>> oh, really, i just came from there. do you go into the office or just e-mail them? >> i'm working for the american action forum. writing in my spare time. >> i should have made you stand up and talk and explain the new unemployment numbers. >> right. thank you so much. >> nice to meet you, logan. >> hello again. hello, robin. >> did -- [inaudible] apologize to you? >> no, but i wanted to kiss her, because it got me so much press. i love her. >> she didn't even know what she was doing. >> it was funny because the producer had clearly written these questions, and she handed them to each one and was supposed to ask -- but once i got there, and i was lucky that they hadn't read the book so that they could ask all the things that most people think that are not true. so i loved that. >> right. thank you for -- [inaudible] you're welcome. thanks to robin. nice to meet you.

hello. >> to ann, spelled your way -- >> okay. >> sheridan, happy 55th anniversary. >> oh, fantastic! when is it? >> it's today. >> oh! well, then happy anniversary to you too. >> thank you, my dear. you are a hero. >> thank you. >> up next, a panel on the life of brigham young. john turner, assistant professor of religious studies at george mason university in virginia, jeff johnson, former utah state activist and historian craig foster recount the life of the mormon leader who died in 1877. they examine the role that brigham young assumed following the death of mormonism's founder, joseph smith, in 1834 as he led congregants of the church across the rocky mountains and established settlements in utah. this is just over an hour. >> to begin with, may i suggest

that we do a round of applause for those people who have sponsored this? it's so much work, and we should appreciate them. prison -- [applause] today we are fortunate to have with us john turner. he teaches religious studies at george mason university in virginia, and his history that we are discussing today is a very important contribution. i'm impressed. and it's hard to impress me. you taught history for 34 times at the university of utah. his first book, bill bright and

campus crusade for christ's renewal, the renewal of evangelical in postwar america, it was a prize-winning book. he's a graduate of notre dame. they'll be in our minds today with football. [laughter] he is from new york state, upstate as they call it. not really very far from where brigham young worked and not far from pal my rah -- palmyra. well, his insight and balance we'll talk about later on in the program. the other commentators are greg -- craig foster, author of

two books, penny cracks and polemics, a critical analysis of anti-mormon panel me tier in great britain, and "a different god question: mitt romney, the religious right and the mormon question." he also co-authored "mormon quest for the presidency," and also the "the persistence of polygamy: a mormon anthology." he worked for the family history library in salt lake city, and there he did research, genealogical research on some dignitaries. john ashcroft, george w. bush, bill and hillary clinton, walter cronkite, sean hannity, charlton heston, larry king, henry

kissinger, brian stokes, barack obama, kevin rudd, mike wallace, barbara walters and oprah winfrey. and he can be awarded the prize of the damnedest name dropper in utah. [laughter] our other panelist is jeff johnson who is retired from the lds church historical department where he worked for more than 20 years. he is also, was also a member of the staff of the utah state archives and served as director for 14 of those years. he was an archivist at the cherokee national history society. he has published historical articles in -- [inaudible] as well as the encyclopedia of mormon itch.

mormonism. we will begin today with our illustrious author john turner. >> all right. thank you, floyd, and thank you all of you for coming. i thought i would take just a little bit of time and tell you a couple of stories from my biography of brigham young. and i think i'll just say a few things about how i got interested in the project. i didn't know all that much about mormonism or mormon history five years ago, but a few things gave me a desire to explore the mormon past. and as i started to do so, it did not take me long to concentrate my interests on brigham young. and he was a man, i quickly learned, who spoke in tongues, some 30 -- some 70 years before the american pentacostal movement, who presided over the

colonization of a thousand-mile stretch of the american west, whose political actions prompted an american president the send one-fifth of the u.s. army to utah and who married some 55 wives along the way. and, you know, if the story were fiction, it would be utterly preposterous and require a rather intention suspension -- intense suspension of disbelief, and yet it was true. i thought i would share with you two episodes from brigham young's life that i think shed some light on his rather complex personality and approach to leadership. the first is from november of 1847. the banks of the missouri river and what at the time was indian territory. the previous several years had

been traumatic and full of change for the church and for brigham young. joseph smith's murder, first and foremost, a struggle for succession for brigham young, an additional 40 or so marriages, the expulsion of the latter-day saints from navu, the deaths of hundreds of mormon refugees on the trail west. faith-testing poverty and hunger. as of fall 1847, however, there was cause for new optimism. the previous summer young had led a group of nearly 150 pioneers to the salt lake valley, establishing a sanctuary for his church.

