On July 24, 1847, a wagon rolled out of a canyon and gave Brigham Young, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his first glimpse of the Great Salt Lake Valley. That swath of wilderness would become the new Zion for the Mormons, a church roughly 35,000 strong at the time. "If the people of the United States will let us alone for ten years," Young would recall saying that day, "we will ask no odds of them." Ten years to the day later, when the church's membership had grown to about 55,000, Young delivered alarming news: President James Buchanan had ordered federal troops to march on the Utah Territory.
By then, Brigham Young had been governor of the territory for seven years, and he had run it as a theocracy, giving church doctrines precedence in civil affairs. The federal troops were escorting a non-Mormon Indian agent named Alfred E. Cumming to replace Young as governor and enforce federal law. In their long search for a place to settle, Mormons had endured disastrous confrontations with secular authorities. But this was the first time they faced the prospect of fighting the U.S. Army.
On June 26, 1858, one hundred fifty years ago this month, a U.S. Army expeditionary force marched through Salt Lake City—at the denouement of the so-called Utah War. But there was no war, at least not in the sense of armies pitched in battle; negotiators settled it before U.S. troops and Utah militiamen faced off. On June 19, the New York Herald summarized the non-engagement: "Killed, none; wounded, none; fooled, everybody."
In retrospect, such glibness seems out of place. The Utah War culminated a decade of rising hostility between Mormons and the federal government over issues ranging from governance and land ownership to plural marriage and Indian affairs, during which both Mormons and non-Mormons endured violence and privation. The tension was reflected in the fledgling Republican Party's 1856 presidential platform, which included a pledge to eradicate the "twin relics of barbarism—polygamy and slavery." To look back at this episode now is to see the nation at the brink of civil war in 1857 and 1858—only to pull back.
"The Utah War was catastrophic for those who suffered or died during it, and it was catalytic in advancing Utah along the slow but eventual path to statehood," says Richard E. Turley Jr., assistant church historian and recorder of the LDS Church.
Allan Kent Powell, managing editor of the Utah Historical Quarterly, notes that Abraham Lincoln warned, in 1858, that "a house divided against itself cannot stand," referring to the United States and slavery. "The same comment could have been applied to Utah," says Powell. "Just as the nation had to deal with the issue of slavery to ensure its continuation, so did the Territory of Utah have to come to an understanding and acceptance of its relationship with the rest of the nation."
The nation was unable to put off its reckoning over slavery. But the resolution of the Utah War bought the LDS Church time, during which it evolved as a faith—renouncing polygamy in 1890, for example, to smooth the way to Utah statehood—to become the largest home-grown religion in American history, now numbering nearly 13 million members, including such prominent Americans as Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada and hotelier J. W. Marriott Jr. At the same time, anti-Mormon bias persists. Last December, in an effort to make voters more comfortable with his Mormon faith, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, then a Republican presidential contender, declared like the Catholic John F. Kennedy before him: "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion." In a Gallup Poll taken after Romney's speech, 17 percent of respondents said they would never vote for a Mormon. Roughly the same percentage answered similarly when Romney's father, Michigan Governor George Romney, ran for president in 1968.
Even now, issues rooted in the era of the Utah War linger. Last September, when the LDS Church formally expressed regret for the massacre of some 120 unarmed members of a wagon train passing through Utah on September 11, 1857, the Salt Lake Tribune published a letter comparing the events to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A raid this past April by state authorities on a fundamentalist Mormon compound in Texas returned the subject of polygamy to the headlines (though the sect involved broke from the LDS Church more than 70 years ago).
Additional Sources
Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows by William Bagley, University of Oklahoma Press (Norman, Oklahoma), 2002
Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896 by David L. Bigler, The Arthur H. Clark Company (Norman, Oklahoma), 1998
The Mormon Conflict, 1850-1859 by Norman F. Furniss, Greenwood Press (Westport, Connecticut), 1960
At Sword’s Point, Part 1: A Documentary History of the Utah War to 1858, edited by William P. MacKinnon, The Arthur H. Clark Company (Norman, Oklahoma), 2008

The article gives the impression that the Mormons were anxious to leave the United States and that their desires were frustrated when the United States won the war with Mexico. The article fails to mention that the Mormons played a relatively non-combative, yet substantial, military role in the war when it provided about 500 volunteers for military service, the so-called Mormon Batallion, which marched all the way to Tucson and on to San Diego where it established and maintained US control over that territory. While the Mormons certainly had hard feelings toward some in power in the US government as a result of their actions, the underlying principles upon which the nation was founded and even the doctrine of manifest destiny were looked upon by the Mormons as completely consistant with their religion.
