5 minute read
\"Utah has not Seceded\" A Footnote to Local History
Utah Historical Quarterly
Vol. 26, 1958, No. 2
"UTAH HAS NOT SECEDED" A FOOTNOTE TO LOCAL HISTORY
By Gaylon L. Caldwell
Perhaps the single disadvantage of interest in local history is the tendency of its devotees to exaggerate the importance of regional events to the extent that their conception of the mainstream of history is colored, if not positively distorted, by the exaggeration. This proclivity would seem to be more likely in an ethnocentric community such as Utah because it is precisely those who regard history — and particularly their own history — so seriously who are most liable to become unconscious creators and victims of historical distortion. But even if writers of local history remain constantly aware of this hazard and seek continuously to minimize it, a case can be made for the genuine need for local revisionists — that is, sympathetic iconoclasts who are sufficiently concerned to inquire into and evaluate the accounts of even the most minor occurrences with the view of ascertaining their proper perspective.
A case in point is the very quotable, and oft-quoted, message by Brigham Young during the dark days of secession when he publicly announced the loyalty of the inhabitants of the territory of Utah to the cause of the Union. As a youth, the writer, like every Utah schoolboy, knew that when the telegraph was completed to Utah Territory the first message to flash eastward over the wires was sent by Brigham Young. Although he had not read the text, he had learned from history teachers in the public schools and from innumerable speakers at the various types of Latter-day Saint church meetings that it contained the patriotic words: "Utah has not seceded, but is firm for the Constitution....."
His imagination, probably like that of most Utah youngsters before and since, was kindled to imagine how this inspiring message was received in the great world outside. He enjoyed the fantasy that pictured the supporters of the Union as filled with relief and joy to have gained such an estimable ally, while the Confederates gnashed their teeth in consternation to have lost one. It was only years later, as he thumbed through old newspapers published from New England to the heart of the Confederacy, that he realized the message which had been so electrifying when repeated from pulpit and classroom in the twentieth-century Mormon culture actually had been received with indifference in nineteenth-century America. If it was considered by the press to be noteworthy at all, Brigham Young's pronouncement was generally treated merely as a news item and was not accorded editorial comment. In the few instances when it was a subject for additional mention, it served the purpose of comic relief rather than of bolstering the Northern will to fight.
For example, the New York treatment of Brother Brigham's message was typical in that all five of the papers examined were profoundly interested in the westward march of the telegraph but not particularly interested in its arrival in the "Mormon Country" and not at all interested in the professed loyalty of the Saints. What was not typical was that each of these newspapers carried the texts of both Brigham Young's message to J. H. Wade and the grandiloquent one Acting Governor Fuller sent to President Lincoln two days later. Of these five, only one accorded front-page space to the texts, and only the Herald and the Times commented on these texts. The former merely mentioned "a congratulatory message sent by Brigham Young — who, by-the-by, assures us that Utah is firm for the Union — on the opening of the Pacific Telegraph line to Salt Lake City. .. ." Before one lays aside the Times after having read on page four: "The great Apostle of the 'Saints' announces the important fact that Utah has not seceded, but is firm for the Constitution and the laws," he must place this "important fact" in context with the whimsical tone of an editorial on the following page, which stated:
Two of the five New York newspapers found the attempt of the Mormons to grow cotton in Utah's Dixie more newsworthy than their repudiation of secession.
The reception of the message in New England also apparently was less than thunderous. The papers reviewed were very much interested in the completion of the line to San Francisco but not in the statement that had come from Fort Bridger. To be precise, half of the eight newspapers made no mention at all of Mormon loyalty and of two that did, the text was printed without comment. One of these used its editorial space to discuss "The Opium Shops of Java," presumably a subject of more concern to the citizens of New Haven than the statement by Utah Territory's highest ranking spiritual and secular leaders. A later editorial in the other paper told of "many patriotic messages" received by President Lincoln and referred explicitly to several, including one from the secretary of the California Pioneer Sons of Temperance; but the loyal message from Utah's Acting Governor received no notice. A third newspaper reported simply that the telegraph was in Utah, while a fourth published a paraphrased version of Brigham Young's text and then chose "The Loyal Women of St. Louis" as its editorial topic, while the loyal Mormons of the Far West were forgotten. One of the four weekly newspapers that failed to publish news either of the arrival of the telegraph or of Utah's adherence to the Union did report the newsworthy fact that Mrs. Joseph Hollister's garden had yielded the editor a fully ripe sprig of raspberries — the second crop of the year. The exchange of messages between the mayors of New York and San Francisco upon the arrival of the telegraph at the West Coast received elaborate attention in a later edition. Thanks to its telegraphic facilities, a Massachusetts newspaper that was unconcerned about Utah was able to report a volcanic disturbance in the Dead Sea.
In the City of Brotherly Love, the Philadelphia North American and United States Gazette accorded the text of Brigham Young's dispatch first-page position, whereas the Press published Fuller's congratulatory wire to Lincoln but did not print that of the Mormon leader to Mr. Wade. The Inquirer mentioned only that the telegraph had arrived at Fort Bridger and omitted the protestations of loyalty of both Young and Fuller.
The pro-Confederate newspapers examined indicated that their subscribers had read both about the progress of the telegraph line (but only when it arrived in California) and about Mormons (Remy's article, "Journey to Great Salt Lake City," which offered minute details about polygamy, was front-page copy at this time). However, none of the three was interested in the use of the telegraph by the Mormons to avow fidelity to the Constitution.
In the Old West after the historic day of October 18, 1861, one Cincinnati newspaper relegated the text of Brigham Young's stirring telegram to page three, while it devoted a good deal of space on page one to the description of a Mormon-style criminal execution.
Finally, a second Cincinnati editor, who accorded more comment than any of the others to the Mormons per se, indicated unequivocally his impression of the loyalty statement from Fort Bridger when he wrote:
This brief investigation was made of an event that finds its way into most books on Utah history. It was undertaken to ascertain the reaction of the then-contemporary Americans to the declaration: "Utah has not seceded. . . ." The result suggests a footnote to our local history.
Yet in a larger sense, the failure of the press of both North and South in Civil War America to regard seriously what was conceived by the people of Utah, then and now, to be the classic statement of Mormon devotion to the Union, might profitably serve as a parable.
For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.
