Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 64, Number 3, 1996

UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY (ISSN 0042-143X)

EDITORIAL STAFF

MAX J. EVANS, Editor

STANFORD J. LAYTON, ManagingEditor

MIRIAM B. MURPHY, Associate Editor

ADVISORY BOARD OF EDITORS

MAUREEN URSENBACH BEECHER, Salt Lake City, 1997

JANICE P. DAWSON, Layton, 1996

AUDREY M GODFREY, Logan, 1997

JOEL C JANETSKI, Provo, 1997

ROBERT S. MCPHERSON, Blanding, 1998

ANTONETTE CHAMBERS NOBLE, Cora, WY, 1996

GENE A. SESSIONS, Ogden,1998

GARY TOPPING, Salt Lake City, 1996

RICHARD S VAN WAGONER, Lehi, 1998

Utah Historical Quarterly was established in 1928 to publish articles, documents, and reviews contributing to knowledge of Utah's history. The Quarterly is published four times a year by the Utah State Historical Society, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. Phone (801) 533-3500 for membership and publications information. Members of the Society receive the Quarterly, Beehive History, and the bimonthly Newsletter upon payment of the annual dues: individual, $20.00; institution, $20.00; student and senior citizen (age sixty-five or over), $15.00; contributing, $25.00; sustaining, $35.00; patron, $50.00; business, $100.00

Materials for publication should be submitted in duplicate, typed double-space, with footnotes at the end. Authors are encouraged to submit material in a computer-readable form, on 5V* or VA inch MS-DOS or PC-DOS diskettes,standardASCIItextfile.Foradditional information on requirements contact the managing editor.Articles represent the views of the audior and are not necessarilythose of die Utah State Historical Society

Second class postage is paid at Salt Lake City, Utah

Postmaster: Send form 3579 (change of address) to Utah Historical Quarterly, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.

DANIEL C MCCOOL , ED Watersof Zion: ThePolitics of Water in Utah . . . .MICHAEL E. CHRISTENSEN

J. ELDON DORMAN. Confessionsof a Coal CampDoctorand Other Stories

282

EDWARD A. GEARY 283

BRENT CORCORAN. Park City Underfoot: Self-guided Tours ofHistoric Neighborhoods ELIZABETH EGLESTON 284

MARY LYTHGOE BRADFORD Lowell L. Reunion: Teacher, Counselor, Humanitarian .DOUGLAS D ALDER 286

ANNA JEAN BACKUS. Mountain Meadows Witness: The Life and Times ofBishop Philip Klingensmith . . . .HUG H C. GARNER 287

DAVID WALLACE ADAMS. Education for Extinction: American Indians and theBoarding SchoolExperience, 1875-1928 . . .KIM M. GRUENWALD 289

MELINDA ELLIOTT. Great Excavations: TalesofEarly Southwestern Archaeology, 1888-1939 KEVIN T.JONES 290

In this issue

The familiar backdrop of the Mormon-gentile conflict assumes a slightly different look as some relatively unknown personalities take center stage in our first two articles. General Regis de Trobriand was an extraordinary man to begin with. Cosmopolitan and artistic, this French-born sophisticate was an unlikely sort to carry Uncle Sam's banner in the often muddled and treacherous cauldron of nineteenth-century Utah politics, particularly given his distaste for such a role But when he found this responsibility thrust upon him, he responded with a natural confidence and style that earned him

the respect of most principals of the time and of historians since. His story is followed by an analysis of a newspaper war in the territory as the Valley Tan and the Mountaineer exchanged polemics, hyperbole, and unabashed accusations in a wild two-yearjournalistic brawl. Yet, to the benefit of the historical record, that melee shed at least a ray of light on the murky question of personal violence in early territorial Utah.

The third article shifts to the twentieth century and conflict of a different type—the clash of cultures in our public school system. Noting that the boarding school experience of Native Americans has been scrutinized over and over again, the author breaks new ground with this bold study of Ute students in Uinta Basin public schools. It is a complex story of federal strategies, local white priorities, and traditional Ute values all seeking accommodation and balance.

The concluding selection continues our year-long emphasis on the centennial as one of Utah's foremost historians examines the interplay of thoughts and events that shaped our state constitution. It will not only command a lasting historiographic niche for its revisionist conclusions but will also serve as the standard reference for anyone seeking to understand territorial development within the context of U.S. constitutional law.

Our colorful front-cover scene of the original Brigham Young Academy in Provo features that wonderful montage of detail and impression that is artist Jacque Baker's hallmark As she bicycles past the historic structure to promote its exciting future, the editors of the Quarterly yell thanks for her thoughtfulness and generosity in letting us share her painting with our readers

General Regis de Trobriand. USES collections.

