he was english by training, so he was eager to get back there while london was bomb and in danger of -- they just escaped invasion, but he wanted to be over there with his friends from back home. yeah? >> i'm interested this is your first book. i'm wondering if it's an ambition fulfilled? in the sense of closure or kind of this -- set you wanting to write another one, and, i'm wondering where you are on that? a sense of closure and completion or if you now have the bug? >> yes and yes. [laughter] i have a sense of completion about the book and the story and this little family mystery is solved, but i -- it's hard, but i have the bug, especially the bug for world war ii.

if there's ever a fascinating -- all history's fascinating, but this is faze enating to me. -- nays nateing to me. i have not fixed on a idea yet, but i'm hoping. thank you. >> having taught history, your book, i would think, would be really important for young people to write, to have a sense of being there and the journalingnd keeping track of speernses and seeing it through the eyes instead of through experts or historians or whatever. history becomes more integrated into their experience opposed to, you know, listings of times

and places, and i would think that would be an interesting book to have in your arsenal. >> well, i would love it if became a book like that. [laughter] that was the goal. i just didn't want dates, but what it felt like. i talked about the book in a community college, not far from washington, and it is extraordinary how much people don't know. you know, just by virtue of being young. how would they know? they didn't grow up with parents who fought in world war ii. i explained how my uncle was thinking about whether he would be drafted ape had what we called a low draft number of the i thought, they don't know what i'm talking about. a low draft number -- draft doesn't mean much of anything anymore either. it's an interesting problem. it really is. >> i think it would be fascinating to think in terms of what is war? i mean, we've had war for ten

years now, another war. they had war, but this war, no one's participated in other than certain percentage. it's out there. >> yeah. it's changed, hasn't it? >> yes, it has. >> and not -- it's not an obligation of citizenship anymore to fight for your country when it's at war. it's something that the professional military does. i think that's a profound change that's taken place. because of that richard nixon in 197 p 3, and, also, because of my generation, they wanted to put an end to the draft. >> [inaudible] >> oh, thank you, my pleasure. thank you. [applause] >> for more information, visit rachelscox.com. >> up next, a panel on the life

of john turner, professor of religious studies in george mason university, and jeff johnson, a state activist, and craig foster recount the life of the mormon leader who died in 1877 examining the role assumed following the death of mormonism's founder in 18 # 74 leading the church across the rocky mountains establishing 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 sl spot sored this? it's so much work, and we should appreciate them. [applause] >> we are fortunate to have john turner with us. 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. it's hard to impress me. i taught utah history 34 times at the university of utah. the -- his first book, "campus crusade for christ: renewal of evangelical in post war america," it was a prize winning book. he's a graduate of notre dame. they'll be in our minds today with football. he is from new york state,

upstate, as they call it. not far from where brigham young workedded or paul mira. well, his insight and balance, we'll talk about later on in the program. the other commentators are craig foster, author of two books, critical analyst of appty-mormon in great britain, 1837-1860, and a different god question, myth mitt, the religious right and the mormon question. he also co-authored with the mormon quest for the presidency, and also with the persistence of

polygamy andçó mormon anthology. he worked for the family history library in salt lake city, and there, he did research gene loming -- gene research op dignitaries. john ashcroft, george w. bush, bill and hillary clinton, walter cronkite, sean hannity, charles, larry king, barack obama, kevin rudd, mike wallace, barbara walters, and oprah winfrey, and he can be awarded the prize of the damnest name dropper in utah. [laughter] the other working for more than

20 years. he's also -- he was also a member of the safe of the utah state archives and served as director for 14 of the years. he was an an archivist in the museum society, published articles in sunstone, exponent to dialogue, and the journal, and as well as the encyclopedia of mormonism. we'll begin today with our author, john turner. >> thank you, lloyd, and, thank you, all, for coming. i thought i'd take a little bit of time and tell you a couple stories from my biography, 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 the desire to explore the mormon path, and as i started to do so, it did not take me long to concentrate interests on brigham young, and he was a man i quickly learned who spoke in tongues some 70 years before the american pent pentecostal movement, who presided over the thousand mile stretch of the american west, whose political actions prompted an american president to send one-fifth of the u.s. army to utah, and who married some 55 wives along the way. you know, it's the story where fiction would be utterly preposterous and require a

