The Mormon Reserve

This installment of the JI’s Mormons and Natives Month comes from Paul Reeve, associate professor of history at the University of Utah and frequent guest blogger at the JI.

In every instance where Mormons faced growing animosity from outsiders and tension escalated between Mormons and their neighbors, accusations of a Mormon-Indian conspiracy were among the charges. The Mormon expulsions from Jackson County, Missouri, from Clay County, Missouri, and from the state of Missouri altogether, along with their exodus from Nauvoo, Illinois, and the later Utah War were all events notably marked by claims that Mormons were combining with Indians to wage war against white America.

Outsiders did not always see war and conspiracy, however, when they conflated Mormons with Indians. Sometimes the conflation was in the search for a solution to the Mormon problem. Such was the case in early 1845 as residents of Hancock County, Illinois cast about for a resolution to their increasingly untenable situation. As my contribution to JI’s Mormons and Natives theme month, I offer below an excerpt from my book project, Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness (Oxford). It describes a little known effort following the Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith to find a peaceful resolution to the tension between “old settlers” in Hancock County and the Mormons. It is an interesting episode in its own right; but beyond the details of the story, larger themes emerge, a tangled weave of Mormon and Indian threads which outsiders sometimes used to blur the distinction between the two groups and justify discriminatory policies against both.

Within seven months of the murder of the Smith brothers, one minor political figure, William P. Richards from Macomb, Illinois, fifty miles East of Nauvoo, offered a potential solution to the mounting tension between the Mormons and Hancock County residents. In February 1845, Richards proposed a plan patterned after the Indian Removal Act (1830) from the previous decade. This time the correlation between Mormons and Indians moved in a new direction, toward a potential resolution of the Mormon problem that was based upon the Indian solution. In light of the continuing strain between Mormons and outsiders, a condition that Richards believed was “on the very eve of violent and bloody collision,” he offered a plan. His proposal called for a land “Reserve to be set apart by Congress for the Mormon people exclusively,” a place where they would be “safe from intrusion and molestation.” He called for a twenty-four mile square section of land, North of Illinois and West of Wisconsin, bordering the western edge of the Mississippi River, to be “forever set apart and known and designated as the Mormon Reserve.” With a design reminiscent of Indian reservations, Richards’ proposal authorized the president to appoint and the Senate to ratify a “superintendent” to administer the reserve and ensure that only Mormons settled there. They would be allowed to draft a constitution for themselves, so long as it did not violate the U. S. Constitution, and thereby enjoy a measure of freedom and self-determination.

As the proposal circulated locally, Richards defended it and met with Mormon leaders to cultivate their favor. The initial response from the Mormons was positive, although one leader believed that twenty-four square miles was inadequate space for the growing number of Mormons. Richards was not opposed to a larger reserve or to other potential locations in Oregon, Texas, or land west of Indian Territory.

In making his case, Richards noted that the Indian Removal Act established a precedent for such a land reserve. It was a policy for the Indians that he deemed “at once enlightened and humane.” It moved them to a country where they were “secure from future intrusion” and put them in possession of homes that were “sure and permanent.” Richards admitted that it was “not very complimentary to the Mormons to place them in the same category” as the Indians, but his focus was upon a peaceful solution to the Mormon problem and he believed that the example of Indian removal offered exactly that. As he saw it, removing the Mormons to land “set apart for their exclusive occupancy and use” would eliminate the threat of outside persecution. With persecution eliminated as a binding force among Mormons internally, Richards predicted “their present rampant religious zeal would evaporate in a single generation and the Sect as such, become extinct.” If they stayed at Nauvoo, he feared the opposite, “constant turmoil, collision, outrage and perchance,–extensive bloodshed.”

It was an echo from President Andrew Jackson’s justifications for the Indian Removal Act (1830). Jackson, in his 1830 State of the Union Address, argued that providing the Native Americans land West of the Mississippi River and far removed from outside interference was a humane option designed to save the Indians from extinction. “The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward,” he argued, and the Indian Removal Act would send the Indians “to a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.” To save the Indian from “perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home.”

Beyond a period of local discussion and debate, Richards’ plan did not generate enough interest nationally to garner serious consideration. It did nonetheless indicate the persistent ways in which some outsiders linked Mormons to Indians, not just as a danger, but also in the search for a solution. It further demonstrated how dramatically Mormons were deemed different, a people so distinct, so potentially hostile to American democracy, that they required physical separation, ostensibly to preserve them from the crush of civilization but in reality to preserve civilization from the threat of Mormon savagery.

