JI Summer Book Club: A House Full of Females Chapter 11

By August 13, 2017

This is the eleventh entry in the Third Annual Summer Book Club at Juvenile Instructor. This year we are reading Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism (Knopf, 2017). Check back every Sunday for the week’s installment! Please follow the book club and JI on Facebook.

 

 

The central idea of Chapter 11 (“Synopsis of My Labors”) is what can be learned about Wilford Woodruff’s home life from what he does and does not include in his synopses of his labors. These end-of-year tallies are part of what makes Wilford’s journal such a pleasure to read. He writes, for example, that in 1853 he traveled 100 miles, attended 650 meetings at the tabernacle, wrote 38 letters, and so on. Despite this impressively detailed list, Ulrich points out three main events that he did not include: his wife Phebe’s birth, his marriages to Sarah Brown and Emma Smith, and his divorce from Mary Jackson. The chapter is divided into four parts, each dealing with something on Laurel’s list of omitted family events. The Woodruffs (Wilford and the numerous types of marital relationships he had) act as a case study for what marriage, fertility, sex, and divorce meant in early Utah.

Ulrich starts with a discussion of Phebe’s reproductive pattern over her sixteen years of marriage with Wilford. It is no coincidence that Ulrich conducts a deep analysis of fertility and marriage in this chapter: its title advertises a discussion of labor. Ulrich writes, “Phebe’s labors were more difficult to summarize on their own.” (273) Ulrich’s discussion, whether through economics or fertility, forces the reader to consider women’s labor alongside Wilford’s more easily recognized (and countable) tasks.

Ulrich then discusses Wilford’s marriages to Emma Smith (age fifteen) and Sarah Brown (age nineteen). Emma bore her first child nearly four years after her marriage (at age nineteen). Both Sarah and Emma represent a different type of class of wives than Phebe Woodruff, who monogamously married her husband at age thirty. Instead of being Wilford’s peers, these new young wives were integrated into an already functioning household economy as dependents.

Ulrich’s discussion of Mary Ann Jackson’s divorce from Wilford approaches dependency in marriage from a different angle. Ulrich notes how divorce in Utah, as opposed to in other states, was relatively easy to obtain. In fact, she informs us that Brigham Young authorized a shocking 1,645 divorces in Utah. (280) Despite the existence of no-fault divorces, Ulrich shows that the needs of their young son James made Mary Ann and Wilford’s separation messy. The archived letters Wilford sent to Mary Ann gives us a (one-sided) view of the conflict they continued to have even after their marriage formally ended. Their relationship was fraught as they negotiated their economic obligations to their son and one another.

The last segment discusses Wilford’s earlier marriage with Mary Webster in 1852, a woman who was still technically married to her first husband. Her marriage with Wilford only lasted a few months because Mary died in October of 1852. Mary Webster’s story fits into a larger theme throughout the book of women who prioritize their new adopted religious family over their existing marital and family ties. Ulrich compares the letters written by Webster’s husband with the letters the Henry Jacobs writes to Zina years after their separation. Both sets of letters reveal an uncomfortable aspect of Mormonism as they show the raw feelings of the men left behind by these Mormon women. The section also brilliantly shows the fickle nature of the dynamic religious world of Mormon families; some informal divorces were accepted, while other remarriages were considered unlawful and worthy of church discipline. The discussion in this section is expanded in Ulrich’s fascinating article “Runaway Wives 1830-1860.”

Throughout the chapter Ulrich’s writing has an authoritative academic voice, yet she consistently prioritizes her narrative over a systematic analysis of her claims. For example, in the beginning of the chapter Ulrich contrasts Phebe’s birth rate (about one child every 1.7 years) with Parley P. Pratt’s six childbearing wives, who averaged a child every three years per wife. She uses this comparison to suggest that “polygamy increases the number of children per father, it decreases the number of children per mother.” (271) This interesting claim is easy to miss in Ulrich’s unrelenting narrative and deserves more discussion. How does this claim work, for example, with less economically affluent families or religious leaders lower in religious hierarchy than the Woodruffs and the Pratts? Did men who were often away on church missions have fewer offspring than men that stayed local? Was there a potential divide between urban and agricultural polygamists? Even within her qualitative framework there is much more to say. She could have, for example, added information about some of the other families that the readers follow throughout the book, such as the households of Peregrine Sessions, George Smith, Heber Kimball, or the George Taylor.

Using the Woodruff household as a case study, Laurel gives us a macro view of the complexity of the Mormon polygamous household. Throughout the book Ulrich points to gaps in Wilford’s journal pertaining to his children and recently contracted plural marriages. This chapter, then, represents a full-length discussion of what those gaps in his journal could say.

Article filed under Book and Journal Reviews


Comments

  1. “She uses this comparison to suggest that ‘polygamy increases the number of children per father, it decreases the number of children per mother.’ (271) This interesting claim is easy to miss in Ulrich’s unrelenting narrative and deserves more discussion.”

    Wow, I’m not sure what to think about this because the most accepted (after the essays and actually within D&C 132) reason for polygamy is that it was to raise up a righteous seed. If you think about it in this terms, it’s pretty clear that it is to raise up a righteous seed through the patriarch of the family.

    Comment by EmJen — August 14, 2017 @ 3:07 pm

  2. Two different ways to look that how plural marriage affected fertility rates are as follows:

    1) Using only 19th century Mormonism data sets (genealogy based) and comparing the completed fertility rates of monogamous and first wives to 2nd, 3rd, etc. wives. Based on these statistics one might draw the conclusion that Ulrich does anecdotally.

    2) Looking at the Mormon marriage system at a macro-level (census-based) compared to the rest of the United States. Based on adult to children ratios, one might conclude that both men and women had a lot more children than they otherwise would have if they hadn’t converted to Mormonism, moved west, and tolerated a fraction of marriages to be plural.

    I wish I could show some plots here.

    The gospel topics essay “Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah” (which I have linked to above) briefly discusses these points with helpful footnotes.

    There are some papers that explore that explore spacing between births and stopping criteria using the approach in (1) above. Spacing actually increases infant survival rates. Stopping ( families deemed big enough to quit) family size increase would have been influenced by finances and status among other factors for both types of marriage. As an example of the influence of plural marriage on future generations, grand-children to child rates were increased in plural families.

    Using the 2nd approach, Mormon disruptions caused by missionary work were likely less than disruptions caused by the Civil War, gold rush, etc. Missionary work was greatly curtailed from 1856 to 1900.

    I don’t have much to say about rural vs urban or elites vs. other statistics at present. Good questions!

    Comment by David Keller — August 15, 2017 @ 8:54 am


Series

Recent Comments

Ian McLaughlin on MHA Paper Proposal Networking: “Yeah. I can mention our compatibility in my submission. Not a pre-formed panel, but better than going completely solo, I think.”


Ben S on MHA Paper Proposal Networking: “Probably too late to find a third and throw together a panel. Good to know, though!”


Ian McLaughlin on MHA Paper Proposal Networking: “Ben S, I'm proposing a paper on the politics of evolution in the formation of Church academies, and how this influenced/determined the reception of pro-evolution…”


Catherine H. Ellis on MHA Paper Proposal Networking: “Janika Dillon: This is so last minute, but if you are still looking for a third paper for a session, I would be willing…”


Michelle Hill on MHA Paper Proposal Networking: “I guess my comment didn't go through from a couple weeks ago. Is anyone interested in a panel on women's clothing or other material culture…”


Erik Freeman on MHA Paper Proposal Networking: “Dylan McDonald, I would be interested in joining your panel on the Teton Dam. I am working on a paper comparing the life course…”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org