rather intense suspicion of disbelief, and, yet, it was true. i thought i would share with you two episodes that i think shed light on his rather complex personality and approach to leadership. the first is from november 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 r first and foremost, a struggle for succession for young, and additional 40 or so marriages, the expulsion of the latter day

saints, the death of hundreds of mormon refugees on the trail west. faith testing poverty and hunger. in the fall of 1847, however, there was cause for new optimism. the previous summer, young 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 calls the first presidency. a church president with two counselors. after joseph smith's murder, the people had chosen the 12 appos ms to lead --

apostles to lead in joseph's absence. the decision of the 12 quickly became the de facto president of the church of the after several years, he wanted to clarify and streamline the leadership. after his successful pioneer preace to the great salt lake valley, he asked other apostles to affirm him as church president. almost all of the other apostles opposedded young's proposal, which would augment his authority at the excellence -- expense of their own. one apostle, a name manned orson prat said he thought of the apostles akin to the house of representatives, and young, therefore, should be more like the speaker of the house than a

president. shifts on cang was young's response to orson, but not a warmly received suggestion. it has occurred to me that if mitt romney made that his slogan for his campaign this year instead of the rather bland believe in america, he would be on the way to a massive landslide. everybody could get on board with that. [laughter] young, by the way, he's to say that he only swore when he was in the pulpit which was not true. he also swore at other times. i like to say that i only swear when i quote young which pretty much is true. [laughter] 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. young became the even more unquestioned leader of the church. my other story is from four years later. 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 philmore appointed young the newest territory of the newly created utah territory, first governor of the newly created utah territory. fillmore chose embrowning as utah's governor, but also appointed several non-mormons, judges, and officials for the

territory. in july of 1851, those federal appointees began to reach salt lake city as did a man name almond babbitt, a lawyer and church member, that the mormons 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 notary public-mormons to interfere with the church's control of utah politics. also, he heard all sorts of negative reports of babbitt's activities in washington. he drunk too much, cozied up to politicians hoping to get a territorial appointment for himself, all sorts of things.

after babbitt's return to utah, young summoned him to his office at eight o'clock in the morning. young rarely started the day early. he liked to go to bed late and get up late. i think especially because of that he was in a cantankerous mood for the meeting. babbitt began saying philmore hoped you would not mingle religion with presidential duties worrying young would be a prince of the world and a prophet for the next. babbitt and young then argued over a few things. federal appropriations for the territory, babbitt had brought 20 -- $20,000 to utah for expenditures. unclear whether he intended to hand them to young or not. they bickered about the process

of holding elections in the territory. they argued about it recently conducted census. babbitt, rather up wisely, took issue with young's conduct of such matters, and by the end of the meeting, young unloaded his fury on babbitt. this is what he said. if you interfere with any of my dictations in the election, it will be the last time. now, i don't want to hear you say this is not right and that is not right. you are nothing but a stinking politician. i know more about sound questions and doctrine and laws than you. i am not willing to suffer this people to be interrupted. you are rotten now with gentilism. the lord only knows what.

i despise it as i despise the gates of hell. you ought to say mormonism is my controller. my governorship and everything else is to bow down to mormonism. it wouldn't have been really all that remarkable for brigham young to have browbeaten a fellow church member who was, perhaps, not acting in the church's best interest, 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 non-mormons. at one point, territorial secretary broaden harris, uncomfortable with the drift of the conversation, told young he had no interest in his dispute with babe bat. 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 non-mormon officials fled utah convinced their lives were in danger. mormonism was a little too warm for their religious studies -- relish young wrote another church leader. what are we to make of this tendency to brace 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. he was a leader, most obviously, he was a fervent design l of smith, but he got along well with the other apostles.

following joseph's murder, he said there was too much factionalism within the church, and that that threatened the existence and young concluded to keep a tighter reign on church members. he did so in part because he very much, on a human level, fears becoming another mormon martyr. he emerged a changed manage, more fearful, harder edged, even a bit coarser and a different leader, sensitive to criticism, intolerance in a sense, and much more demanding of his followers. i think the response to the

trama, joseph's murder, fear of arrest or assassination, expulsion, all of that explained a great deal of the later words and action. i will stop there. i look forward to craig and jeff's comments, and i'd love to answer questions from you on anything pertaining to brigham young. >> [inaudible] >> well, i think pretty much everyone would agree that brigham young was an incredibly dynamic individual. i personally having studied american history say 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 your own studies and when i talked to various friends and family about brigham young, we talked about the fact that as john eluded to in the book that you didn't have middle of the road feelings on young. you either really like him or you really did not like brilham young. his permit was so powerful that it was one area or the other of liking him or disliking him. i know i talked with friends and father and mother about i wonder if i would have liked young, and i'm still wondering.