General Regis de Trobriand, the Mormons, and the U.S. Army at Camp Douglas, 1870-71

BY MARK R GRANDSTAFF

I N LATE SEPTEMBER 1871 AN IMPORTANT DEBATE took place in the office of Brigham Young. Anticipating being charged and arrested for lewd and lascivious cohabitation with his polygamous wives, the Mormon leader wanted to use the arrest as an opportunity to "meet and fight the opposition in the courtroom." He hoped to demonstrate that the charges against him were a product of persecution and intolerance.

Dr Grandstaff is an assistant professor of history at Brigham Young University where he specializes in U.S military history He wishes to thank Professors Edward M Coffman and Thomas G Alexander for reading and critiquing this article and Dr Roger Launius for supplying several sources

Oil painting of Camp Douglas by General de Trobriand. USHS collections.

ApostleJohn Taylor confronted Young over the possibility of someone assassinating him while incarcerated Having been present when the first Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was murdered, Taylor wanted to make sure that it did not happen again Young rejected the analogy of 1844 and Carthage Jail but promised Taylor that he would take no unnecessary chances Turning to one of the elders present, Young asked him to take a message to the post commander at Camp Douglas, General Regis de Trobriand. Tell him, Young dictated, that " [I] fully trust the honor of the military for protection [as I] might [soon] be his guest." Later that day de Trobriand sent word back to Young assuring him that if arrested "he would be protected."1

As relations between the Mormons and the army had been problematic, it is a bit surprising to find Young placing his life in the hands of an army officer. But this was no ordinary army officer. Born Philippe Regis Denis Keredern de Trobriand near Tours, France, on June 4, 1816, he was the son and nephew of two French generals. As a child and son of a baron-general, his playmates included the young Due de Bordeaux, later Charles X, the king of France. In 1841 he visited the United States, married the daughter of a prestigious New York City banker, and lived in Europe—painting, writing, and performing opera. 2

After returning to the United States in 1847 and becoming an editor for a leading French-American newspaper, he filed for citizenship shortly after the South fired on Fort Sumter. Tendered a colonelcy in the 55th NewYork Volunteer Regiment in August 1861, he had by 1865 been breveted to the ranks of brigadier and major general and given command of a division in the Army of the Potomac. The only other Frenchman to obtain the rank of major general in the U.S. Army was American Revolutionary War hero Marquis de Lafayette.3

The place of de Trobriand in the ranks of postwar regimental commanders is even more remarkable considering that only a third of all regimental commanders were not soldiers prior to the war. Of those, only de Trobriand had been born outside of the United States, become a naturalized citizen, and gone on to a generalship. His friend, General-in-Chief of the Army William T. Sherman, put this accomplishment into perspective: "I was glad, de Trobriand, when you

'Journal History, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, September 26, 1871, microfilm CR 100/137 #28, Special Collections, Brigham Young University, Provo See also de Trobriand to General Christopher Augur, Department of the Platte, October 1, 1871, de Trobriand Collection, Mormon file, United States Military Academy (hereinafter USMA), West Point, New York

2 Marie Caroline Post, ed., The Life and Memoirs ofComte Regis de Trobriand: Major-General in the Army of the United States (New York: E P Dutton, 1910), p 90

3 Moreover, of all the regular officers born outside the United States and not soldiers prior to the war, he was the highest ranking

were one of the chosen; out of six hundred colonels, there were only twenty-five kept for the regular army. You were a brevet major-general becoming a colonel, but, there were full generals who became simple majors and captains."4

Upon being assigned as a regimental commander, de Trobriand served first in the Dakotas and then went to Montana in late 1869 as its military district commander. 5 During this period he began to exhibit those traits that more or less exemplified the collective mentality of the professional army officers of the period. These traits included a dislike of political intrigue, a wariness about the motivations of politicians and self-promoting army officers, a dislike for the army's expanding constabulary role, and the desire to place the needs of the army over personal interests.6 Obviously, some officers exhibited this thinking more than others; some not at all. Nevertheless, this professional mentality combined with de Trobriand's appreciation of foreign cultures and inherent sense of "noblesse oblige" formed a sophisticated framework from which he would judge Utah politicians and the Mormons.

