This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
American history is largely the story of self-governance. The great question posed by the founding of the United States — Are people capable of governing themselves? — remains the central dilemma of our democracy. How do the powers of the government and the rights of the people reach equilibrium in real life? And in that quest, where lies the proper intersection of national and local control?
A new book by Brent M. Rogers, "Unpopular Sovereignty," chronicles the federal government's struggle to gain the upper hand in Utah Territory in the face of strong, determined local leadership. The mid-19th century found the U.S. government laboring to balance national interests with local demands in various Western territories. Then, as now, the line between federal and local authority was not always clear. The needs of an expanding nation often clashed with the call of territorial citizens for self-determination.
Because they conflated slaveholders and polygamists as equal threats to national governance, politicians struggled over how to deal with each group. The result was an often inconsistent, messy realignment between and within the political parties. Rogers, a scholar and editor at The Joseph Smith Papers, offers a nuanced narrative that challenges prevalent assumptions about the flow of authority, highlighting how race, religion and sex functioned as disruptive forces in territorial politics.
Plural marriage complicated the territory's relationship to the U.S. government on multiple levels. Because they defied the customary sexual order, Mormons were an affront to the Victorian values of 19th-century America. Likewise, the Army was a threat to Utah's unique sexual structure. In every phase of military-Mormon contact in the 1850s, the Army sought to lure Mormon women away from their "harems." The sexual conquest of Mormon women was not simply the byproduct of licentious, ill-behaved soldiers; rather, it was a calculated assault on the political stability in Utah.
Like sex, race and religion were significant wedges in the growing split between the nation and the territory. Within the national culture, both Mormons and Indians were outsiders, viewed with suspicion and disdain and as an impediment to westward expansion. Perception of a Mormon-Indian alliance dated back to the 1830s, but government agents saw the Mormon missionary effort to convert the tribes of the Mountain West as little more than a ruse for LDS leaders to convince the Indians that Mormons were the white people Natives should trust. Ironically, Mormon leaders were equally concerned the government was trying to enlist the Indians against the territorial citizens.
The Indian question gave the government its justification for sending troops to Utah, which is exactly what President James Buchanan did in 1857. The Utah War was a clear overreach of federal authority that undermined the philosophical underpinnings of popular sovereignty, exposed the growing rift within the Democratic Party and served as a cautionary tale to slaveholders.
Although they benefited financially as they traded with, fed and built buildings for the Army, Utahns complained bitterly about the government presence in their lives. Mormons felt the sting of being branded unfit for self-government as the height of hypocrisy. More insulting still was that the Democratic candidate for president in 1860, Stephen Douglas — once considered a friend to Joseph Smith and the Mormon church in Illinois — was leading the charge.
The hypocrisy and irony were not lost on Lincoln and the Republicans, who were quick to point out that Douglas and the Democrats could not attack polygamy without attacking slavery. If Utah's right to exist as a territory could be revoked because Congress saw the population as "unrepublican," then why could it not do the same to Kansas or Nebraska?
In the end, the commitment to popular sovereignty cost the Democrats the election in 1860. Lincoln's victory marked the end of popular sovereignty and underscored the reality of federal authority over the territories. Despite Brigham Young's continued objections, legislation such as the Homestead Act and the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act allowed the government to consolidate control of the Western territories, including (and especially) Utah.
"Unpopular Sovereignty" is a balanced, responsible and relevant account that will give pause to every political persuasion and historical bent. Rogers demonstrates how significant Utah was at a time of national turmoil and a major realignment of the political parties. We, too, live in a time of political realignment in which the major struggles may play out as much within as between our parties. In the 1850s, Utah played a major, albeit unwanted, role in the national dialogue that helped to define freedom, federalism and republican government. In our current climate, one cannot help but wonder whether Utah and its dominant faith will have that opportunity thrust upon them again.
Kurt Graham is a historian and the author of "To Bring Law Home: The Federal Judiciary in Early National Rhode Island." He currently directs the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum in Independence, Mo. —
Unpopular Sovereignty
Mormons and the Federal Management of Early Utah Territory
By Brent M. Rogers
University of Nebraska Press
Pages • 402
Price • $32 (paperback)
Book signing
Meet Brent M. Rogers as he signs copies and talks about his new book.
When • Friday, March 31, noon- 1 p.m.
Where • Benchmark Books, 3269 S. Main St., Suite 250, South Salt Lake
More information • benchmarkbooks.com or 801-486-3111