i really am too old and i can't remember anything. please let's just leave everything as it it is. a little later i thought what kind of journalists and my? i have got to talk to the sky and i would write him again. he made it very clear he did not want to talk and i made a decision i was not going to force myself on him. i did find his sister however who is happy to talk about them and told how difficult it had been. that made me feel better and she gave me the -- and will be other interesting thing is people forget, as course we all know as we get older we forget what really happened and whenever i was discouraged, of course i would have liked to have met hayward to tell him how much he was admired and respected from what i knew about him, but i just lost my train of thought. when i get really discouraged about the fact that i never get

did get to talk to them i remind myself that i would never know what he told me was really accurate or not and i got a lot of information through shall we say accounts that were written at the time, and i depended on them so as far as getting the true story i am not sure i lost that much. but he died in march so no more chances. of this year, yeah. he was 89 years old a thing. he was younger than the others. he was 19 when he went overseas. he had been raised in england. he went to be in and was american by birth but english by training you might say so he was really eager to get back there while london was being bombed and endanger. i guess they had just escaped the danger of invasion but he wanted to be over there.

yes? >> i am interested in your first book and i'm wondering if it's kind of it and ambitious -- or if it's kind of set you the wanting to write another one and i'm wondering where you are on that? is there a sense of closure and completion or heavy now got the bug? >> yes, and yes. [laughter] i mean i do have a sense of completion about this story and this family mystery is solved but it is hard. i do have the bug, yeah and especially the bug of world war ii. the quality of reading is fascinating but this is particularly fascinating to me. i'm looking around and i'm not fixed on an idea yet.

>> having taught world war ii history, you're kind of looks i would think would be really important for young people to read, to have a sense of being there and do journaling and the keeping track of experiences and seeing it through the eyes instead of through experts or historians or whatever, so that the history becomes more integrated into their experience as opposed to listing the times and places. i would think that would be a really interesting book to have. >> well i would love it actually if there came a book like that and that was sort of the goal. i wanted to not just get the dates but find out what it felt like. i did have the interesting

experience of talking about the book at a community college and it is extraordinary how much people don't know. just by virtue of being young, how would they no? they didn't grow up with parents that fought in world war ii. at one point it was explaining about how my uncle was thinking about whether he would be drafted and he had what we would call a really low draft number. than i thought, they don't know what i'm talking about. a low draft number means nothing and draft doesn't mean much of anything anymore either so it's an interesting problem. it really is. >> in terms of what is war, i mean we have had war for 10 years now and we had another war and they have had war but this war, nobody is really participated in. so it's out there. >> it has changed, hasn't it? it is not the obligation of citizenship anymore to fight for your country when it is at war

and something that professional military does. think that is a pretty profound change that has taken place. because of richard nixon in 1973 and because of my generation. it's interesting to think about, yeah. thank you. it's a pleasure. thank you. [applause] >> for more information visit rachel s. cox.com. up next the panel on the life of reagan young. john turner assistant professor of the latest studies at george mason university in virginia, jeff johnson former utah state activist and craig foster recount the life of the mormon leader who died in 1877.

they established a settlement 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. [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 am impressed. and it's hard to impress me.

i taught utah history 34 times at the university of utah. his first book, bill bright and the campus crusade for christ, the renewing of evangelical in post-war america was a prize-winning book. he is a graduate of notre dame. they will be in our minds today. he is from new york state, upstate as they call it, not really very far from where brigham young worked and not far from column i wrote. well, his insight and balance we

will talk about later on in the program. the other commentators are craig foster author of two books,. [inaudible] a critical analysis of pamphleteering and great written, 1837 to 1860 and a different god question, mitt romney, the religious right and the mormon question. he also co-authored the mormon request for the presidency and also the persistence of polygamy of mormon anthology. he worked for the family history library in salt lake city and bear, he did research genealogical research on some