that fall young decided to reconstitute what his church called the first presidency, a church president with two counselors. after joseph smith's murder, the people had chosen the 12 apostles to lead the church in smith's absence. young, as the president of the 12, quickly became the de facto president of the church. but after several years he wanted to clarify and streamline ecclesiastical leadership. so after his successful pioneer trek to the great salt lake valley, he asked the other apostles to affirm him as church president. almost all of the other apostles opposed young's proposal which

would augment his authority at the expense of some of their own. one apostle, a man named orson pratt, explained that he thought of the apostles as something akin to the house of representatives. and young, therefore, should be more like the speaker of the house than a president. shit on congress, was young's response to orson pratt. it was not a warmly-received suggestion. [laughter] it has occurred to me that if mitt romney had made that his slogan -- [laughter] for his campaign this year instead of the rather bland believe in america, he would be on his way to a massive landslide. everybody could get onboard with that. [laughter] young, by the way, used to say that he only swore when he was

in the pulpit which wasn't true. he also swore at other times. i like to say that i only swear when i quote brigham young, which pretty much is true. [laughter] back to, back to the story. i am the head, young told the other apostles, you are the belly. his message was simple: get in line or get out of the way. those were the only two options. the apostles got in line. and young became the even more unquestioned leader of his church. my other story is from four years later, the her of 1851 -- the summer of 1851 in salt lake city. and it's a rare example of a church member willing to question young's authority.

president millard fillmore had recently appointed brigham young the first territory of the newly-created utah territory, first governor of the newly-created utah territory. fillmore had chosen young as utah's governor, but he also appointed several nonmormon judges and officials for the territory. in july of 1851, those federal appointees began to reach salt lake city. as did a man named allman babbitt who was a lawyer and church member that the mormons had sent to washington as their delegate to congress. brigham young was, to put it mildly, not very happy with either babbitt or the federal appointees. he did not want nonmormons to

interfere with the church's control of utah's politics. also he had heard all sorts of negative reports about babbitt's activities in washington. babbitt had drunk too much, he had cozied up to politicians hoping to get a territorial appointment for himself, all sorts of things. shortly after babbitt's return to utah, young summoned him to his office at 8:00 in the morning. young rarely started the day so early. he liked to go to bed late and get up late, and i think because of that he may have been in an especially cantankerous mood for the meeting. babbitt began by reporting that president fillmore hoped that you would not mingle your religion with your politics. the president worried that young would be as a prince of this world and a prophet for the

next. babbitt and young then argued over a few things; federal appropriations for the territory. babbitt had bought, had brought 20,000 or so dollars to utah for territorial expenditures. it was a little unclear whether he intended to hand them over to young or not. they bickered about the process of holding elections in the territory. they argued about a recently-conducted census. babbitt, rather unwisely, took issue with young's conduct of such matters. and by the end of the meeting, brigham young unloaded his fury on babbitt. this is what he said. if you sewer fear with any of -- interfere with any of my dictation in the elections, it will be the last time.

now i don't want to hear you say this is not right, that is not right. you are nothing but a stinking politician. i know more about sound questions and doctrine and law than you. i am not willing to suffer this people to be interrupted. you are rotten now with gentilism. and the lord only knows what. i despise it as i despise the gates of hell. you ought to say that mormonism is my controller. my governorship and everything else is to bow down to mormon itch. mormonism. it wouldn't have been all that remarkable for brigham young to have browbeaten a member who was not acting in the church's best interests, but young had a larger purpose in mind. he delivered this harangue in

the presence of the territory's new chief justice, associate justice and secretary, all nonmormons. at one point territorial secretary boroden harris, very uncomfortable with the terrorist of the conversation, told young that he had no interest in he is dispute with babbitt. i want you to hear it, young stopped harris from leaving the room. a clerk recorded that it was a new scene for mr. harris to behold the power of the priesthood. two months later all of those nonmormon officials fled utah convinced that their lives were in danger. mormonism was a little too warm for their relish. young wrote another church leader. now, what are we to make of this tendency to berate and bully his opponents or even fellow church members?

