenced 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 jurisdiction 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 that 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 decide 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, there never was such a thing known. Could any body 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 thumb-screws, 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 non-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 persecutors, 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 Christian philanthropy that, after robbing, plundering, and ravaging a whole community drove them from Illinois, into the wilderness among savages?

When we fled as outcasts and exiles from the United States we went to Mexican 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 fleeing 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 fabrications of your own officers, and which your own Governor Cummings, afterwards published as false. Thus the whole of this infamous proceeding was 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 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 people. 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 regard to the destruction of the Hebrew children, was meant to destroy the Israelites. If a law had been passed making it 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 Catholic 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 facts 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 shoulders, and daring the little urchin to knock it off.

But we are graciously told that we have our appeal. True, we have an appeal. 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.