In the spring of 1870, after consulting with Generals Sherman and Philip Sheridan, Brevet Brigadier General Christopher Augur, commander of the Department of the Platte, ordered de Trobriand to headquarter the 13th Infantry at Camp Douglas.7 Described by

4 Post, Memoirs, p. 503.

5 A year after the war he interviewed for a regular officer position and then returned to France to write Quatre Ans de Campagnes a VArmee of the Potomac, published in 1866 One of the first works written by a ranking general about the war, it was translated into English in 1867 and received praise from the likes of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan (though given Sheridan's dislike of books it is unlikely that he ever read it). While writing the work he received a letter from the War Department tendering him a regular commission and a colonelcy in the 31st Infantry

By the time de Trobriand returned to the U.S. in 1867 regimental headquarters had been set up at Fort Stevenson in the Dakotas, a fairly quiet assignment that introduced him to the vicissitudes of frontier life During his two years there he found time to paint, learn the Sioux dialect, and maintain ajournal of Indian culture In 1868 he penned a portrait of Sitting Bull and finished his most famous work, Military Life in the Dakotas—still a standard for the scholar of the Old Army See Post, Memoirs, pp 364-66 In 1869, when the Army was forced to reduce to twenty-five regiments of infantry, the 31st was consolidated with the 22nd Infantry under the command of David S Stanley, and Sheridan, the new commander of the Missouri, gave de Trobriand command of the 13th. Given Sherman's and Sheridan's high regard for his abilities and integrity, perhaps it was no arbitrarily made decision that de Trobriand received the 13th Infantry Sherman was its first regimental commander during the war and Sheridan one of its first captains For an excellent analysis of de Trobriand's relationships with civilians, other military officers, and the Piegans in Montana, see Paul A Hutton, Phil Sheridan and His Army (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985), pp 180-99

6 The best works analyzing this mentalite are William B Skelton, An American Profession of Arms: The Army Officer Corps, 1784-1861 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1992), especially chaps 13, 15, 16; and Edward M Coffman, The Old Army: A Portrait of the American Army in Peacetime, 1784-1898 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), chap. 5. See also Robert Utley, Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian, 1866-1891 (New York: Macmillan, 1973); and Robert Wooster, The Military and United States Indian Policy, 1865-1903 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).

7 Between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century the army divided the country into the Atlantic, Missouri, and Pacific divisions Most troops in the Atlantic served in the Departments of the East and South and performed duties unrelated to Indian affairs and frontier life The Missouri and

Sheridan as "an American consulate in a foreign city," Camp Douglas had been established on October 26, 1862, by Colonel Patrick E Connor on the bench immediately above Salt Lake City to both protect the overland mail route and "keep watch over the Mormons." 8 In June 1869 part of the 7th Infantry, under the command of Colonel John Gibbon, took charge of the camp from the 18th Infantry.9

On June 11, 1870, de Trobriand,

Pacific divisions dealt closely with Indian affairs and sought to make the frontier safe for establishing white communities The Missouri was the largest division, encompassing most of the troops and the largest geographic area (the states of Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas, Indian Territory, and the territories of Colorado, Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Utah)

In August 1866 Missouri was further divided into three departments: Arkansas, Dakota, and the Platte The Department of the Platte encompassed Iowa, Nebraska and Utah territories, and parts of Wyoming and Montana

In 1870 the department contained fourteen posts with 3,951 troops, or an average of 282 soldiers per post. Sheridan was the Missouri Division commander, and Augur became the Platte's commander in November 1867 See Richard Guentzel, "The Department of the Platte and Western Settlement, 1866-1877," Nebraska History 56 (Fall 1975): 389-417; and Arthur P Wade, "The Military Command Structure, 1853-1891," Journal of the West 15 (July 1976): 5-21

Augur, the Platte's commander, attended West Point with Ulysses S Grant from 1839 to 1843, participated in the Mexican War, and earned much praise from Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan for his management abilities during the Civil War. Efficient, apolitical, and a complex thinker, he handled tough problems discreetiy, which endeared him to his superiors While others sought promotion and popularity, Augur pursued the goals of the army and his superiors See Hutton, Phil Sheridan and His Army, p 122, and Ezra J Warner, Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1964), p 12

8 As quoted in Guentzel, "The Department of the Platte," p 406 Although the official orders did not direct the Army to "watch over the Mormons," it was certainly implied, and Connor believed it to be an important part of his mission See Lyman C Pedersen, Jr., "History of Fort Douglas, Utah" (Ph.D diss., Brigham Young University, 1967), a useful but dated work; Charles G Hibbard, "Fort Douglas, 1862-1916: Pivotal Link on the Western Frontier" (Ph.D diss., University of Utah, 1980); Leonard J Arrington and Thomas G Alexander, "The U.S Army Overlooks Salt Lake Valley: Fort Douglas, 1862-1965," Utah Historical Quarterly 33 (1965): 326-50; and Brigham D. Madsen, Glory Hunter: A Biography ofPatrick Edward Connor (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990)