there are a lot of things that i think are extremely admirable, and then there's other things not so admirable, and john has done a great job in the book, and looking at young and the different aspects of his character and his relationships, and that's one thing i particularly like about this, and john went to great lerchts to describe brigham's dynamics of the young family and his interaction with his parents and siblings and over the years with

his various wives and children. i really enjoyed that about john's book. there -- i think that some of the points that he made were excellent regarding brigham young's change character. i agree with john in that i think the experiences and particularly the martyrdom of smith and ensuing problems after that i think did -- were extremely impacted, and brigham carried that baggage with him pretty much the rest of the life, and i think that it kind of altered his personality or how he interacted with people,

and there was a definite dislike and distrust of the government. as john says, who knows, maybe that would have helped mitt romney with his campaign to have that slogan, but doing research for the books, one theme that we noticed among latter day saints candidates is a little bit of an edge there, a dislike and distrust for big government, and i know we talked about this and wondered if it harkens back to

the experience that the members of the church had for such a long experience, not just back east, but after they came out here to utah to suffer, i guess so, from territorial, you know, control of the federal government as a territory for those decades, and we wondered, brought that up in the book, that perhaps some of the candidates they had to latter day saints candidates into the 20th century and into the 21st. brigham young was really an extremely controversial and hard driven man. he saw in his vision of the

kingdom of god established here. boy, he was bound to do what he had to to get that done, and, again, i think john has done ad good job describing that in the book. there, as i mentionedded to john before this panel began that the work this large and with an individual this big, you're gong to have strong points in a biography about him. i feel there a couple areas uneven. there was some areas where he, john did a great job of demonstrating 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 weak areas. one area that i mentioned to john and i'll mention here, although john made a good point that the persistence of polygamy came out into the public near of the end of the research, but a couple questions that john had regarding fannie and joseph smith and the marrying of married women plurally, and also dealing with mearming age, common marriage age, could have -- could have help him if he had read polygamy with the essays that discussed those topics, but, obviously, i know this because of the fact that i

was one of the co-editors and author in that culture of violence. he did a good job, but i think he could have gone further in placing the culture of violence that obviously existed here in utah within a greater context, particularly, the chul tour -- culture of honor, and i have the page numbers marked, but i won't bore you all with that right now. overall, it's a very good book, and it certainly has a lot to offer. >> i'd like to say that too. i particularly enjoyed the book. my background is very much like craig's, to studying the young family. i spent 30 # years with brigham young's wife, and i feel like i know them pretty well. ..

they often lacked the family out advice. there's your darker feeds that don't mention them at all. and later, people wrote and had a chat or for the wise. but what john has done is to

include them in brigham young slave for me they actually were. i'm particularly glad about the relationship he shows the gene variant angel in brigham young. i feel like marion angelos relief here on june she too brigham young success. 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. she was able to make decisions. she was able to be competent. he apparently really trusted her and. i know that this comes from her background, too.

her mother and her father's relationship natives of the area of her mother having to take charge and having a strong place in the family. in fact, her father was mean and cruel that they had to remove her mother from his care. so mary ann was very important partner for brigham young and john points that out. i also enjoyed his discussion of the beginning of polygamy in brigham young's relationship with lucy, acosta, harriet and clara, the first photo lives that he married was just as smith still alive. when you get to utah, it is very

difficult because his family was very calm? and there are material about are comes young relationship with the laser web some of the ways of course i was late to some good covers the vote whose relationship with uterine and the children too. this is really important is his knowledge and understanding interaction with his children. there's always been kind of a legend in utah that he didn't know these children and saw them on the street and said brigham young. we know that statue. we don't even children who were mormonism left memories, close