dignitaries, john ashcroft, george w. bush, bill and hillary clinton, walter cronkite, sean hannity, charlton heston, henry kissinger, barack obama, kevin redden, mike wallace, barbara walters and oprah winfrey. he can be awarded the prize of the damnedest name dropper in utah. [laughter] our weather panelists is jeff johnson who is retired from the lds church historical department where he worked for more than 20 years. he was also a member of the staff at 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 and an exponent to dialogue and journal. as well as the encyclopedia of mormonism. we will begin today with our illustrious author, john turner. >> thank you floyd and thank all of you for coming. i thought i would take a little bit of time and tell you a couple of stories from my biography of brigham young. and i think i will 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. he was a man i quickly learned who spoke in tongues some 70 years before the american pentecostal movement, who presided over the colonization of the thousand mile stretch of the american west, whose political actions prompted an american president to spend one fifth of the u.s. army to utah and two married some 55 wives along the way. if the story were fiction it would be utterly preposterous and require a rather intense suspension of disbelief and yet it was true. i thought i would share with you two episodes from berg brigham young's life that i think should -- shed some light on is rather complex personality and approach to leadership.

the first is from november of 1847 on 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 as a struggle for secession for brigham young, an additional 40 or so marriages, the expulsion of the latter day saints, the deaths of hundreds of mormon refugees on the trail west faced testing poverty and hunger. in the fall of 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 orsoncrat, explained that he thought of the apostles as something akin to the house of representatives. young therefore, should be more like the speaker of the house than a president. the shift on congress was young's response but not a warmly received suggestion. it has occurred to me that if mitt romney had made that his slogan for his campaign this year instead of the rather

bland, believe in america, he would be on his way to to a massive landslide. [laughter] everybody could get on board with that. 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'd only swear when i quote brigham 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 and young became the even more unquestioned leader of his 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 the young's authority. president millard fillmore had recently appointed brigham young the first territory of the newly created utah territory. the first governor of the newly created utah territory. fillmore had chosen young as utah's governor, but he also appointed several non-mormon judges and officials in the territory. in july of 1851, those federal appointees again to read salt lake city, as did a man named almond 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 non-mormons 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 drank too much and had cozied up to politicians, hoping to get a territorial appointment for himself, all sorts of things. shortly after babbitt returned to utah, young summoned him to his office at 8:00 in the morning. yong 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 again by reporting to

president fillmore hopes that you would not mingle your religion with your public duties. the president worries that young would be as a prince of this world and it prophet for the next. babbitt and young then argued over a few things. federal appropriations for the territory babbitt 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 a territory. they argued about it recently -- babette 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 interfere with any of my dissertation 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 in doctrine and law then you. i am not willing to suffer to be interrupted. you are rotten now was gentileism and the lord only knows what. as i despise the gates of hell, you ought to say that mormonism is my comptroller. my governorship and everything else is to bow down to mormonism. it would not 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 brogdon harris, very uncomfortable with the drift of the conversation, told young that he had no interest in his 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 be told the power of the priesthood. two months later, all of the non-mormon officials fled utah, convinced that their lives were in danger. mormonism was a little too warm for their relished young wrote

another church leader. now what are we to make of this tendency to break and boley 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 1844 he was a very winsome leader. most obviously he was a fervent disciple of its buddy got along very well with the other apostles as well. following joseph's murder, young concluded that joseph had permitted too much dissent and factionalism within the church and such things threatened the churches 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 enough new, a changed man, more fearful, harder edged, even a bit coarser and a different sort of leader. more sensitive to criticism, intolerant 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 naboo, all of that trauma explained a great deal of his later words and actions. i will stop there and i look forward to craig in jeff's comments and i would love to

answer questions from you on anything pertaining to brigham young. >> that will be after comments. >> i think pretty much everyone would agree that brigham young was an incredibly dynamic individual. i've personally, having studied american history, would say he was probably one of the most dynamic and certainly controversial figures in the 19th century and perhaps throughout american history, that 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, when i've talked with the various friends and family about brigham young, we 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. d. lee there've really liked him or you really did not like brigham young. his analogy was so powerful that usually it was one area or another of liking or disliking him, and i know that i have talked with friends and family about, i wonder if i would have liked to brigham young, and i'm still wondering if i would have liked to brigham young. there are a lot of things that i think are extremely admirable and there are other things that are not so admirable. john has done a great job i think in his book on brigham young and looking at brigham