Rather than an organized “reserve,” Illinois citizens banished the Mormons to their own fate, an expulsion from “civilization” to a new refuge in northern Mexico among “savage” bands of Great Basin Indians. In light of the earlier accusations surrounding the Missouri expulsions, the Mormons found themselves in an ironic bind. As Brigham Young put it, Missourians had accused them of the “intention to tamper with the Indians” and so removed them from that state and their relative proximity to the Indians. Then, ten years later, he said, “it was found equally necessary . . . to drive us from Nauvoo into the very midst of the Indians, as unworthy of any other society.” It was an absurd contradiction for the Mormons, one in which they recognized their own marginalization alongside Native Americans, people whom they were supposed to simultaneously stay away from for fear of conspiracy and live amongst for lack of whiteness

Painting the Mythical and the Heroic: Joseph Smith Preaches to the American Indians

By Laura Allred Hurtado, with David G. Note: This represents preliminary and ongoing research for the Armitage painting. 

In 1890, British born painter and founder of the Utah Art Association William Armitage created the massive historic painting, Joseph Smith Preaching to the Indians. The artwork, which once hung with prominence in the Salt Lake Temple, now fills the wall leading up to the 2nd floor of the Church History Museum. The scale itself means that it demands the attention of the entire room, standing almost as a sentinel within the space. The painting depicts, as the title suggests, a well-dressed Smith preaching to a crowd of nearly forty American Indians which surround the frame. Smith?s outstretched right arm gestures heavenward while his left hand holds the Book of Mormon, a book that according to historian Ronald W. Walker was ?not just a record of the ?Lamanite? or Native American people, but a highly unusual manifesto of their destiny.?[1] Smith stands triumphantly and confidently among this crowd of mostly male Indians whose expressions vary from guarded, taken aback, distrusting, perhaps even provoked but in all instances, they are engaged, looking toward Joseph and his distinct message regarding the destiny of North America?s Indigenous peoples.

Continue Reading

The Oral History of a LDS ?Asdzáánsání in Diné Bizaad

Many Farms Lake

?Asdzáánsání (elderly woman)

Diné Bizaad (Navajo language)

Before reading this post, please note that we faced technological issues with using Navajo diacritical marks on the blog so some of the Navajo here does not directly represent the revised transcript of the oral history. The two symbols that would not appear on this blog were the slashed l and nasal marks. I italicize the l (l) to represent the slashed l and italicize vowels that should include a nasal mark (a, o, and e especially). Different literature often does not follow a standard written Navajo form with consistent use of diacritical marks for terms.

Continue Reading

Figurative Mormons, or Something

As of last Sunday, I have posted every week for fifty-two weeks in a row. Posting every week didn?t start out as a thing, but it became one somewhere along the way and, proportionate to its actual importance in the world, I?m pretty dang pumped about completing a year. In particular, now that it?s done I can have Saturday evenings (and lately, Sunday afternoons) back: as of today I?m shifting to a once-per-month or once-per-two-month schedule.

Continue Reading

Mormon Studies Weekly Roundup

This week brings us a diverse assortment of news and research for your perusal.

Study explores impact of early returned LDS missionaries

A recent study conducted by UVU professor of psychology and behavior science Kris Doty examined the effects of returning home early from a mission due to circumstances such as failing physical health, mental health issues, or indiscretion can have on individuals. The study involved survey responses from 348 early returned missionaries. Unfortunately, there is no link to the study anywhere on the Web.

Utah Division of State History, Utah Department of Heritage and Arts, Senior State Historian

A new job listing went up this week at the Utah Division of State History for a Senior State Historian-Digital Editor. “This person will co-manage the Utah Historical Quarterly operations with a Senior State Historian-Print Editor.  Together the co-managing editors will run the day-to-day operations of the Quarterly.” Check it out yo!

Continue Reading

Mormon Studies at AAR-SBL

Next weekend, tens of thousands of scholars of religion will come together in Baltimore, Maryland, for the joint annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature. You could review the full program book for each group, but we thought we’d save you some time and trouble by providing a round-up of sessions and papers of interest to the Mormon Studies community. I have highlighted the JI affiliation of specific panelists. We hope to see many of you there!

For more information on any of the panels and papers listed below, including abstracts and the location of the presentations, please visit the official conference program books.