9 Gibbon, another successful Civil War general, found work among the Mormons—including bailing his troops out of Salt Lake Cityjails—tedious and distasteful He objected to the city police entering the military reservation to apprehend disorderly soldiers Army General Orders strictly prohibited civilian authorities from entering government lands without the authorization of the post commander He also disliked the duty of feeding indigent former Mormons who in consequence of "not agreeing with the Church they [were] cutoff from all work, and are unable to support their families" (July 21, 1869). See, for instance, Post Record Book, Camp Douglas, entries dated July 21, 1869, January 30, 1870, February 20, 23, 1870, microfilm A1340, Utah State Historical Society (hereinafter USHS), Salt Lake City

Philippe Regis de Trobriand. USES collections.

along with Companies A, F, I, and K, began their arduous 556-mile march from Fort Shaw, Montana, to Corinne, Utah, where the railroad would take them the additional 72 miles to Salt Lake City. The trek took about 40 days as soldiers marched from 4 A.M to noon, covering between 12 and 18 miles per day.10 Other companies of the regiment marched off to their new stations, while Gibbon and the 7th Infantry moved from Utah and Wyoming to Montana to relieve the 13th Infantry.

Upon assuming command of the post on July 15, de Trobriand found himself in a position to forge the 13th Infantry into an effective fighting force. Unlike the Civil War, when regiments remained together, the nature of the frontier mission dictated that companies break off from the main regiments to garrison various forts and camps. In 1870 alone the 13th had companies dispersed throughout Wyoming and Utah.11 But as of July 1870 about half of the regiment was with de Trobriand at Camp Douglas.12 This provided opportunities for the officers and men to get to know each other and drill as a unit, for this was the first time that a significant part of the regiment had been assigned to one post.13

De Trobriand's immediate concerns centered on establishing a daily routine and enforcing discipline. The day after he assumed command, the daily schedule was posted: reveille at 5 A.M.; work details, marksmanship practice, and drilling throughout the day; and taps at 9 P.M.14

Discipline in the frontier army was harsh and at times could be brutal. For a small infraction, such as missing muster or not carrying out duties properly, the penalty was often extra duty.15 With no civilian custodians to keep the camp clean, it was up to the soldiers to maintain it in good repair These punishments often provided up to 10 percent of the enlisted force for such extra duty. More serious infractions, such as desertion, fighting, and insubordination, usually demanded incarceration for several months, a loss of pay, and hard physical

10 U. G. McAlexander, History of the Thirteenth United States Infantry (Fort McDowell, Calif.: Regimental Press, 1905), pp 72-73

11 Ibid

12 Ibid., p. 74. According to the July 1870 Post Returns, Companies C and E arrived on June 25, and de Trobriand and regimental staff and band, along with Companies J and K arrived on July 15 After C and K departed for Provo on the 28th, the strength at Camp Douglas as ofJuly 31 was 11 officers and 104 enlisted men

n McAlexander, History of the Thirteenth, pp 73-74

14 General Order 31, July 18, 1870, Post Record Book, RG 393, Part V, Entry 10, Vol 2 of 15, Camp Douglas, Utah, Military Branch (MB), National Archives (NA), Washington, D.C

15 Coffman, The Old Army, pp. 198-99, 372-73; Darlis A. Miller, The Frontier Army in the Far West, 1860-1900 (St. Louis: Forum Press, 1979), p. 11.

labor.16 When a captain under his command was too lenient in his sentence of a private who verbally insulted a sergeant, de Trobriand reprimanded the officer and told him to reconsider the sentence. The action of the private, he felt, was "a gross violation which, if not properly repressed" would demoralize the regiment.17

Besides focusing on cultivating regimental cohesion, de Trobriand began building new barracks and recreational facilities. In a letter to the department's adjutant general, he enclosed estimates to build family quarters for officers and to replace a rear building of the camp's hospital. He justified such requests on the basis of better efficiency and morale.18 He was also particularly concerned about the education of the enlisted men's children and requested a new school for them Although the War Department turned down his request for a school, the barracks were finally approved and constructed in the late 1870s De Trobriand would make sure that enlisted men had a billiard table, a reading room, and a place to stage theatricals.19

Some of his more immediate concerns also centered on his own quarters, as someone had taken the wardrobe and extension table that Gibbon had left Writing to the post quartermaster, de Trobriand's aide made sure that the young captain got the message: "As they [the wardrobe and table] belong to his quarters, the Brevet Brigadier General directs that you ascertain what has become of those articles." The table and wardrobe were shortly returned.20 But the quartermaster was not out of hot water yet When de Trobriand saw a civilian employee passing "leisurely" by, using an army horse on his way to Salt Lake City, he had his aide write another note to the captain: "The Brevet Brigadier General Commanding directs me to call for an explanation of this apparent violation of orders."21 He received the report in short order with a promise that it would not happen again.