i didn't have time to tell you about young's earlier years in the church. prior to 844 he was a very -- 833 he was a very winsome leader. most obviously he was a fervent disciple of joseph smith, but he got along very well with the other apostles in the quorum of the 12. following joseph's murder, young concluded that joseph had permitted too much dissent and factionalism within the church and that such things threatened the church's very existence. and so young concluded that he should keep a much tighter rein on church members. he did so in part because he very much on a very human level feared becoming another mormon martyr. brigham young emerged from the

crucible of navu a changed man; more fearful, harder-edged, even a bit soorser. coarser. and a different sort of leader; more sensitive to criticism, intolerance of dissent and much more demanding of his followers. and i think young's response to the traumas of the mid 1840s, joseph's murder, living in fear of arrest or assassination, the expulsion from navu, all of that trauma explains a great deal of his later words and actions. i will, i'll stop there. i look forward to craig and jeff's comments, and i would love to answer questions from you on anything pertaining to brigham young. >> that will be after comments by, first, craig and then jeff. please.

>> well, i think that pretty much everyone would agree that brigham young was an incredibly dynamic individual. i personally having studied american history would say that he was probably one of the most dynamic and certainly controversial figures in the 19th century and perhaps throughout american history, and he and his leadership had a great impact on the settling of the west and particularly the rocky mountain area. i know that in my own studies and when i have talked with various friends and family about brigham young, we've talked about the fact that as john alluded to in his book that you didn't have any middle-of-the-road feelings about brigham young. you either really liked him, or

you really did not like brigham young. his personality was so powerful that it usually was one area or another of either really liking him or disliking him. and i, i know that i've talked with friends and family about i wonder if i would have liked brigham young, and i'm still, i'm feel wondering if i would have liked brigham young. there were, there are a lot of things that i think are extremely admirable, and then there are other things that are not so admirable. and john has done a great job, i think, in his book on brigham young at looking at brigham young in the different aspects of his character and his relationships. and that's one thing that i particularly liked about john's book, i guess because of my own interest in family history,

genealogy and all of that, is that john went to great lengths to describe brigham young's dynamics of the young family and his interaction with his parents and siblings, and then over the years with his various wives and children. and so i really enjoyed that about john's book. there, i think that some of the points that he made are, were excellent regarding brigham young's changed character. i would agree with john that i think that the experiences in navu and particularly the martyrdom of joseph smith and the ensuing problems after that, i think, did -- were extremely

traumatic for brigham young as well as other members of the lds church in that community. and brigham young carried that baggage with him pretty much the rest of his life. and i think did kind of alter his personality or at least the way he interacted with people. and there was a definite dislike and distrust for the government. and as john said, who knows? maybe that would have helped mitt romney with his campaign to have that slogan. [laughter] but in doing research for the, for the books, you know, different god with neil, the mormon quest for the presidency, one theme that we have noticed

among latter-day saint candidates is just a little bit of an edge there, a little bit of a dislike and distrust for big government. and i know that noel and i have talked about this, and we've wondered if it might hearken back to the relationship that the members had with the church for so long a period not only back east, but after they came out here to utah to, shall i say, suffer? i guess so. suffer from territorial, you know, from control of the federal government as a territory for those decades. and we've wondered, they had brought that up in our book that perhaps that reflected, um, onto some of the candidates that they've had, latter day saints

candidates during the 20th century and into the 21st. but back to brigham young. brigham young really was an extremely, um, controversial and hard-driven man. he saw in his vision the kingdom of god literally being established here and, boy, he was bound to do whatever he had to to get that done. and again, i think john has done a good job of describing that in his book. there, as i mentioned to john before this panel began that if, with a work this large and with an individual this big, you're going to have strong points and not so strong points in a biography about him. i feel that there are a couple of areas that were a little

uneven. there were some areas where he, john did a great job of demonstrating brigham young's characteristics, demonstrating what he was like to be around as an individual. there are some -- and then putting within context some of the events that took place. and i really appreciated that in terms of placing in context some of the events. there were a couple of weak areas. one area that i've already mentioned to john, and i'll mention here -- although john made a very good point that, um, our book, "the persistence of polygamy," kind of came out to the public near the end of his research. but a couple of questions that john had regarding fannie alcher and joseph smith, polly andry,

the marrying of married women, plurally, and also dealing with marriage age, common marriage age could have, he could have helped, it could have helped him if he had read "persistence of polygamy" with the essays that discuss those topics. but, obviously, i noticed that because of the fact that i was one of the co-editors and an author in that that. culture of violence, he did a good job, but i think he could have gone further in placing, um, the culture of violence that obviously existed here in utah within a greater context, particularly the culture of honor. and, um, i have the page numbers marked, but i'm not going to bore you all with that right now. but overall, i think that it's a very good book and earnly has a -- certainly has a lot to offer. >> i'd like to say that too.