Continue Reading

Guest Post: James Egan, ?Sermonizing with Heathens?

JI would like to welcome James Egan. He is a third-year law student at Brigham Young University who studied literature and political philosophy at the University of Utah.  He reads JI  regularly and loves jazz music. 

I must confess at the outset of this post that I am most definitely an amateur when it comes to Mormon history. (If I had the guts, I?d confess that I am in fact a law student.) So with the all-too-convenient excuse for ignorance that my amateur status afforded me (I trust I haven?t lost it yet), I thoroughly enjoyed participating in the annual Maxwell Institute Seminar, which gave time to dive into the deep well of early Mormon primary documents. I spent a good portion of my time in the Utah sermons of the latter half of the 19^th century, and my paper for the seminar?s symposium[1] grew out of a fascinating remark in one of Brigham Young?s earlier sermons. During one of his many calls for gathering truth from every corner of the world, Young pointed the saints to ?pagans of all countries? and made the remarkable claim that ?in their religious rights [sic] and ceremonies may be found a great many truths which we will also gather home to Zion.?[2] I ended up writing about the elements of Mormon intellectual history that made it possible for Brigham Young to entertain the possibility that pagan or heathen[3] ritual would be a part of Mormon gathering, but along the way, I spent a little time considering how other invocations of heathen nations functioned rhetorically in Young?s sermons.[4]

Continue Reading

Return of Ma?ii: Brigham Young and his Indian Farms

This installment in the JI’s Mormons and Natives month comes from Corey Smallcanyon. He is a Dine’ (Navajo) Indian from the Gallup, New Mexico area, who grew up on and off the Navajo reservation. He works as an Adjunct Professor with Utah Valley University teaching United States History. His emphasis is in U.S. History, the American West, Utah history, LDS history, Native American and Navajo history. In his spare time he volunteers teaching Navajo genealogy to surrounding areas and spending time with his family.

Among the Dine’ (Navajos) Ma’ii (coyote) stands center stage as a trouble maker, wise counselor, cultural hero, and powerful deity. Ma’ii stories help establish a foundation for the ethical teachings for all children. Early traditional memory tells of Ma’ii who tried to steal the farm of Grandfather Na’asho’ii Dich’izhii (Horned Toad). Ma’ii came “wandering” upon Na’asho’ii Dich’izhii tending his farm and asked for some of his corn to eat. After much begging, Na’asho’ii Dich’izhii gave into Ma’ii’s demands, but Ma’ii was not satisfied and began taking more without permission. As Na’asho’ii Dich’izhii tried to take the corn away Ma’ii ate Na’asho’ii Dich’izhii. Upset with his predicament, Na’asho’ii Dich’izhii was eventually able to make his way out of Ma’ii, and triumphed by taking back his farm.[1]

As Jim Dandy, a Mormon Navajo traditionalist, states that Ma’ii is one of the most misunderstood animals, “He is neither good nor bad, just innocent and trying to understand how everything works,” although he admits his innocence creates problems for people.[2] The enigma known as Brigham Young falls into this dilemma of how to view his Indian policies and treatment of a group who considered themselves as “the People.”[3] As leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Governor of Utah Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs; this allowed Young to deal with Natives in three different capacities; which included the creation of a multifaceted program known as Indian farms.

Young oversaw near 100 colonies within the first ten years of reaching the Great Basin. His initial Indian policy was of peace and kindness; but that was overshadowed by his expansion onto choice Native lands, over exertion of limited natural resources, and exploitation of traditional sources of foods Natives relied on.[4] The solution to Young’s Indian Problems mirrored all other Americas with the removal of Natives onto reservations. The culminating issues resulted in armed conflict which was quite costly and fostered in officially his policy that it was cheaper to feed Indians than to fight them.