young and the different aspects of his character and his relationships. that is one thing that i particularly liked about john's book, i guess because of my own interest in the 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. so i really enjoyed that about john's book. i think that some of the points that he made our excellent regarding brigham young's changed character. i would agree with john that, i

think that the experiences in nauvoo and particularly the martyrdom of joseph smith and the ensuing problems after that i think were extremely dramatic for brigham young as well as for other members of the lds church in that community and brigham young carry that baggage with him pretty much the rest of his life. and i think it did kind of altar his personality or at least the way he interacted with the people, and there was a definite dislike and distrust for the government and as john said, who knows, maybe that would help mitt romney with his campaign to have that slogan. but, in doing research for the

books, the mormon quest for the presidency, one theme that we have noticed among latter day saints 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 we have talked about this and wondered if that might hearken back to the negative experience that members of the church had for such a long period, not only back east but after they came out here to utah to shall i say suffer, i guess so -- suffer from territorial -- from the federal government as a of the territory for those

decades, and we wondered and we brought that up in our book that perhaps that reflected onto some of the candidates they have had, latter day saints. but back to brigham young. brigham young really was an extremely 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. as i mentioned to john before this panel began, that with a

work this large and within individual this big, you are 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 john did a great job of demonstrating brigham young's characteristics and demonstrating what he was like to be around as an individual. 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 already mentioned to john and i will mention here, although john made a very good point that our book 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 alger and joseph smith, polly and three, the marrying of married women, poorly and also dealing with the marriage age, the common marriage age, he could have -- it could have helped him if he had read persistence of polygamy with the essays that discuss those topics. ..

i'd like to say that too, i particularly enjoyed this book. my background is very much like craig's to studying the young family. i spent thirty years with "brigham young's" wife. i feel like i know them pretty well. 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 do that. the history of writing about brigham young goes the first 19th century people wrote

about brigham, they were focusing on his physical life, his sexual life, and the hair rem, they didn't know much about it. that they wrote books about it. later on as people started writing biographies, 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 for the wives. what john has done is to include them in brigham young's life way they were. i'm particularly glad about the relationship that he shows between mary ann and angel and brigham young. i feel like she was a key to his

success. he was able to focus on church and political matters -- 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 -- 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 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 enjoy his discussion of the beginning of political polygamy and brigham young's relationship with lucy. i guess harry et and clara he married when he was still alive. when you get to utah, it's difficult because this family is very complex and there are, of course, material about brigham young's relationship with eliza web. those are some of the wives that -- of course i would like to some day have us know more about

his relationship with the other wives. and the children too. this is really important as his knowledge and understanding and interaction with his children. there's always been kind of a legend in utah he didn't know his children and he saw his son on the street and asked who his father was and the son said, brigham young. well, we know that's not true. we know even children who left moronism left -- mormonism had close relationships with them. it's been nice to have the women not -- in one chapter not in a separated from brigham young's life because they were much a part of brigham young's life. that was important and john has

done a good job with that. there's one thing i'd like to be able to do, i wished 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, but it's really stupid because miriam had a sister name angeline. she was very prominent in the church. i continue think her -- don't think her parents would have named two daughters with the same name. but that's not a big deal. i just -- i have a public hear i wanted to tell you, don't ever -- [laughter] put that middle name.

it's never any of the original records just later the family, for some reason, not understanding the works family history that they put that name in there. this is important that we include the family, that we include the women as part of what was going on. they were very important part of this. and brigham young's -- i've been able to study his attitude toward raising children changing over the years. the more children that he had, the older he got, the more less strict he was with the children, and this affected the way he preached at the when he was a young man he thought the children should be disciplined really strict i are 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 professor turner has done has been a really fine. thank you. >> it is time for questions. i will assume an advantage because i have 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 pure tourism and prickly pears

requests. in the list of the chapters is the peril of isolation. when it was rejected professor miller said, perilled or wanted advantage? which is a good question. have you thought about the effective isolation? i know you talk about the themes around it, what do you have to say about that? >> well, there was a lot of isolation especially the first ten years, and what became utah, and i think i say this both advantage and also created potential blind spots for brick brigham young and the church. it was a great advantage, the latter day saints were left alone for the ten years.