i particularly enjoyed this book. my background is very much like craig's, studying the young family. i spent 30 years with brigham young's wives and feel like i know them pretty well. and i was very excited that john included them in this book. of course, he couldn't include all of them, but i thought that including the women is really important to do that. the history of writing about brigham young goes the first 19th century people wrote about brigham young, they were focusing on his personal life, his sexual life, the harem, and they didn't know much about that. but they wrote books about it.

later on as people started writing biographyies they often left the family out, the wives. there are even biographies that don't mention them at all. and later people wrote and had a chapter for the wives, but what john has done is to include them in brigham young's life the way they actually were. i'm particularly glad about the relationship that he shows between mary ann angel and brigham young. i feel like mary ann angel was really a key to brigham young's success. he was able to focus on church and political matters early. he was able to focus on that because she was able to take care of his family, his two

daughters by his first marriage, and her children. and she was able to make decisions, she was able to be a competent. he apparently really trusted her opinion. i know that this comes from her background too. her mother and her mother and her father's relationship made it so that mary ann saw her mother having to take charge and having a strong place in the family. in fact, her father was so mean and cruel that they had to remove her mother from his care. so mary ann was very, a very important partner for brigham young, and john points that out. i also enjoy his discussion of

the beginning of polygamy and brigham young's relationship with lucy augusta, harriet and clara, the first plural wives that he married while joseph smith was still alive. when you get to utah, it's very difficult because these, this family was very complex, and there are, of course, material about brigham young's relationship with eliza webb and other some of the wives that -- but, of course, i would like to some day have us know more about his relationship with the other wives. ..

>> it's been really nice to have the women not in one chapter, not in separated from brigham young's life. because there are much a part of brigham young's life. and that was important. john has done a good job without. there's one thing i'd like to be able to do. i wish i could convince historians to stop putting a

middle name for mary ann, brigham young's first wife. i don't blame professor turner for this. i think the family did that. is really stupid because brigham young's first wife had a sister named angel line. she went to not move. she married a prominent member of the church and became very prominent in the real organization. and i don't think her parents would have named $2 with the same name. but that's not a big deal. i just wanted, i have a public year, i wanted to tell you. don't never put that middle name. it's never in any of the original records. just later, the family for some reason not understanding the family history that they did that name.

so, this is important that we include the family that we include the women as part of what was going on. they were a very important part of this. and brigham young's -- i've been able to study his attitude towards raising children, changing over the years. the more children that he had, the older he got, the more less strict who was with the children. and this affected the way he preached, too. when he is a young man, he thought the children should be disciplined, really strictly when he was an old man, he could see that they needed a chance to play and to be their own people. and i think that's another story

that needs to be told. i won't comment on the other things in the book. i feel like the context that professor turner has done has been really fine. thank you. >> it is time for questions. and i will assume an advantage because i am the speaker, and i will ask the first question. when i was a graduate student i had a thesis outlined rejected by the department. it was entitled utah, puritanism and prickly pears. in that in that list of chapters there's one called the perils of the isolation. when it was rejected, professor miller said was apparel, or was

it advantage? which was a good question. have you thought about effect of isolation? i know you talk about the things around it. what do you have to say about that? >> there was a lot of isolation, especially the first 10 years in what became utah. and i think i say this both as advantage and also create potential blind spots for brigham young and the church but it was a great advantage in that the latter day saints really were pretty much left alone for those 10 years, which was a great advantage. and developing common purpose and cohesion apart from outside interference. and for the early work of

building of the kingdom and establishing settlements, and i think brigham young even talked about, they say needed 10 years in which the rest of the country would leave them alone. if they have those 10 years it would be okay. i think one disadvantage for young was he didn't have a great grasp on political development in the united states outside of the utility -- so the successor i told in which he intimidates his first batch of officials that come to utah and then they flee, they go back to washington added to all sorts of stories about, you know, only to me, murder and monarchy in utah. and president fillmore doesn't do anything about it here key decides to leave young in office. and president pierce, when he takes office, he gets all sorts