By 1850, the Trickster wrote Washington D.C. requesting the extinguishment of Indian title to the land, and the removal of Natives to locations outside of present-day Utah. He argued that “the progress of civilization, the safety of the mails and the welfare of the Indians themselves called for the adoption of this policy.”[5] Although his request was denied, mini-reservations were created around 1852 and called Indian farms. Many view these farms as a “policy of cultural integration”[6] to show Natives “a way wherein they could help themselves overcome their destitute condition and become self-sustaining,”[7] but also to monitor their semi-nomadic movement. Young’s Indian farms would be short lived ending around 1859 because they proved to be inadequate or failed completely.[8]

No longer does Ma’ii “wander” around trying to control the Dine’ or take their land. Now he offers a way for “the People” to live in two worlds. In June 2008, the Tuba City Arizona Stake called Larry Justice as its new leader.[9] As other denominations are hurting for converts, Justice helped introduce a modern-day Indian farm program in Tuba City, an area the Church has had a long turbulent history with the local Navajo and Hopi Indians. On October 30, 2013, the New York Times published an article about this gardening program, “Some Find Path to Navajo Roots Through Mormon Church,” written by Fernanda Santos. In 2009, the pilot program was launched and since then the Church has seen a 25 percent increase in membership. The program originally started with 25-30 Church members and has increased to 1,800 gardens with plans of adding 500 more in 2014 with at least 50 percent of the participants being non-Mormons. As a result the Church has plans to expand the gardening program into other parts of the world with hopes of converting indigenous peoples by teaching them “principles of self-reliance and Provident Living, through gardening.”[10] As Santos focuses on the gardening program, Justice stated that the Tuba City Stake has a “two-pronged approach–gardening and family history work,” which is discussed in Samantha DeLaCerda’s article in Church News, “Garden Project in Arizona” written in March 2012.

As for the new Tuba City converts, Santos notes: Nora Kaibetoney (Dine’) states that even though Mormonism compels them to leave behind part of their Dine’ identity, the Church helps enforce Dine’ values of “charity, camaraderie and respect for the land.” Linda Smith (Dine’) stated that joining the Church “wasn’t about turning away and embracing an entirely different tradition; it was about reconnecting.” Sam Charlie (Dine’) also stated that he “went on the LDS Placement Program for four years and never learned how to grow a garden. It has been a wonderful thing to recapture this lost element of our culture.”[11] Justice told reporters that through the garden program, “Navajos connect with their heritage through the land.”[12] I wish there was more of an allowance here to navigate the use of the sacredness of land as a missionary tool among “Native” peoples.

These stories of Ma’ii are not just meaningless folklore. They have great worth to the Dine’ because they express, enhance and enforce the morals and customs of Dine’ society. A “wandering” Ma’ii is a representation of socially unacceptable behavior, but the eventual victory and good fortune of those whom “wandering” Ma’ii tries to trick, cheat or destroy just reaffirms the eventual triumph of justice and morality. As the 21st century Dine’ people try to understand Ma’ii, we become transitional and walk between two worlds. As many celebrate Native American Heritage Month, a unifying theme is a reminder to the world that we are still here. This message applies to Ma’ii and his Indian farms, past or present. As Natives learn to adapt to the 21st century, Ma’ii still is as ambiguous today as he always has been.

______

[1] Robert Roessel, Jr. and Dillon Platero, eds., Coyote Stories of the Navajo People (Rough Rock, AZ: Navajo Curriculum Center Press, 1974), 85-90; Margaret Schevill Link and Joseph L. Henderson, The Pollen Path: A Collection of Navajo Myths (Literacy Licensing, LLC, 2011), 48-49; also see, Shonto Begay, Ma’ii and Cousin Horned Toad: A Traditional Navajo Story (Scholastic Trade, 1992).

[2] Robert S. McPherson, Jim Dandy, and Sarah E. Burak, Navajo Tradition, Mormon Life: The Autobiography and Teachings of Jim Dandy (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2012), 183.

[3] The Shoshone call themselves Newe, meaning “People;” Goshute is a Shoshone word for “Desert People;” the Navajo call themselves Dine’ meaning “the People;” the Northern Paiute call themselves Numa and Southern Paiute call themselves Nuwuvi, both meaning “the People;” and the Ute call themselves Nuciu meaning “the People.”

[4] Young often championed for the needs of local Natives with sentiments like, “Before the whites came, there was plenty of fish and antelope, plenty of game of almost every description; but now the whites have killed off these things, and there is scarcely anything left for the poor natives to live upon,” but his actions usually ended up benefiting his members, which was his main concern. See Brigham Young, “Wilford Woodruff sermon on 15 July 1855,” Journal of Discourses, 9:227.