relationship he had with them. it is nice to have women in one chapter, not separated from brigham young slave because they are very much a part of brigham young's ablaze. john has done a good job at that. there's something i'd like to be a lot to do. we can convince historians just putting a middle name for brigham young's first wife. i don't think professor turner for this. i think the family did that. it's really is brigham young's first wife with two nuns who am i married a prominent member of

the church and became prominent in every organization and i don't think her parent would have named two daughters with the same name. but that's not a big deal. i have it public here and wanted to tell you. don't ever put up middle name. it's never in any of the records from legislature the family for some reason not under andy gewirtz family history. so, this is important that we include the family, that we include the women as part of a going on. they were a very important part of this in brigham young's -- i've been able to study his attitude towards raising

children changing over the years. the more children a hot, the older he got, the less strict u.s. with children in this effect at the way he preached at the pulpit, too. when he was 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. i think that is another story that needs to be told. i won't comment on the other things in the boat. i feel like the contacts i professor turner has done has been really fun. thank you. >> it is time for rations then 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 it uses outline reject it by the department. it was entitled to utah, and puritanism and pears. in that chapter was on call to parallels of isolation. one said professor miller said was that peril or was it advantage? which is a good question. have you thought about the effect of isolation? i know you talk about the themes 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. i think i say this both an advantage and also created potential plans five for brigham young and the church. it was a great advantage in that the latter-day saints were pretty much left alone for 10 years, which was accreted vantage and developing common purpose and cohesion apart from outside interference and for the early work building of the kingdom and establishing settlements. brigham young even talked they needed 10 years in which the rest of the country would leave them alone and if they had this 10 years it would be okay. i think one disadvantage for young was that he didn't have a great grasp on political

developments in the united states outside of the utah territory. so in the second story that i told in which he intimidates this first batch of officials that come to utah employee, they go back to washington until all sorts of stories about polygamy, murder and monarchy in utah. president fillmore doesn't do anything about it. he decides to leave young and office. president pearson takes office. he gets all sorts of report, young's antagonism towards the united states. at one point he thinks of replacing him but 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. southern pacific canon since the attacks position to replace him as governor, he's very much caught off guard. he is not expecting that. so i think it was a disadvantage in the sense that perhaps encouraged him to its incendiary political behavior. >> thank you. >> it is now time for questions. the microphones are available. who would go first? >> hi, i ever do read your authority richard burr confounded very interesting. i remember leonard harrington spoke, he said he was going to edit the life of brigham young, and all. and you know he found, but functions are scum at two. the question i have the first

vision of joseph smith. rick and young when he was converted never ever heard that story and nobody else did either. it is basically a creation of the 18th 30s. what year did he finally here that story? i don't think you mentioned it in about. how did he react to that story when he first started? >> well, that's a great question and i don't know if my co-panelists know. i don't recall at what point he heard that story. i don't even recall at the top of my head whether or not he discussed it later on. you know, for him, his conversion to mormonism as he rightly said chess in any report on that vision, for him he regarded the appearance of the book of mormon and fax that

traveling mormon elders both prophesied in shield people. he regarded those as conclusive proof of god's presence and power in this new church. i don't know if craig or just know anything about brigham young's subsequent hearing. [inaudible] >> by the time they published, it'd are even going around among certain circles within the church. so my guess is that he would've heard it in the mid-30s, but i don't have any absolute knowledge they are. my supposition is pretty much the same as john's, that brigham young would've been converted at the fact that they talked about dissertations of angels,

heavenly visions and visitations. he has speaking in tongues that were performing miraculous healings, et cetera appeared said he would've accepted the story is obviously just another part of that. i think he would've viewed it as something very personal for joseph smith and perhaps that is why joseph had not originally talked about it in wider circles. he had taught about the angelic specifications, but that's my position. what would you say? >> welcome we do no brigham young did not convert immediately. it took them time to become converted. we can understand from the data was sent, as some immediately, it took him to think.