it was a great advantage, and developing common purpose and cohetion apart from outside interference. and for the early work of building up the kingdom and establishing settlements, and i think brigham young talking about they needed ten years in which the rest of the country wouldn't leave them alone. if they had the ten years, it would be okay. i think one disadvantage for young, he cannot have a great grasp on political development in the united states outside of the utah territory. so in the second story that i told, in which he intimidates the first batch of officials that come to utah and they flea, they go back to washington and they tell all sorts of stories about, you know, polygamy, murder, and monarchy in utah.

and the president doesn't do anything about it. he decides to leave young in office, and the president takes office, he gets all sorts of reports of young's antickism toward the united states. when he thinks about replacing him with another governor. 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 the political bhaifort. when president buchanan sends the utah expedition to replace him as governor as a large army. i think he's very much caught off guard. he's not expecting that. and so i think it was a disadvantage in the sense that it perhaps encouraged him toward

the political behavior. >> thank you. >> it is now time for questions. the microphones are available. who would go first? >> hi, i already read your book and found it very breast -- interesting. i remember the book he said he was going study the life of brigham young warts and all. you found warts but you found some cancers too, i think. the question i have is regarding the first vision of joseph smith. brigham young, when he was converted, never heard that story, and nobody else did either. it was a basically a creation of the 1830s. what year did he finally hear that story? i don't think you mention that in the book within and how did he react to that story when he

first heard it? >> that's a great question. i know, if my copanellists know, i don't recall at what point he heard that story. -- i don't even recall off of the top of my head whether or not he discussed it later on. for him, you know, his convention to mormonism hinge on any report of that vision for him, he regarded the book of mormon and the fact that traveling mormon elders spoke in tongues and prof -- he regarded those as conclusive proof of god's power in the new church. i don't know if craig or jeff know anything about the -- hearing that? >> [inaudible] i think well, -- [inaudible]

>> yeah. >> by the time they published it, it had already been going around among certain circles within the church. so my gets is that he would have heard it in the mid '30s. i don't have, you know, any absolute knowledge there. 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 angels and heavily visions and they had speaking in tongues and performing great healings, et. cetera. 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 sickles -- circles. he talk abouted the angelic visitations but not the other. that's my position. what would you say, jeff? >> we know that brigham young did not convert immediatelily. it took him time to become converted. we can understand from that that it wasn't a some, you know, the immediately he had -- it took him awhile to think about it. he had heard two years before he was actually converted about more 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, john points out, i think it took

him about two years to become a mormon. >> he isn't -- in fall of 1835. he is one of the times that joseph tells about the early experience. i don't know whether he was in the room or not. i'm sure he heard about it by that point. >> thank you for the question. others? >> any book of history tries to be objective, and on utah history, we often get one of two points of view that may respond with local belief or antimormon belief. how would you anticipate criticism of your book will come out or, ask you attain that fine raiser edge of octoberivity. >> i've got the advantage of only. fully objective. it wont problem.

[laughter] i think there was some advantages, and not coming from any sort of lds background, you know. i was a complete outsider. i don't know. you know, i have seen -- well, for instance, "the new york times" has a review of my bock out this weekend, which they suggested i'm too fair in particular the viewer comments is that turner is squishy in the extreme on the subject of polygamy. i have to call up my wife immediately and tell her i'm not squishy on the issue of polygamy. [laughter] so i tried my best to simply sift through the evidence, include what i thought was most important, and illuminating about brigham young. i tried hard to present him as a

19th century figure. i think it's a great thing for historians to identify things that are repungent in mid 19th century individuals and simply condem them as if all should bees are not a protect of their time. -- product of their time. for instance i find brigham's views on race are e pug nant. -- they're not all that unusual for a mid 19th century white man. tried my best to put him in the cultural context. and the bock and the cultural and experiences shaped my or trailer of him in the book. >> fun question. i think the review that was published in the transcribe tribune was good. he comments on that it's a very nice review.