Despite problems with the quartermaster, de Trobriand probably considered himself fortunate to have such a seasoned group of officers serving under his command Of the 33 officers in the 13th Infantry, 17 (52 percent) had served in the Civil War. Although in

16 Coffman, The Old Army, pp. 373-74; Miller, The Frontier Army, p. 11. A deserter in time of war could be executed Other punishments included confinement for several years, rations of bread and water, and dismissal from the service

17 De Trobriand to Captain A S Hough, October 21, 1870, Post Letter Book, USHS

18 Post Record Book, August 4, 1870, USHS

19 Circular dated August 8, 1871, RG 393 Part V, Entry 10, Vol 2 of 15, Fort Douglas, Utah, Special Orders, NA

20 Post Record Book, July 30, 1870, USHS

21 Post Adjutant to Post Quartermaster, July 30, 1870, in ibid

1870 only 3 of these officers were above the rank of major, during the war 8 had been field grade officers or higher, including 2 at the rank of brevet major general, 1 brevet brigadier general, and 3 brevet colonels. None of these senior officers had been in the army before the war, however, all having made their rank as volunteers. They were reduced in rank when tendered a regular commission after the war. 22 It was a bitter pill for many. For example, Brevet Major General Henry A. Morrow, a member of the famous Irish Brigade during the Civil War and now a lieutenant colonel, could not give up the belief that he was destined for future command.23 Self-promoting and over-confident of his military ability, Morrow was often at odds with de Trobriand over War Department policy and departmental orders. De Trobriand saw him as "an able politician" who sought his own advancement at the sake of duty.24 Fortunately, per War Department policy, as the second highest ranking officer Morrow commanded a 13th Infantry regimental garrison at Fort Steele, Wyoming, some two-hundred-plus miles from Salt Lake City.

De Trobriand was to clash with more than one former high-ranking Civil War "politician/officer." Seven months prior to the 13th Infantry's entrance into the Salt Lake Valley, President Ulysses S. Grant, the former commanding general of the Union armies, adopted a "gettough" policy toward the Mormons and appointed former Brevet Brigadier GeneralJohn Wilson Shaffer to the post of Utah's territorial governor. 25 Shaffer, a former chief of staff to General Benjamin Butler, "the Beast of New Orleans," learned firsthand what an occupying force of federal officials could do to bring a people into subjugation.26 In a style more characteristic of a military dictator than a diplomat or politi-

22 The Official Army Registerfor January, 1870 (Washington, D.C: Adjutant General's Office, 1870), pp 134—36 Brevet ranks were given for gallantry, much as a medal is given today A regular officer's official rank was determined by his ascent up the military hierarchy based on date of rank (seniority). One could be a regular captain and a brevet brigadier general, but one would only receive the rights and duties of a captain The brevet and the stories surrounding gallantry were often reserved for discussions at the officers' mess. Approximately 1,700 Civil War officers were breveted major general or brigadier general See Mark Boatner, The Civil War Dictionary (New York: Vintage Books, 1987), p 84

23 For an important insight into Morrow's aspirations see his Civil War diary: "To Chancellorsville with the Iron Brigade," Civil War Times Illustrated 14 (January 1976): 12-22; and "The Last of the Iron Brigade," ibid (February 1976): 10-21

24 See, for instance, de Trobriand to Territorial Governor George Woods, December 15, 1871, de Trobriand Collection, Utah file, USMA I am grateful to Roger D Launius for generously sharing this letter with me.

25 Gustive O Larson, The Americanization of Utah for Statehood (San Marino, Calif: Huntington Library, 1971), pp 72-73 Regarding Shaffer's appointment see Jack E Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires: Governors and Territorial Government, 1784-1912 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968), p 274 Shaffer had important friends in the Grant administration, including Vice-president Schuyler Colfax; the chaplain of the Senate, Joh n P Newman; and Secretary of War Joh n Rawlins

26 For Shaffer's war record see War Department, War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, D.C: GPO, 1880-1901), 15:694—695

cian, Shaffer challenged the Mormon leadership to acknowledge his authority. "Never after me, by God," the bellicose former general allegedly said, "shall it be said that Brigham Young is governor of Utah."27

In a move to exercise his authority, on September 15, 1870, Shaffer suspended the annual musters of the militia and replaced its leader, Lieutenant General Daniel H. Wells, a counselor to Brigham Young in the LDS church and the mayor of Salt Lake City, with Patrick E Connor.28 Although the Mormons

27 As quoted in Robert Dwyer, The Gentile Comes to Utah: A Study in Religious and Social Conflict (Salt Lake City: Western Epics, 1971), p. 66; and Larson, The Americanization, pp 72-/3 When General Nathan P Banks relieved Butler of command in 1862, he chided Shaffer for his exaggerated estimates of enemy forces and military supplies Banks disliked the number of government entities he found there—a military government, a state government, an independent pro-Southern judiciary, and an informal government consisting of revenue and custom officials Moreover, the army had been reduced to a posse comitatus placed at the whim of whomever wielded power at the time. Perhaps determined not to make the mistakes that Butler had in Louisiana, Shaffer sought to impose strict enforcement of federal laws in Utah and hoped to take a strong hold of legislative matters See War of the Rebellion Records, 15: 694-695

