Destruction of the Nauvoo Press

[Elphaba]

This post is in response to a post Starfish wrote on another thread. Rather than hijack that thread, I brought it here.

[bentley:] Next, these enemies tried another approach. They acquired a printing press. It was partly to recruit members to their new church by exposing the "gross evils" of the Smiths.

First, let me say thank you very much for this reference. I enjoyed reading Bentley‘s essay again. However, it‘s extremely important to realize his essay is a faith-promoting version of the events that led directly to Joseph‘s murder, but not always historically accurate. I‘ll explain below:

For example, the black and white, good v. bad, portrayal of the Laws depicts the situation out of context. For Bentley to call the Laws, et al, the “enemies,” is short-sighted, and ultimately, faith-promoting.

Joseph did not have a stronger adherent than William Law when he was converted. His diary is full of joyous entries about Joseph and the gospel. And he and Joseph were very close for a long time.

However, Law was extremely principled, sometimes to the point of stubbornness. He was a dedicated Christian and Latter-day Saint and he valued his morals highly. So, when Joseph started introducing polygamy into the culture, Law was stunned. He believed, just as the rest of the Christian country did, that polygamy was immoral; in fact, he not only thought Joseph was perverting his priestly authority, he also was terrified Joseph was putting his own soul in danger.

Eventually because Law could not accept polygamy, the Laws were excommunicated. Ehat suggests it might also have been because William‘s wife refused Joseph‘s proposal.

So, when Law decided to start a newspaper, he seriously thought he was doing the right thing. The Expositor does not denounce The Book of Mormon, nor Mormonism itself. It denounces Joseph, and only because Law sincerely believed that Joseph was a fallen prophet, and thus, capable of causing great harm to Mormonism’s remaining members and future converts. And he wasn’t alone.

Additionally, many people believe, to this day, that The Expositor was full of lies; this is not true. Much of what Law wrote was actually true, from his perspective, especially his expose’ of “spiritual wifery.” Of course, as was usual during that time period, the newspaper is full of hyperbole, bloviating and a lot of drama.

But the information itself, for the most part, was accurate from his point of view. Thus, he is not a liar, and as I said earlier, “enemies,” is not an accurate description. In point of fact, neither party was “wrong.” Joseph had his reasons for marrying his polygamous wives that I won’t go into here (if you’re interested Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling is an excellent resource.)

Hopefully the above gives the perspective and context that are vital when describing historical events. Using loaded words like “enemies” the way Bentley has done is not proper in a historical treatment.

Their other stated purpose was to publish The Nauvoo Expositor until it provoked its own destruction. Said Francis Higbee, one of the publishers: "This city is done the moment a hand is laid on this press.... They can date irony their downfall from that very hour and in 10 days, no Mormon will be left in Nauvoo."

Bentley is making a conclusion that is not supported by Higbee’s words.

Higbee never said “The ‘other stated purpose,’ or anything like that regarding the press. Rather, when I read his words, they sound more like a warning that no one does anything to stop the paper from being published.

In fact, combine what I’ve just written about Law above, with the following introduction to the first issue of The Expositor:

“We believe that the Press should not be the medium through which the private character of any individual should be assailed, delineated, or

exposed to public gaze: still, whoever acts in an official character, who sets himself up as a public teacher, and reformer of morals and religion, and as an aspirant to the highest office in the gift of the people of this glorious republic, whose institutions he publicly condemns, we assert and maintain the right of canvassing all the public acts and animadverting, with terms of the severest reproach upon all the revolutionary measures that comes to our notice, from any source. We would not be worthy of the name of an American citizen did we stand by and see, not only the laws of the State, but the laws of the United States set at defiance, the authorities insulted, fugitives from justice fleeing for refuge [asking ?] and receiving protection from the authorities of Nauvoo, for high crimes committed against the government of the United States, the Mayor of a petty incorporated town interposing his authority, and demanding the right of trial for the fugitive on the merits of the case, by virtue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, issued by the Municipal Court [of ?] Nauvoo. It is too gross a burlesque [ ... ? ] common sense -- a subterfuge too low to indicate any thing but a corrupt motive. -- Such acts, whether committed in a private or public capacity, will be held up to public scorn. An independent Press is bound by every sense of duty, to lay before the public every attack upon their rights: we, therefore, in the exercise of our duty, expect the support and the aid of our fellow citizens in our enterprise.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This introduction tells us the paper’s clear-cut mission is to expose Joseph was a fallen prophet, which they believed was truthful. There is nothing that indicates a strategy of having Joseph destroy the paper, although, tragically, his doing so brought about his demise.

Bentley: For three days, the City council deliberated.

This is wrong. The council deliberated two days: June 7, 1844, and June 10, 1844, so it spent about twelve (12) hours discussing the paper and what actions to take.

By the way, I was wrong when I said the city council only met one day. Because of your reference, I researched it some more and discovered it was two days, so thank you for giving me the reference.

An interesting side note: Joseph had created The Council of Fifty as part of his kingdom a few months prior; however, on June 7, after having read the Expositor, he did not call them into session. Quinn believes this is because Joseph realized he had been betrayed by some of the members; in fact, he was reading some of the betrayals right there in the paper’s pages. This was a huge blow to Joseph, and Quinn writes it was the beginning of a downhill turn into defeat, and tragedy.

Bentley: Based upon legal advice and their understanding of the law in effect at that time, Joseph ordered the press to be suppressed.

This was done very peacefully--unlike the riotous destruction of the Mormon press earlier in Missouri.

Again, this is more faith-promoting verbiage, as what happened in Missouri is not germane to the incident being discussed.

Star: When the Nauvoo Expositer was destroyed, the action was thoroughly studied beforehand by their attorneys and found to be legal and necessary.

Again, there were no attorneys involved. Both meetings included the City Council, however. Obviously they were conversant in Nauvoo’s charter, especially because it was a generous one.

And as I said before, no one doubts Joseph firmly believed he was within his legal rights to have the press destroyed.

The laws of the 1840's supported it.

No, they didn’t. Even Elder Oaks has said the destruction of the press was illegal. If he had just destroyed the newspapers, that would have been fine. But Joseph needed to take the editors to court, and give them a chance to defend their actions.

Bentley: Two days later, a "wrathy constable"

I have looked in every single reference book I have, and all over the web, and I cannot find one reference to “wrathy constable.“ I’ve scoured the HofC, and, unless I missed it, it’s not there. Because it’s in quotes, that should mean it’s verbatim, which does make it appropriate here. I would really like to know where he culled the quote from. Perhaps I was looking so hard I missed it when it was right in front of me.

Hopefully you see what I mean about Bentley’s treatment of the topic. If you want to claim something is historically accurate, using faith-promoting material is not going to work.

Again, I apologize for my insistent claim the deliberations only lasted for one day, when it was, in fact, two days. I appreciate you gave me the chance to see that.

Elphaba

Edited November 1, 2008 by Elphaba