Posted by Bill Johnson on May 30,2008 | 08:04AM
Why are we still quoting "historian" Fawn Brodie's outdated work. Especially, when in light of more recent work, it has become increasingly apparent that she had her own axe to grind against the LDS Church and in particular Joseph Smith. Indeed, many Latter Day Saints consider her work to be in the anti-Mormon realm. There are far more unbiased voices in contemporary historical research from which you could (and probably should) quote.
Posted by David Glick on May 30,2008 | 08:57AM
Interesting that the article glazes over the atrocities committed by leaders and mobcrats against the Mormons in their early history. Or how the President of the US told the leader of the LDS church he was powerless to help because he could not risk losing the Missouri vote. All in all really not that great of an article
Posted by Scott on May 30,2008 | 12:55PM
Interesting article.
Posted by Eric Morton on June 2,2008 | 12:10AM
Have often wondered why Brigham Young and subordinate members of his Theodemocracy were not indicted for treason.
Posted by S. Davis on June 4,2008 | 09:40AM
What is not true about Brodie's comments below. Do others have agenda to suppress all views of this issue? "Few episodes in American religious history parallel the barbarism of the anti-Mormon persecutions," historian Fawn Brodie wrote in her 1945 biography of Smith. At the same time, she added, the early Mormons' relationships with outsiders were characterized by "self-righteousness" and an "unwillingness to mingle with the world." To non-Mormons in Illinois, Brodie wrote, "the Nauvoo theocracy was a malignant tyranny that was spreading as swiftly and dangerously as a Mississippi flood." Amid continuing harassment in Illinois, the Mormons prepared to leave.
Posted by Wren Starkey on June 9,2008 | 08:19AM
My father grew up in Soldier Summit, Utah, now a ghost town I hear. His mother owned a chicken ranch serving the D&RG Railroad and his stepfather, a railroad engineer, worked for it out of Helper. They told me that a detachment of US soldiers had wintered there during a mexican standoff with the Utah Militia. Cooler heads prevailed and there was no fight but a number of U.S. troops died and are buried in a cemetary there - thus the name 'Soldier Summit'.
Posted by H. Stickley on June 10,2008 | 06:05AM
Bill: Both Smith and Young were anxious to leave the US, making plans to either create a buffer Mormon state between then-independent Texas and Mexico, or emmigrating to the then-Mexican unoccupied land in the Rockies. The Mormon Battallion was a financial necessity, and was undertaken begrudgingly by both the US Army and the Mormon "volunteers", who had to be commanded to go by Church hierarchy. Brigham (and to a lesser extent Joseph as well) displayed a pungent anti-American sentiment, and was pro-American only as a political expediency. He went so far as expressing the hope that the Civil War would utterly destroy both sides of the conflict!
Posted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira on June 10,2008 | 08:59AM
David: Brodie innaugurated an era of scholarship on Mormon studies in a way to be a watershed. Every single scholar in Mormon studies has had to respond to her in one way or another, and even if her research and conclusions are now dated, she cannot be dismissed with cavalierly. Such is the nature of scholarship. And even more than half a century away, and in the most precarious scholarly circumstances, it still amazes how much she got right or was on the right track! Scott: Mormons suffered a lot of injustice, to be sure, but nothing compared to what happened to other racial, ethnic, or religious minorities at the time. In the historical context, Mormons were treated relatively well, and a lot of the troubles heaped upon them in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois was provoked by themselves! There was also a State Rights issue that prohibited the Federal Government of much more than Van Buren could have offered. That, of course, changed after the Civil War, much to chagrin of Brigham Young!