of reports of young's antagonism toward the united states but at one point he thinks that replacing him with another governor but he decides not to. i think because of that isolation, young doesn't have a good sense that there could be political and military repercussions from some of his political behaviors. and so when president began sends the utah expedition to replace him as governor, the larger army, i think he is a much caught off guard. he's not expecting that. and so i think, i think it was a disadvantage in the sense that perhaps encouraged him towards incendiary political behavior. >> thank you. it is now time for questions. the microphones are unavailable. who will go first?

>> hi. i've already read your book and found it very interesting. i remember leonard's book. he said he was going to study the life of brigham young, works and all. you not only found warts but you found cancer too, i think it is the question i have is, regarding the first vision of joseph smith. brigham young when he was converted never ever heard that story, and nobody else did either. it was basically a creation of the 1830s your what year did he finally hit that story? i don't think you mentioned that in your book. and how did he react to that story when he first heard? >> well, that's a great question, and i don't know if my co-panelists know. i don't recall at one point he

heard that story. i don't even recall off the top of my head whether or not he discussed it later on. you know, for him his conversion to mormonism, as you rightly suggest, didn't hinge on an report of that vision. you know, for he and he regarded the book of mormon and the fact that traveling mormon elders spoke in tongues and prophesies and healed people. he regarded those as conclusive proof of god's presence and power within his new church. i don't know if craig or jeff know anything about brigham young's subsequent -- [inaudible] >> by the time they published it, it'd already been going around among certain circles within the church.

so my guess is that he would've heard in the mid '30s. i don't have, you know, any absolute knowledge. my supposition is pretty much the same as john's, that brigham young would have been converted by the fact that they had talked about visitations of angels, heavenly visions and visitations. they had speaking in tongues and were performing miraculous healings, et cetera. so he would have accepted the story as obviously just another part of that. and i think he would have viewed it as something very personal for joseph smith, and perhaps that's why joseph had not originally talked about it in wider circles. you know, he had talked about the angelic visitations but not the other.

that's my supposition. what would you say, jeff? >> well, we do know that brigham young did not convert immediately, that it took them time to become converted. and we can understand from that that it wasn't, as some, you know, immediately, it took him to think about it. he had heard two years before he was actually converted about mormonism. he lived in that area where they were talking about joseph smith. so he studied and he was converted. i think it took him about two years to become a mormon. >> one of the times that joseph

tells about the early experiences. i don't think i don't know what he was in the room or not but i'm sure he had at least heard about at that point. >> thank you for the question. others? up here. >> in the book of history tries to be objective, and on the utah history we often get one of two books -- points of view that may respond with local belief or anti-local belief. how would you anticipate criticism of your book will come out? or did you obtain that fine razors edge of objectivity? >> i have the vantage of being the only person in the world is fully objective. [laughter] so yeah, that wasn't a problem. i mean, i think there were some advantages in not coming from any sort of lds background.

you know, i really was a complete outsider. i don't know, you know, i've seen, for instance, "the new york times" reviewed my book, after which they suggest that i'm too fair, in particular the reviewer commented that turner is squishy in the extreme on the subject of polygamy. and i have to call my wife immediately and tell her i'm not at all squishy on the issue of polygamy. [laughter] so i tried my best to sift through the evidence, include what i thought was most important and eliminating about brigham young. i tried very hard to bring him -- resent him as a 19th century figure. i think it's great for historians to identify, i think that every pocket in mid-19th

century, individuals and simply condemn them as if all human beings are not a product of their time. so for instance, i find brigham young's views on rape rather puchner. but in many ways they are not at all unusual for mid-19th century white man. so i tried my best to put him in his cultural context. and less of his culture and of his experiences shaped my portrayal of him in the book. fun question. >> i think the review that is published in the tribune by gary was very good, and the comments on that. it's a very nice review. >> may need to bring a mic down here. >> i have a question about