28 p roc l ama tion s of Governor Shaffer, September 15, 1870, Utah Territorial Executive Papers, microfilm A-704, 3424-3426, USHS; Dwyer, The Gentile, pp 69-71; and Thomas G Alexander and James B Allen, Mormons and Gentiles: A History of Salt Lake City (Boulder, Colo.: Pruett Publishing, 1984), p 93

Upon arriving in Salt Lake City in March, Shaffer found that the governor had little power The office, he complained, "was a mere sinecure a mockery It is hard to be nominally Gov in Utah Brigham Young is permitted to exercise the power of law giver and autocrat of the territory." He described the Territorial Legislature as "composed of Young's most subservient instruments ready always to do the bidding of the Prophet." See Shaffer to Cullom, April 27, 1870, State Department MSS, Utah, No. 686, NA.

The Mormon theocracy was not the only problem Federal territorial policies were ill-defined, and territorial officers rarely received support from their parent federal agency, the State Department To a very real extent the territories, not the federal government, defined federal-territorial relations Governors repeatedly called for precise instructions or policy statements, only to be told to reread the Organic Act of their territory Governors received no training and were not adequately apprised of federal policies or their duties The State Department provided general guidelines and hoped that the governors would make good decisions. See Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires, pp. 301-2.

When Shaffer pleaded with Secretary of State Hamilton Fish to allow him to choose probate judges and empower the Utah district courts to empanel their own juries, Fish made it clear that he was not prepared to interpose federal authority: "Some of the attributes of these courts are unusual and anomalous, but it is to be observed. . . . that under our principles of administration, every intendment is to be made in favor of the local Legislature, and in restriction (if need be) of the residuary power which Congress may have retained." Fish to Shaffer, August 2, 1870, State Department MSS, Utah, II, No. 709, NA. Shaffer undoubtedly marveled at Fish's antiquated states' rights approach to territorial problems involving the theocracy of the Mormons More important, the governor recognized that if he was going to clean this "Augean Stable" as he promised Grant in July, it would be without the help of other federal agencies and in the wake of his wife's recent death and his own poor health See Shaffer to Grant, July 7, 1870, State Department MSS, Utah, II, No 703, NA

John Wilson Shaffer. USES collections.

protested Wells's removal, Shaffer based his authority to remove the general on the Organic Act of 1850 which specified the governor as the commander-in-chief of the militia.29 Later in November, a group of Mormon militia officers, in what has become known as the Wooden Gun Rebellion, defied Shaffer's order, were arrested, and in turn released by a Mormon grand jury that refused to indict them.30

What made the militia particularly threatening to federal officials was that it was made up almost exclusively of Mormons. Known as the Nauvoo Legion, it had been created by the Mormons during their stay in Illinois and had been led by Wells for over thirty years. By 1870 the militia rolls totaled about 6,000 men, most of them armed, drilled, and equipped.31 The army at Camp Douglas numbered three companies (234 soldiers as of October 1870).32 Mustering such a body of citizen-soldiers that comprised the Nauvoo Legion demonstrated who had the real power in Utah

In the midst of the struggle between Shaffer and the Nauvoo Legion, an event between regulars stationed at Camp Rawlins and citizens in Provo further strained the relationship between federal officials, the Mormons, and the army Camp Rawlins had been established in April 1870 at the request of Shaffer and with the concurrence of Sheridan and Augur. Located three miles northwest of Provo on the Timpanogos (now Provo) River and named after Shaffer's friend, Secretary of War John Rawlins, Camp Rawlins's primary purpose, although not specifically stated, was to enforce antipolygamy laws. Manned by two companies (C and K) of the 13th Infantry under the command of Captain (Brevet Major) Nathaniel Osborne, the officers and men had arrived in Provo from Montana in late July 1870.33

For the better of two months the army and Provo citizens had little contact with each other. But on the night of September 22 that changed dramatically Enlisted men who had contracted with a local citizen to use his home for a dinner party became intoxicated and

29 Dwyer, The Gentile, pp 70-71 When Wells signed a letter to Shaffer as the "Lieutenant-General of the militia of Utah Territory," Shaffer replied that the only lieutenant-general he recognized was Philip H Sheridan. See Deseret Evening News, October 29, 1870.