>> they need to -- [inaudible] >> i have a question about mr. fosters' comment on the disdain for big government in the context of mormon history. it seems to me like brigham young had a probably not so much with big government per se but quote, unquote secular government. for a religion that is now like harold bloom called it the american religion. the extoant which young didn't consider himself quote, unquote, american. the strain of, you know, is a dishesness that is an undercurrent there. i wanted to comment on the secular and american in young. >> that's a nice comment. , i mean, i think brigham young's feeling is that, you know, the u.s. has cut thread really between the church and the country through the

expulsion. and the government's failure to protect the rights of the ladder day saints. not only in illinois but and in missouri. the thread is not fully cut. there's a way in which, you know, young remains very much american, but insists that utah should have the right to operate with tremendous an an ton my. there were plane plenty of other westerners who considered -- anti-republican. people should have the right to governor themselves and that meant but butt out. in terms of big government, he didn't want outside interference from washington. 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 defense there. >> yeah. you know, i probably should have warred -- worded that better. let me rephrase that. he didn't mind big government if it was his big government. [laughter] it was more the he didn't want washington controlling. that there was that individualism, but individualism as a community and to -- and so he wanted the control to be through him and then, you know, down through, you know, the control. and i think you're right. it was more an tip think toward secular government particularly from washington than really big government.

>> doctor maxwell you'll have to speak lout -- loudly there's not a mic down here. they're bringing it. wait just a moment. [laughter] [inaudible] >> my question has do with the publicity that was given to brigham young's death. in the days and weeks that follow his dpet, 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 criticism about of your analysis? >> really only space. i read them many were amusing, but 400 pages is already a fairly long book.

i didn't want it to be 600 pages. and i know i included some -- i'm pretty sure i included some from the "tribune." which, you know, was very much a thorn in brigham young's side and had all sorts of very amusing nicknames for him, um, and the "tribune" predicted as many newspapers predicted after joseph smith's death that brigham young's passing would mark the end of this dissection, this church and "the tribune" wasn't correct about that. it didn't adopt a kinder and again leer attitude toward young in the wake of his death. you are quite right. [inaudible] >> ask a question, so it's back to the women and brigham young's

life. i'm a descendent of zina young. her two spouses were joseph smith and brigham young and my great, great grandfather henry jacobs. i'm wondering about the relationship between -- this is a biased question, of course, i was lead to believe that zina young was kind of like the head wife, but maybe that's flawed. she was the society president, midwife all over the state subpoena she visited all over the state. her journals are locked up at utah state, i believe. [laughter] because some of those talk about how she had spoken tongues and laying on of hands. anyway, i wanted to expand. is it true that brigham young called henry jacobs on a mission so he could turn around and marry his wife? >> that's a great question.

it's one of the more interesting marriages. i read some of zina's journals at the church archives there. they're not in good condition. they were hard to read, but she is such a fascinating woman with such a fierce faith. the marriage between brigham young and zina, it took place, i think 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 assent. and i think as of february of 1846, it really asks the -- [inaudible] no one possibly not even young had a clear sense how it was

going to practically work out. young has been living -- hadn't been loving with any of his plural wives and after they leave know view, it's on the journey of wifes to cross iowa that henry jacobs leaves for the mission to england. subsequently, zina becomes parking lot -- part of a household that young establishes at winter quarters. it's not living in the same house as young, it's living in a house with a number of the other wives, and there are wonderful accounts such as eliza snow the spiritual -- which they would pray together, speak in tongues together, sing together, do rites of healing for each other. and in utah -- it's still a very

emotional moment for her when she actually moves in to an early home built by brigham young. she weeps the day before she moves in. and i think it's because she is so conflicted over all of that has taken place. jacobs -- henry jacobs is very crushed when he learns what has happened. he actually -- he as you probably know, he married again as he's returning to utah. so it's, you know, it's such a complex and in some ways heart breaking story. but i have quite a bit of fondness for her. and, you know, i don't think it's quite -- one other thing i said, i don't think it's quite accurate to only think about brigham young as organize straiting these marriages. it's seems like he and kimble approached quite a few of

joseph's widows. but she had an intense aberration for brigham young. she loved his teaching. she thought it was incredibly powerful. she saw him as a potent spiritual leader. and so i'm not sure -- we quite know that we can just blame him for breaking up the preexisting marriage -- [inaudible] >> it may be accurate. and, you know, i don't think it was exactly the sensitive toward henry jacobs but i would suggest it's quited possible that zina was quite motivated also for the feeling. [inaudible] >> next question? if you have a question, haven't had a chance to read the book yet i'm curious since i have, you know, family related that we're in mount meadows. how you treated that. it. if you believe brigham young ordered that or received word to let them pass.