he had heard two years before he was converted about mormonism. he lived in that area where they were talking about it. so he studied and he was converted -- i.t. get the cam -- i think it took them about two years. >> and fall of 1985 is one of the time joseph tells about the real experiences. i don't know whether he was in the room are not covered but i'm sure he'll be certified by that point. >> thank you for the question. >> any book of history tries to be active and on utah history, we often get one or two points of view with local police or

anti-local belief. how would you anticipate criticism of your book when it will come out, or did you obtain primary season to object to the d.? >> iv advantage of being the only person in the world whose fully object this. [laughter] that wasn't a problem. i think there were some advantages in not coming from any sort of lds background. i really was a complete outsider. i don't know. for instance, "the new york times" had a review on about this weekend in which they suggest and to fair. in particular the reviewer commented that tourney is

squishy and extreme in the subject of polygamy and i had to call my wife and tell her i'm not at all squishy on polygamy. [laughter] so i tried my best to simply sift through the evidence and include what i thought was most important in learning about her command. i try to present it as of mid-19th century figure. to identify things repugnant in the 19th century individualists and simply condemn them as if all human beings are not a product of their time. for instance, i find brigham young's views on race rather repugnant, but in many ways they are not all that unusual for mid-19th century weightman. so i tried my best to put him in his cultural contexts.

unless his culture and his experiences shaped my portrayal of him in the book. but in question. >> i think the review published in the tribune was very good and he comments on that. it's a very nice review. >> i have a question about mr. foster's comment on the disdain for big government in the context of mormon history. this seems to me like her command had a problem not so much with the government per se the quote unquote secular government. and for a religion that i would say is an american religion, but to wish god didn't consider himself quote, unquote american.

i just wanted to comment on the secular and the american and young. >> yeah, that's a nice comment. i think brigham young stealing a chad's feeling between the church of the country to the expulsion and the government failure to protect the rights of the latter day saints. not only in illinois, but previously in this area. he leaves with a great deal of bitterness, but there is a web in which young remains very much american, but insists utah should have a right to operate with autonomy. they're plenty of other westerners are territorial rule to be fundamentally

anti-republican. people should always have the right to govern themselves and not meant that out. in terms of big government, he certainly didn't want outside interference from washington. you know, he was sent a completely small government anchor within the territory of utah and promoting internal improvements. it's perhaps a little bit of a difference they are. >> yeah, i probably should've worded that better. let me rephrase that. she didn't big government if it was his big government. it was more that he didn't want washington controlling, that there was that individualism, but individualism as a

community. and so he wanted the control to be through him and down through ecclesiastical control. so i think you are right. it was more antipathy towards secular government in washington that really big government. >> dr. maxwell, you have to speak loudly. >> he is bringing the mic. wait just a moment. >> my question has to do with the publicity given to brigham young's death. and the days and weeks that followed, newspapers across the country were severely negative about his legacy and i'm

interested to know what considerations but 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. 400 pages is already fairly long book and i didn't wanted to be 600 pages. i'm pretty sure he included some from the tribune, which coming in though, was very much brigham young side and then also it's a very amusing nicknames for him. the tribune predicted as many newspapers had to that brigham young's passing marked the end of this deception, this church

has tribune wasn't correct about that. but it did not adopt it kinder and chipper attitude towards young and the wake of his death. you are quite right. >> i wanted to ask a question. so it's back to the women in brigham young's life. i am a descendent of china john who also her two other spouses were brigham young and make great, great grandfather, henry jacobs. i'm just wondering about the relationship -- this is a biased question of course. i was always led to believe that china young was like a head wife, but maybe that is flawed. she was midwife and visited all

of this tape. her journals are locked up at utah's state i believe because some of this talk about how she spoke in tongues. i wonder if you could expand and is it true that brigham young called the mission so he could turn around and marry his wife? >> that's a great question and it is one of the more interesting marriages. i read some of the journals in the archives. they're not in good condition. they were very hard to read, but she's such a fascinating woman, such a fiercely. the marriage between brigham young to face in early february of 1846 and henry jacobs was

there and the records indicate explicitly that he was there. the bank as of february of 1846, no one, possibly not even brigham young had a clear sense of how this was going to crack tickly workout. john had been living with any of his plural wives. and after they leave, it is on the journey west across iowa that henry jacobs leaves for his mission to england. subsequently, china becomes part of a household established at winter quarters. brigham young is living in a house with a member of the

otherwise. there are wonderful accounts in journals such as a lysis knows about the spiritual meanings that this female family, the less instrument have, which they pray together compassing together, speak in tongues together, do rates of healing for each other. and then in utah, it's still a very emotional moment for her when she actually moves into an early home built by brigham young. she weeps the day before she moves in and i think it's because she's so conflicted over all that has taken place. henry jacobs' ferry crash when he learns what is happening. he marries again as he is returning to utah. so it's such a complex and

somewhat heartbreaking story. but i have quite a bit of fondness. one other thing is that think it is quite accurate to only think about regarding young as orchestrating these marriages. it seems like he approached quite a few of josephs widows, but dinah looked to screech and that is incredibly powerful. she saw him as a spiritual leader. so i'm not sure we quite know that we can blame break him for breaking of this preexisting marriage. [inaudible] >> well, it may be accurate. i don't think he was sensitive to its henry jacob, but i would suggest is quite possible zina was quite motivated also.