30 Alexander and Allen, Mormons and Gentiles, pp. 93-94

31 Joh n K Mahon, History of the Militia and the National Guard (New York: MacMillan, 1969), p 115

32 Report of the Secretary of War: 1870 (Washington D.C : GPO, 1870), pp 72-73 Camp Douglas strength stood at 11 officers and 223 enlisted men These figures included 3 officers and 81 men of the 2d Cavalry

33 The best work on the Rawlins incident is Stanford J Layton, "Fort Rawlins, Utah: A Question of Mission and Means" Utah Historical Quarterly 42 (1974): 68-83 In 1875 Osborne was transferred to the 15th Infantry and promoted to major. See Army Register, 1876, p. 140. See also Dwyer, The Gentile, pp. 71-72; and Orson F Whitney, History of Utah (Salt Lake City, 1893), pp 506-19

wandered Provo's streets looking for those Mormons who had failed to keep their promise of supplying a dance hall and some female companionship. LDS Bishop William Miller, a city alderman, was marched down West Main Street at bayonet point and eventually released after proving that he had not promised such accommodations. Nevertheless, for the next two hours gun were fired, citizens harassed, and several buildings damaged.34

Cited in the SaltLakeHerald the next day as the "Provo Outrage," it appeared to some that Shaffer's prohibition of the militia deliberately left the Mormons without a means to protect themselves from the whims of the federal government and its disorderly constabulary force.35 Hoping to avoid a confrontation with the Mormons, the governor sought to turn the "outrage" into an opportunity for solidifying Mormon opinion in his favor. Shaffer's inept handling of the affair, however, placed a wedge between him and the post commander at Camp Douglas. On September 27, 1870, he wrote a letter to de Trobriand chastising the general for not submitting a report to him personally and insisting that the soldiers be "delivered up to the civil authorities . . . that I may see that they are properly tried, and if convicted, punished." Citing his "high regard" for the Mormons, he challenged de Trobriand to remove the army from Utah, "if the United States soldiery cannot fulfill the high object they were sent here for. . . ."36 Adding insult to injury, the letter was not sent to Camp Douglas but published in the Salt Lake City newspapers Shaffer miscalculated de Trobriand's reaction. The general's dislike of politicians and political rhetoric only added fuel to his indignation at being publicly challenged by the territorial governor. Unfortunately for Shaffer, he had struck the first blow with a choice of weapons that was very familiar to de Trobriand—pen and paper. The general's reply was published two days later in the DeseretEvening News/'7 His first thrust was aimed at Shaffer's admitted weakness—a knowledge of territorial law and peacetime military protocol De Trobriand made it clear that the military had no duty toward the ter-

34 "The Provo Outrage," Salt Lake Herald, September 27, 1870; Layton, "Fort Rawlins," pp 69-70

36 "More Concerning the Proclamations," Salt Lake Herald, September 23, 1870; Layton, "Fort Rawlins," p 71; Dwyer, The Gentile, pp 71-72; Pedersen, "History of Fort Douglas," pp 213-16; Hibbard, "Fort Douglas," p 125

36 "The Provo Outrages," Deseret Evening News, September 27, 1870; "Governor Shaffer Writes," Salt Lake Herald, September 27, 1870; Dwyer, The Gentile, pp 71-72 See also Post, Memoirs, pp 425-29

37 "Letter," Deseret Evening News, September 30, 1870; "Heavy on Governor Shaffer," Salt Lake Herald, October 1, 1870

ritorial governor other than providing him assistance should Shaffer apply for it through the correct channels.

De Trobriand also made it quite clear that although Shaffer had done nothing about the event until September 29, he had been in Provo since the 25th trying to ascertain the facts and punish the guilty.38 Regarding Shaffer's comment about removing the army from Utah, the general made his disdain for politicians and his opinion about using the army for constabulary duty in Utah manifest The reason why the army was sent to Provo in the first place, de Trobriand pointed out, was the desire of Shaffer and his friends to force their position on the Mormons. If the governor would like the military to leave, de Trobriand said, then

By all means Sir, if you wish it You know by this that we of the Army are not of a meddling temper, we are no politicians, we don't belong to any ring; we have no interest in any clique, and we don't share in any spoils. Our personal ambition is generally limited to the honest and patriotic performance of our duties Wherever we are ordered to go, we go, but we have no choice in the matter, and if we are sent to Provo or anywhere else, it is . . . generally in compliance with the demand of the Governor. To be let alone!! Why, Sir the military itself does not wish any better.39

Moreover, de Trobriand continued, "if the presence of U.S Soldiery interferes in any way with the harmonious workings of your 'happy family' [we will let] you alone to the full enjoyment of that popularity which sojustly distinguishes your administration and surrounds your person in this Territory of Utah."40 Sherman, who was visiting Camp Douglas during the first week of October, was aware of de Trobriand's relationship with the territorial governor, and given his feelings toward politicians and the army's constabulary role, undoubtedly agreed with the Frenchman's analysis of the army's apolitical nature.41 Shaffer died suddenly a month later (October 31), evidently never finding the courage to reply.42