Posted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira on June 10,2008 | 09:05AM
Mr. Jun de Oliveira: You state that "[Brigham Young] went so far as expressing the hope that the Civil War would utterly destroy both sides of the conflict!" It's true that Young harbored a distrust of the US Government. Who could blame him? His people had to desert their homes and property and flee the country with only what they could carry with them to avoid extermination, to avoid enforcement of Illinois Governer Lilburn Boggs' infamous extermination order. In spite of high-minded rhetoric about the national government's guarantee of the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, no protection or assistance of any substance was forthcoming, even after appeal to the President himself. Yet, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the LDS people have always regarded the Constitution as an God-inspired document. I've read many speeches by Young, and all of his public speeches are on record and easily researched. Your statement as quoted above seems uncharacteristic of him. I'd like to know the source of your information.
Posted by Larry W. Bastian on June 11,2008 | 01:43PM
The history of Mormons can only be best found by the Mormons. I study my Greek and Italian history by the same route. I respect that of any people. As a language student you learn the key to a culture is it's language. In the case of pioneers and colonists of any type it is best to study the journals of their own experiences for me its a beautiful thing to read someone's own story. I know that you can not put a good man/woman down. All different peoples have made mistakes. But some are justified at having made their mistakes while others are unjustified. I agree with the truth that the Mormon's were being harassed more than any other people at that time. I believe the kind of trials they went through were not unlike the founding fathers/colonists who sought freedom from the afrontery that was in Europe for certain.
Posted by Thomas D. Furlano on June 15,2008 | 06:53PM
I have always found it odd that a nation which was built upon the principles of religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the right to vote, could spawn citizens who could even attempt to justify burning printing presses that never printed a word of libel (as opposed to the singular event one-sidedly mentioned in the article), and driving out a distinct majority group of pacifists under pain of death solely on the basis of their beliefs and the unity of voting that those beliefs inspired. Say what you will about their habits, but I find it hard to believe that a group large enough and cohesive enough that the existing settlers "felt threatened by the Mormons' practices of settling in concentrated numbers and voting as a bloc" could have been driven out without severe losses were the Mormons truly as "self-righteous" and dangerous as so many here seem to believe. Ignored is the fact that the Mormons Forged the trail to the west and settled there first, after even draining the Nauvoo swamp to build their previous evacuated home. But accepting that Joseph never intended to evade the United States would entail admitting evidence which might support his claim to prophecy, for no mere man could have predicted such a situation. And this "financial necessity" was really a threat from the U.S. Gov of sending in troops if they couldn't raise them. The Mormons were living Months away from any other civilization. What financial need could they realistically entertain? There is very definitely a glazing-over of facts here, and it surprises me that one who invokes the cause of "scholarship" should be so persistent in his evasion of the other side of the story. The reason for this I am convinced, is that like then, this is not a matter of merely sorting out the events. The Mormons then were a thorn in the conscience of their neighbors, as they are now. My question in response is, "What history do you have with the church that makes you condemn it so?"
Posted by Trevor O'Dell on June 17,2008 | 01:03AM
I find hard to believe that Brigham Young authorized 500 of his militia to fight for the U.S. federal goverment? Basically they probably never fought a battle and were sent home a few months later if they did!
Posted by D on June 21,2008 | 05:26PM
Brigham Young's message of terror as practiced in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and the Territory of Utah: "I have frequently told you, and I tell you again, that the very report of the Church and kingdom of God on earth is a terror to all nations, wheresoever the sound thereof goeth. The sound of "Mormonism" is a terror to towns, counties, states, the pretended republican governments, and to all the world. Why? Because, as the Lord Almighty lives and the Prophets have ever written the truth, this work is destined to revolutionize the world and bring all under subjection to the law of God, who is our lawgiver". Journal of Discourses 4:41 August 31, 1856
Posted by JC on June 24,2008 | 02:31PM
This is to do with a major proof of United States hypocrisy:The prime nature of paradox between The United States Constitution as allowing it self(We...the people)to tolerate being violated and contradicted by the quintessence of Morman law and practice for over a hundred years unchallenged as a high crime of defiance and treason. Senator Prescott Bush would have been so proud of us all.
Posted by Donald Mark on June 25,2008 | 05:58PM
Dear Sir or Madam: I wanted to suggest you correct the inaccurate reference to the polygamist sect in Texas as Mormon. Please see the church website for the correct way to describe the groups that have no affiliation with the Mormon church. When articles refer to those groups as Mormon, like in this article, we continually get questioned by friends as if we are part of that group of creeps in Texas. It's a hugely different religion and I would appreciate it you would make the distinction. Thank you! http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group
Posted by Carolynn on July 10,2008 | 09:29PM