i had a quick comment and question related to the first vision with smith. wasn't young received -- from men in new york and joseph supposedly received the plates or was visions in the sky or something that he witnessed? >> well, brigham came from a missionary family. you are correct to recall that experience both he and kimble later talkingsed about the great vision in the sky. they associated it with the book of mormon and joseph's reception of the plates rather than with the first vision. the other question was about med koas. -- meadows. my conclusion there's not existing evidence to suggest that young ordered the massacre in meadows. i tend read the letter -- i read the letter that he sends out in

the midst of the standoff as exonerating him from that specific charge and his response is don't metal with the imgaps. let -- immigrants. let them go. i wouldn't say that brigham is entirely blameless. for instance, even in that letter he says, you know, if the indians want to kill the people, that's fine, and, you know, alliances are very important. he created this not only brigham, but he also helped create the scenario in which mountain meadows can take place. there would not have been a mass -- massacre in southern utah except for the standoff. and brigham repeatedly spoke and encouraged engine leaders to attack wagon trains. they created an environment

which leaders from the south might think they could organize orgestrate an indian massacre with the approval. he doesn't display any great concern for justice or even sanction for many years affiliate ward. i think, i think, you know, it requires a complex answer. >> next question? >> [inaudible] i'd like to go back to midtown -- there we go. back up a couple of months ago to july 24 ted of that 1857, spode supposedly when we were talking about the ten years of isolation that young was hoping that he would get that he didn't get. there are some authors and people who say that there was a given amount of theatrics with porter and others that road in to camp up there at the camp roads in what was it --

[inaudible] where they were holding the anniversary party to indicate that the army was coming. and that brigham young already knew that the army was coming. it was more of a theatrics to rally the people. what is your take on that? >> well, i think he had heard a lot of reports that the army was on the way, but i don't think it was staged theatricses, porter rock well and the others arrived in salt lake city the previous night, and then go up the canyon the next morning and so i guess it's live news in that point at that point and brigham responds and he gets a fiery speech. i think they're not sure what to make it. kind of resume dancing and mirth for the rest of the night after wards. i did look at one other -- at what other authors have said

about that and his journal from the time, and the historian's journal and sources like that and concluded that it wasn't staged theatrics. so hopefully i got it right. >> thanks. >> yeah? just go back to previous comments about isolation in young's attitude toward the united states. was ever any serious thought or consideration given to establishing the sovereign state once they got here or, i mean, was the idea of manifest destiny to -- it was inevitable already for it to be in serious consideration? >> sure. there's a lot of thought goifn that. and things done along those lines. when the latter day saints on the trail west, they become aware of the mexico-american war. and can read the tea leaves.

they know it's going to become american territory. and i think there's some uncertainty about how to respond, and so the response is twofold. number one, establish a sovereign state. the state of does ray and when the -- and pioneer day celebration is held in 1849, it's a celebration of independence. it's not celebrating american independence. it's celebrating a latter day saints independence. at the same time, the church sends petitions to washington asking to be in-- incorporated to the union. i think the hope was akin to what california had done, establish a sovereign state and have the u.s. government take it as a done deed and skip territorial status. there's actually there was some confusion. they sent one petition asking to

be admitted and got worried and sent a second petition asking for admittance of a state. congress is wary of admitting it for a number of reasons including a small population. ultimately it ends up as a utah territory. >> next question. over here with the mic, please. thank you. >> i'm wondered, you know, i have just finished reading the book this morning. it's brilliant. i wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the uniterred order, there's some comments about young's attitude with respect to capitalism. could you expand on that further? >> sure. well, he's a little hard to pin