>> next question. i haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but i'm curious since i have family related us how you treated that if you believe turkomans ordered that or try to let them pass. then i just had a quick comment, question related to the first vision of joe smith. did he receive campbell and some of the others in new york for just a received the plates ambitions in the sky are sent to that he witnessed? >> well, rip them came from a visionary family and you are correct to recall that experience. both he and hubert campbell later talked a great fish in, armies in the sky, but they associated it with the book of

mormon and recession of the place rather than the first vision. the other question was about madison madness. my conclusion is there is not existing evidence to suggest that brigham young ordered the masquerade meadows. i tend to read the letter he sent. i read the letter he sent in the midst of the standoff is exonerating him from that pacific charge. his responses don't battle with immigrants. you know, let them go. but i wouldn't say that wreck of his entirely blameless. for instance, even in that letter, he said if the indians want to kill these people, that is fine. indian alliance is a very

important. he has created this, not a, but it helped create the scenario in which it can take place. it would have been a masquerade in southern utah but for the utah's standoff and berger repeatedly spoke and encouraged indian leaders to attack. so he created an environment in which leaders of the south might think they could orchestrate an indian master with his approval. he doesn't display any great concern for justice or even ecclesiastical sanction for many years afterwards. so i think it requires a complex answer. >> next question. >> i'd like to back up a little bit get there we go. back up a couple of months in july 24th, supposedly were

talking about the 10 years of isolation that are beyond was hoping he would get that he didn't get. there are some authors and people who say that there was given the amount of theatrics with rock while in others the road and at the camp of hair, the campground in cottonwood king, where they were holding anniversary party to indicate the army was coming and that brigham young already knew the army was coming and this is more theatrics to rally the people. what is your take on this? >> well, he had heard a lot of reports that an army was on the way, but i don't think it was staged theatrics. they arrived in salt lake city the previous night and go up the canyon the next morning.

so i think it is life and is at that point and brigham young responds and says he gets his speech, but they are no not quite sure what to make of it. does it mean for the rest of the night afterwards. so i did look at what other authors have said about that and looked at brigham young's office journal from the time and the historian's office journal and sources like that included that of his stage theatrics. so hopefully i got it right. >> next. >> just to go back to previous comments about isolation in young's attitude towards the united states. was there ever any serious thought or consideration given to establishing a sovereign state was the mormons got here

or was that the idea of manifest destiny? was as inevitable already? >> there is a lot to that end things done those lines. on the latter day saints from from the trailways they become aware of the mexican-american war. they pretty much know this is going to become american territory. i think there's some uncertainty about how to respond and the response is twofold. number one, establish a sovereign state. and when the pioneer day, july 24th celebration held in 1849 is a celebration of independence. but it is not celebrating american independence. it is celebrated the latter day saints independence. at the same time, the church than petitions to washing and,

asking to be incorporated into the union. i think the hope was akin to a california had done, establish sovereign state and have u.s. government take it as a done deed and skip territorial status. they send one petitioned asking to be admitted to territory and covered the implications of territorial rule inside a second petition asking for admittance to this day. i was ultimately is wary admitting for a number of reasons, including the small population. so ultimately it ends up in the utah territory. >> next question. over here with the mike, please. thank you.