[5] Deseret News (Salt Lake City), 16 November 1850. Young again asked for the creation of Indian reservations in 1852, 1854, and 1861. President Abraham Lincoln signed an Executive Order establishing the Uintah Valley Reservation in 1861, which was finally signed by Congress on May 5, 1864. Eventually, other reservations would be established for the removal of all Natives in Utah. In 1863, the Shoshones and Goshutes signed treaties for removal, and after years of conflict between the Indians, Mormons, Utah and Federal governments, reservations were established for the Goshutes at Skull Valley in 1912 and Deep Creek in 1914. The Shoshone never received a reservation until the donation of land by the LDS church in 1960. In 1865 the Paiutes also agreed to hand over tribal lands and over years of conflict were given several reservations which included the Shivwits (1891), Indian Peaks (1915), Koosharem (1928), Kanosh (1929), and Cedar Band (1980). The White Mesa Utes signed over tribal lands in 1868 and never received a reservation in Utah and are unrecognized by the federal government. The tribe did purchase lands at White Mesa and some tribal members reside there. The Navajos also signed over tribal lands through the 1868 treaty and were given reservation lands in southern Utah in 1884. See Forrest S. Cuch, ed., A History of Utah’s American Indians (Salt Lake City: Utah State Division of Indian Affairs and Utah State Division of history, 2003), 67-72, 104, 113-19, 139, 141-65, 189-94, 243, 261, 288-90.

[6] Richard H. Jackson, “The Mormon Indian Farms: An Attempt at Cultural Integration” in Geographical Perspectives on Native Americans: Topics and Resources, Vol. 1, (Washington D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1976).

[7] Frederick R. Gowans. A History of Brigham Young’s Indian Superintendency (1851-1857) “Problems and Accomplishments (July 1963), 39.

[8] Trying to find a solution to his Indian problems, Young attempted to settle Natives on farms established under the watchful eye of Mormon superintendents in 1852. This at least attempted to assist Natives in finding another source of food, but these farms would be short lived, by 1859, conflicts with non-Mormons hindered Mormon interactions with Natives. Federal Indian agents argued that Mormons were trying to influence Natives against the United States and recommend that Natives in Utah Territory then be placed on reservations within Utah Territory, where they could have legal jurisdiction over the Natives (see, David Bigler, “Garland Hurt: The American Friend of the Utahs,” Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Spring 1994), 149-70). After the Civil War, the conflict in Utah between the Natives, Mormons and non-Mormons brought about the creation of Utah’s first Indian reservation. It was soon found that Young’s Indian farms either proved to be inadequate or failed completely. The idea of Indian farms did pique the interest of the Indian agents and implemented Indian farms among a number of tribes. In part this eventually evolved into the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 (a.k.a. General Allotment Act), which divided Native lands into allotments for individuals with the hopes that Natives would farm their lands and become productive members of white society, with surplus Native lands ending up in the hands of non-Natives (see, Beverly Beeton, “Teach Them to Till the Soil: An Experiment with Indian Farms, 1850-1862,” American Indian Quarterly Vol. 3, No. 4 (Winter, 1977-78), 299-320).

[9] “New Stake Presidents,” Church News (1 November 2008).

[10] Aside from the embedded link, see See Allie Schulte, “Seeds of Self-Reliance,” Ensign (March 2011), 61-65.

[11] Allen Christensen, “Bountiful Garden,” Church News (October 2, 2010)

[12] Tad Walch, “Why are more Navajos joining LDS Church”, Deseret News (October 31, 2013)

Ed. This post has been updated.

Mormons and Natives: A JI Blogliography

Since the JI’s founding in 2007, our permas and guests have spent a lot of time thinking about Mormonism’s encounters with indigenous peoples. Here’s a “blogliography” (ht: Blair) of our past posts on the subject, through October 2013:

Continue Reading

True Blue, Depending on Who’s Telling the Tale: The Redacted Story of Joseph F. Smith and the ?Ruffians?

It?s a powerful story.  The young Joseph F. Smith, fresh off his mission to the Sandwich Islands, is traveling through Southern California on his way home to Utah in late 1857/early 1858.  The Mormons are viewed with mistrust and hostility:  rumors surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre are fresh on everyone?s lips as Johnston?s Army converges on Utah.  Joseph F.?s party is confronted by a band of rough and tumble men on horseback, looking to pick a fight with any Mormons they can find.  Joseph F.?s fellow travelers scatter, and when one burly ruffian pointedly asks Joseph F. if he is a Mormon, the young returned missionary responds, ?Yes, siree, dyed-in-the-wool; true blue, through and through,? diffusing the tense confrontation by staying true to his identity.

But was he really ?dyed-in-the-wool, true blue, through and through??

Continue Reading