mr. foster's comment on the disdain for big government in the context of mormon history. it seems to me like, brigham young at it from not so much with big government per se but with quote unquote secular government, and that for a religion that is now like called the american religion, the extent to which young didn't consider himself quote unquote american. like a string of, you know, there's an undercurrent so i just wanted to comment on the secular of the american. >> that's a nice comment. i mean, i think brigham young's, the u.s. has cut thread really between the church and the country through expulsion. and the government feared to protect the rights of the latter day saints. medal in element were previously in missouri. so he leaves with a great deal

of bitterness but the threat is not fully cut. there's a way in which young remains very much american, but insists that utah should have the right to operate with tremendous autonomy. and there were plenty of other westerners who consider territorial rule to be fundamentally anti-republican. people should always have the right to govern themselves, and that meant but out. in terms of big government, he certainly didn't want outside interference from washington. you know, he wasn't, you know, he wasn't a completely small government thinker in terms of within the territory of utah in terms of promoting internal improvements. it's perhaps, you know, a little bit of a difference. >> you know, i probably should've worded that better.

let me rephrase that. he didn't mind big government. it was his big government. it was more of he didn't want washington controlling, that there was that, that individualism, but individualism as a community. and so he wanted the control to be through him. and then down through ecclesiastical control, so i think you're right. it was more antipathy towards secular government from washington to really big government. >> doctor maxwell, you will have to speak loudly. not a mic down here. all, they are bringing it.

waited just a moment. [inaudible] >> my question has to do with the publicity that was given to brigham young stef. -- death. in the days and weeks of his death, newspapers across the country were severely negative about his legacy. and i'm interested to know what considerations went through your mind in deciding to leave some of those rather severe criticisms out of your analysis? >> well, really only space. i read them and many of them were quite amusing, but 400 pages is already a fairly long book and didn't want it to be 600 pages. i know i include, i'm pretty sure i included some from the tribune, which, you know, was very much authority the of

brigham young's side and it all starts -- sorts of amusing nicknames for him. and the tribune predicted, as many newspapers have predicted after joseph smith's death that brigham young's passing would mark the end of this church as tribune wasn't correct about that. but no, it did not adopt a kinder and gentler attitude towards young in the wake of his death, you are quite right. >> i first wanted to ask a question, so it's back to the women and brigham young like the i'm a descendent of mine a young who also, her two other spouses were joseph smith and brigham

young in my great, great grandfather, henry jacobs. and that is when it about the relationship between, this is a biased question of course, but i was always led to believe that zina young was like ahead wife. but that was flawed. she was a midwife all over the state. she visited all over the state. her journals are locked up at utah state i believe, because some of those talk about how she spoke in tongues, laying on hands. anyway, i wonder if you could stand. is it true that brigham young called henry jacobs on a mission so you turn around and mary his wife? >> that's a great question. it is one of the more interesting marriages. i read some of those journals at the church archives.

they're not in good condition. they're very hard to read, achieve such a fascinating woman with such a fierce faith. with the marriage between brigham young and zina to play something right in early february of 1846, in the temple. and henry jacobs was there. and the records indicate explicitly that he was there and gave his consent. i think as of february of 1846, no one, possibly not even brigham young had a clear sense of how this was going to practically work out. young hadn't been living with any of his plural wives, and then after they leave, it's on

the journey west across iowa that henry jacobs leaves for his nation to england your subsequently, zina becomes part of a household that brigham young established at winter quarters but it's not living in the same house as brigham young it is living in the house with the number of the other wives. and that wonderful accounts in journals such as the spiritual meetings that this female family would have, which they would pray together, sing together, speak in tongues together, do rights achieving for each other. and then in utah, zina, it's still a very emotional moment for her when she actually moves into an early home built by brigham young.

she weeks the day before she moves in. and i think it's because she is so conflicted over all that has taken place. henry jacobs is very crashed when he learns what has happened. the action, you probably know, he marries again as he is returning to utah. so, if such a complex in some ways heartbreaking story. but i have, i have quite a bit of fondness for zina. and you know, i do think it's quite, one other thing i would say. i don't think it's quite accurate to only think about brigham young as orchestrating these marriages. it seems like approach quite a few joseph's widows. but zina had an intense admiration for brigham young. she loved his preaching. she thought it was incredibly powerful. she saw him as this very potent