>> i am wondering -- i just finished reading the book this morning. it's brilliant. i wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the united order and in particular there is some comments at some point in the boat on brigham young's attitude with respect to capitalism. could you expand on that further? >> scheuer. well, he's a little hard to pin down on capitalism mainly because his foremost concern is not allowing outside capitalists to have too much power over developments in utah. he's very much much in favor of promoting beneficial economic relationships at the rest of the country via telegraphs and railroads and insight that that is absolutely opposed to bankers, bloodsuckers and

various other groups. the united order attempts in the the 1870s to establish a revived this humanitarian ideal of economical operation and concentration that was all the way back to smith in the 1830s. economics is one area in which brigham young found that his people would resist his leadership. in the 1850s he encourages people to only symbolically consecrate their properties. it's a very halfhearted reaction. so he shoves the plan for the time and revised it towards the end of his life. for him, economic was essential to his vision of establishing zion on earth, establishing the kingdom of god on earth.

so he recognized perhaps some possible that list. he was very consecrate in his own property because he didn't think anyone else could manage it as well as he could. the candidates receiving 1870, there's two things that fascinated him. number one, the united order, which is trying to make earth more like psion, more like heaven. so the united order is something that kept about two full fruition. thank you very much sees the same charge establishing that heavenly unity on earth and he talked about it in conjunction with each other. thank you.

[inaudible] >> i think you will find the book fascinating as i have. it is very hard to get an equitable judgment about several people in american history. how many books have george armstrong custer? how many books on lincoln. you would see the proliferation and brigham young isn't in that category, but the category just below because there are lots of commentaries. this one is superior to most if not all. it is very mature. as we add, i would like you to thank our panelists and are out

there wish them well. thank you. [applause] >> for more information, visit the author's website, john g turner.com. >> tonight i'm going to discuss abraham lincoln zero in 1860 to 1861. more specifically we will talk about my abraham lincoln reject bids any meaningful compromise. following his election as president in november of 1860, the country was gripped by section increases because many southerners felt like it and his republican party. republican party was proudly so. did not have a significant southern connection.

lincoln was elected without a single electoral vote in any of the 15 slave states and only four of the four border states, missouri, kentucky, maryland and delaware they have a handful. for the first time in the nation history from a party without any notable southern component would be taking over the executive branch of the national government. the republican party was as i said probably a northern party, treating its brief existence in the mid-1850s, its rhetoric have assaulted the south in the south made the social institution racial slavery. their determination, the republicans determination to win a national election without any southern support. republicans repeatedly convinced progressives democratics, even

un-american, with his party on the threshold of the president tea, some articles are those people who preach the gospel to the public by foreign with the newspaper columns to proclaim the crisis of the south. the south had to act immediately to protect itself from the hated evil republicans with a succession that filled the southern air. this was not the first time the sectional crisis that gripped the country however. i've done several sharp disputes prior to 1860. each of these -- each of the major ones have been settled to compromise. here i will point specifically to the four political ones. first come the constitutional

division in philadelphia, the missouri crisis of 1820 the admission of of missouri as a slave state in the future of slavery in the wiki and a purpose for which of course is you notice as much whether the state of louisiana, covered almost all the territory from the mississippi river to the rocky mountains. it was settled by the missouri compromise. 1832 and 33, nullification between the north carolina federal government was also settled by compromise. and finally, the late 1840s but the future of slavery in the territory from mexico known as the mexican sessions file in the mexican war was settled by the compromise of 1850. you look at these four examples, precedent and tradition in place for another summit to take place in 1861. the chief issue between the

republicans and the south involved slavery. but not slavery in the 15 states where it existed. almost all americans in 1860, republicans included, believe the constitution protected slavery in states where it existed. rather the critical question was slavery and the national territories, unitary tories on by the nations that have not yet become states. geographically the territories were comprised of what we think of today is the great plains, rocky mountains west of the rocky mountains to california. it didn't include california because california was already a state. the question was so critical because it had to do with the future of slavery in the future of southern power in the nation.

that southerners demanded what they saw as their constitutional rights as american citizens, putting slave property into territory owned by the united nations. in 1857, the infamous dred scott decision united states supreme court affirmed the southern constitution. republicans in contrast 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 the united states congress came into session. members of congress put forth theories compromise from a critical portion of on some bits

out with division of territory and most often was a proposal to extend some kind of dividing line westby on louisiana purchase other way to the border of california. now, after this rather lengthy preface, i am going to get to my main topic, why lincoln rejected albeit compromise within the territory. but there must be one thing more. i'm going to talk about three different men tonight. one of them all if you know, abraham lincoln and who he was and what he did. the other two are not so well known. for probably a number if you are probably familiar with henry clay, the great kentucky statesman. and william hen