down on capitalism mainly because his form of concern is not allowing outside capital to have too much power over developments in utah. he's very -- very much in favorite of promoting that official economic relationships with the rest of the country via telegraphs and railroads and things like that, but he's absolutely opposed to outside bankers, blood suckers and various other groups. the united order is brigham's attempt in the 1870s to establish or revive the communetarian ideal of economic consecration. it goes back to joseph smith in the 1830s and economics is one area in which brigham young

found that his people would resist his leadership. so in the 1850s, he encourages people to really only symbolically concentrate the property to the church. he gets a half-hearted reaction. he self shelves the plan for the time and revive it is toward the ends of his life. for him, economic unity was central to his vision of establishing zion on earth. establishing the kingdom of god on earth. but he recognized perhaps how impossible that was. he was wary of consecrating his own property because he didn't think anybody else could manage it as well as he could. i have an interesting -- i found it interesting in the 1870s there are two things that about mating him. number one the united order which is trying to make earth more like zion, more like heaven, and then the saint george temple, and so the united

order is very mixed success. something that can't be brought to full fruition. at the end of his life, i think he sames the saint george temple at least establishing a glimpse of that heavenly unity on earth. he talks about it too in conjunction with each other. thank you. [inaudible] >> using up time? agree, that's too bad. [laughter] i think you will find the book fascinating as i have. it is very hard to get an judgment about several people in american history. how many books on george armstrong?

how many books on lincoln? you see the proliferation and brigham young suspect in that category, he's in the category just below because there are lots of commentaryies. this one is superior to most, if not all. it is very mature, as we end, i would like you to thank our panelists and our author and to wish them well. thank you. [applause] for more information visit the authors website johngturner.com. tonight i'm going discuss

abraham lincoln's role in 1860 and 1861. more specific, i want to talk about why abraham lincoln rejected any meaningful comprise. following his election as president november 18 of 1860, the country was gripped by a sectional crisis because many southern earns feared lincoln and the republican party. the republican party was a northern party and proudly so. did not have a significant southern connection. lincoln was elected around a single electoruate vote from any of the fief -- fifteen slave states and four of the bordering states. he get any popular votes and nearly a handful. for the first time in the nation's history, a party without any notable would be

taking over the branch 69 government. there was more. the republican party was z aside proudly a northwestern p northern party. during the brief existence it was founded in the 1850. the rhetoric had a song for the south and the south south major social institution racial slavery. the determination that the republican's determination that -- that could win a election without any southern support. republicans repeatedly condemned the south as unprogressive. undemocratic, even un-american. with this party on the threshold of the presidency, southern sectional radicals -- those people who preach the gospel of the union. they took to the public platform and the newspaper colins -- column to proclaim the crisis of the south was at hand. the south had to act immediately to protect itself from the evil

republicans who cried the succession -- [inaudible] and this was not the first time sectional crisis had gripped the country. there have been several sharp sectional disputes prior to 1860. each of these -- each of the major ones had been settled by a comprise. herely point to the specifically to the four critical ones. first, the constitutional convention of 1778. the missouri crisis of 1820, which had to did do the admission of missouri as a slave state and the louisiana purchase which was more than the state of louisiana be covered all the territory from the mississippi river to the rockies mountains. it was settled be i the missouri comprise. then in 1832 and '33 the

nullification controversy between the state of south carolina and the graft was -- federal government was settled by comprise. family the late 1840s the battle over the future of slavely are in the territory won from mexico known as a mexican session following the mexican war was settled by the comprise of 1850. and thus, you look at these four examples, tradition and place for another settlement to take place in 1860 and '61. the chief issue between the republicans and the south involves slavery, but not slavery in the fifteen states where it existed. almost automatic american -- all americans republicans included that the constitution protected slavery in the states where it existed. rather 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 that we think of today as the grat plains, the rocky mountains and west of the rocky mountains to california. didn't include california because california, as you know, was already a state. question was critical because it had to do with the future of slavery about future of southern power in the nation. now, southerners demanded what they saw as the constitution nailing rights as american citizens to take their property -- including slave property in to territories owned by the entire nation. in 1857, in the whistle