spiritual leader. so i'm not sure. we quite know can we can just blame brigham for breaking up his pre-existing marriage. >> [inaudible] spirit it may be actor. i don't think it was exactly sensitive towards henry jacobs, but what i'd suggest it's quite possible that zina was quite motivated also for the stealing. >> next question. >> i have a question or i haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but i'm curious since i have, you know, family relat related, mountain meadows, how you treated that come if you could brigham young ordered that or if you received word of trying to find the best advantages that a quick comment, question related to the first division with joseph smith. wasn't brigham young with, he received in new york and he

supposedly received the plates? the revisions in the sky or something that he witnessed? >> well, brigham also came from a visionary family. you're correct to recall that experience. both he and campbell later talked a great fishing in the sky. armies in the sky. but if they associate with the book of mormon, and joseph's reception of the plates with the first division. the other question was about mountain meadows. it is not evidence as you just brigham young ordered the massacre at meadows. i tend to read a letter he sent -- i read the letter he sent that this was a standoff as exonerating him from that specific charge, and his response is, don't meddle with

the immigrants. you know, let them go. but i wouldn't say that, that britain is entirely blameless but for instance, even in that letter he says, you know, if the indians want to kill these people, that's fine, and you know, indian alliances are very important. and he's created this, not only brick, but he's helped create this scenario in which mountain meadows can take place. there would not have been a master in southern utah but for the utah war standoff. and brigham repeatedly spoke and encouraged indian leaders to attack wagon trains. created an environment in which leaders in the south might think that they could orchestrate an indian massacre with his approval. and he doesn't display any great concern for justice, or even

ecclesiastical sanction for many years afterwards. so i think, i think it requires a complex answer. >> next question. [inaudible] >> there we go. back up a couple months there to july 24 of 1857, supposedly when we're talking of the 10 years of isolation that brigham young was hoping that he would get, and that he did get. there are some authors and people who say that there was a given amount theatrics with rockwell and others that rode into camp up there at the campgrounds in, what was a, little cottonwood canyon where they were holding their anniversary party to indicate that the army was coming. and that brigham young already

knew his army was coming and that this was more of a theatrics to rally the people pick what is your take on that? >> well, i think yet heard a lot of reports that army was on the way. but i don't think it was staged theatrics. porter rockwell and the others arrive in salt lake city, and then go peck canyon the next morning. and so i think it's wise news in that point, at that point. and brigham young response. he gives a fiery speech i think they're all not quite sure what to make of it. kind of resume dancing for the rest of the night. so i did look at what other authors have said about that, and looked at, you know, brigham young's office journal from the time, and historians office journal and concluded that it wasn't staged theatrics.

so hopefully i got it right. >> next. >> yeah, just to go back to the comments about isolation and young's attitude towards the united states. was there ever any serious thought or consideration given to establishing a sovereign state? or was it, was the idea of manifest as, was it inevitable already for that consideration? >> there's a lot given to that. and done along those lines. when the latter day saints were on the trail, they become aware of the mexican-american war, and can read the tea leaves. they pretty much know this is going to become an american territory. and i think there's some uncertainty about, about how to respond. and so the response is, is twofold.

number one, establish a sovereign state. .. the word about the implication of the territorial rule and said the second petition asking for admittance. congress ultimately is where it

stops for a number of reasons, including the small population. ultimately it ends up as the territory. >> next question. >> over here with a microphone please. thank you. >> and wondering -- i just finished reading your book this morning. it's billion. i wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the united order. in particular there are some common sense some point in the book on byrd of young's attitude with respect to capitalism. could you expand on that further? >> well, he's a little hard to pin down on capitalism, mainly because his foremost concern is not allowing outside capital to have to much power over developments in utah.

he is very much in favor of promoting beneficial economic relationships with the rest of the country, telegraph and railroads and things like that. he is absolutely opposed to an outside bankers, bloodsuckers, and various other groups. the united order is his attempt in 1870 to establish or revive the communitarian and deal of economic cooperation because all the way back to the 1830's. economics is one area in which he found that his people would resist his lead. in the 1850's he encourages people to really only symbolically consecrate their property to the church and it's

a very half-hearted reaction. he shelved a plan for the time and revives it toward the end of his life. for him economic unity was essential to his vision of establishing as i am on the earth, establishing the kingdom of god honors. he recognized, perhaps, now impossible that was. he was wary of consecrating his own party defeated the indians could manage as well. in 1870 there are few things that really animated him. the united order, trying to make earth more like science. the united order was very mixed success, something that can't be brought to full fruition.

at the end of his life he sees the temple as establishing a clans that have and the unity honor and parks of the two in conjunction with each of the. thinking. >> we have -- to we have enough time? as to that. at the queue we will find the book fascinating, as i have. it is very hard to get an equitable judgment above several people in american history, how many books on george of strong customer, how many books on lincoln. you see the proliferation.

and premiere in is not in that category, but the category just below because there are lots of commentaries. this one is superior, if not all it is very mature. as we end, with like to think our panelists and our author and to wish tomorrow. [applause] >> for more information visit the authors website.

>> tonight and going to let this gusts abraham lincoln's role in the crisis of the union, 1860- 1861. more specifically of talk girl why abraham lincoln rejected any meaningful compromise. following his election as president, november 1860 the country was gripped by a section of crisis because many southerners feared lincoln and his republican party. the republican party was in northern party and probably so. it did not have a significant seven connection. lincoln was elected without a single a torre vote for many of the slave states and only four of the border states in nearly a handful.

for the first time in the nation's history a party without any notable seven component would be taking over the executive branch of the national batman, but there was more. the republican party was, as i said, partly in northern party. during his brief existence in the 1850's to manage better kendis of the south to the and the south major social institution racial slavery. and the determination to well the north into a unit that could win an election within a seven support, republicans repeatedly condemned the south and some progressive, undemocratic, even an american. with this party on the threshold of the presidency seven sectional radicals, those people who preached the gospel of this union took to the public platforms and the newspaper

columns to proclaim that the crisis of the south was a hint. the south had attacked immediately to protect itself from the hatred of evil republicans, cries of secession. this was not the first time sectional crisis had occurred in the country. there have been several disputes prior 1860. each of these commuter the major ones have been settled by compromise. here i will point specifically to the four critical ones. first, the constitutional convention of 787 in philadelphia. the misery curses of 1820 which had to do with the addition of missouri as a slave state, all the territory in

mississippi river to the rockingham save texas. it was settled by the missouri compromise. 1832 and three, the nullification controversy between the state of south carolina, the federal government was also settled by compromise. finally, late 1840's, the battle over the future slavery in the territory one from mexico known as the mexican concessions was settled by the compromise of 1850. thus you look at these four examples. precedent and tradition replace for another such settlement to take place in 1861. the chief issue between the republicans in the south involved slavery, but not slavery in the 15 states where it existed. almost all americans in 1960, republicans included, believe that the constitution protected

slavery in the states where it existed. the critical question was slavery in the national territories, and the territories owned by the nation that had not yet become states. geographically these territories are comprised of what we think of as today at the great plains, rocky mountains, and west of the rocky mountains to california. it did not include california because california was already state. the question was so critical because it had to do with the future slavery and the future of some power in the nation. seveners demanded what they saw as their constitutional rights as american citizens to take their property, including smith property coming into

territories owned by the entire nation. in 1857 in the famous or infamous red scott decision the united states supreme court affirmed this seven constitutional few. republicans, in contrast, said never. no matter the supreme court. republicans would allow no more slaves in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november of 1860. a month later that congress can into session and the put forth various compromises proposals. a critical portion of all the with the division of the territories. most often there was a proposal to extend some kind of dividing line westward beyond the louisiana purchase all the way to the border of california.

, after this rather and 90 precious i'm going to get to my main topic, why lincoln rejected all meaningful compromise, which meant the territories . but they're must be wanting more . i'm going to talk about three different men tonight, one of you, one of you to have one of them all of you know. the other two are not so well-known. probably a number of you are familiar with henry clay, the greek and turkish statesman. probably fewer have heard of henry seward, 1860, the senior senator from new york state and prior to lincoln's nomination for the presidency was by far the most notable and on the republican in the country. finally, ready to start.

>> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> i wanted this to be in tensely journalistic. unless you get out and look at what is going on these days is going to miss the things that are influencing yourself and everybody else. >> best-selling author and journalist tom wolfe is live at 6:00 p.m. eastern from this year's opening night in miami book fair international discuss his latest novel and its take on the city of miami plus answer questions from the miami audience. later tonight, and the fine print david k. johnson looked at the way corporations attempt to rob you blind. at nine eastern and pacific on book tv on c-span2. >> here's a look of some books that are being published this week.