38 Deseret Evening News, September 20, 1870; See also de Trobriand's report to Augur, dated October 1, 1870, Post Record Book, microfilm A1340, USHS Unknown to Shaffer, Mayor A O Smoot of Provo had telegraphed de Trobriand the day after the debacle and asked for his assistance. Since Camp Rawlins was not unde r his command , de Trobriand immediately contacted General Augur in Omah a and requested direction On the 24th Augur directed de Trobriand to go to Provo Arriving on the 25th, he immediately began taking depositions and formulating his report. In fairness to Shaffer, who had lost his wife in July and was deathly ill himself, it is surprising that he found the strength to take any action at all

39 Post, Memoirs, p 428

40 Ibid

11 "General Sherman Visits," Deseret Evening News, October 3, 4, 1870 Sherman's approval of de Trobriand's action and letter is found in Post, Memoirs, p 429

42 Dwyer, The Gentile, p 71; Whitney, History of Utah, p 523

The Mormon leadership quickly picked up on the dissension between the two federal leaders and published a letter in the DeseretEvening News congratulating the general on his integrity and predicting that "so long as gentlemen are in command, there is no reason ... to fear anything else."43 This was a statement with which the French count-baron-general could enthusiastically agree. 44

De Trobriand's final report on the Provo incident concluded that unknown miscreants had embittered the "mind of the soldiers against the Mormon community." He also discovered other factors that led to the soldiers' drunken outburst. The long, exhausting march from Montana to Provo, followed by the uninterrupted building of a camp suitable for withstanding Utah winters, combined with not getting

Commanding officer's headquarters at Camp Douglas, 1868. Photograph by Charles R. Savage in USES collections. Inset: General William Tecumseh Sherman. USES collections.

"That Letter," Deseret Evening News, October 1, 1870; Whitney, History of Utah, p 518 Post, Memoirs, p. 429.

paid for two months, would have been enough to put the men in a surly mood After spending the last two years in Montana, where the soldiers were accepted both for their prowess against the Indians and for their spending money, they resented "the exclusivity of the Mormon community" (which meant no whiskey or female companionship). That resentment fueled the tensions that exploded in a drunken spree two days after payday.45

Yet, such events were common in the army, as frontier conditions combined with irregular pay periods led to drunkenness and desertion. Moreover, the high desertion rate in the army (over one-third deserted in 1871 alone) spoke of low pay, poor conditions, and the quality of the enlisted soldiers. Although the New York Sun exaggerated when it charged that the enlisted ranks of the regular army were composed of "bummers, loafers, and foreign paupers," it was well known, as Sherman put it, that you could not expect to enlist a man with "all the cardinal virtues for $13.00 per month."46 In October 1870, after de Trobriand's investigation, the stockade at Camp Douglas held 19 enlisted men in detention, a 280 percent increase over the preceding month (12 of the 19 were from Camp Rawlins).47

After sending his report to General Augur, de Trobriand turned command of the regiment over to Morrow and went on an eightmonth leave of absence to France.48 Returning in late June 1871 and reassuming command, he found that Morrow had made several friends among the territorial officials, including the new territorial governor, George Woods, and a new territorial chief justice, James

45

46

47

James B. McKean. USHS collections.

In his 1870 report to the War Department and Congress, Augur made an impassioned plea for a timely pay schedule He firmly believed it would stem the drunken binges that occurred after several weeks with no pay.

The quote from the New York Sun is found in Utley, Frontier Regulars, p 22; Sherman's quote is in Joh n F Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), p 431

Post Returns, Camp Douglas, September and October 1870.

McKean.49 Although Morrow returned to his command at Fort Steele in Wyoming, many federal officials took notice of how well they had worked as "a unit."50

Indeed, McKean and Woods had written General Augur in March (four months before de Trobriand returned from France), requesting that Morrow remain in charge at Camp Douglas.51 McKean's letter to Augur recalled de Trobriand's attitude toward Shaffer, pointing out that the Frenchman had "made himself very obnoxious, even offensive, to the friends of the Government in this City Intentionally or not, he caused the disloyal leaders of this peculiar people to believe that his sympathies were with them and against us; and he gave us too much reason to think so, too."52 Within days of receiving McKean's letter, Augur wrote to Sherman, advising him that the federal "officials at Salt Lake object very seriously to de Trobriand." Recognizing that de Trobriand was not the "discreet" officer needed at Camp Douglas, Augur predicted, "if he returns to command there, I am certain of no end of trouble."53 De Trobriand quicklyjustified Augur's prediction.

The issue again centered on Brigham Young's power over the Mormons and the Nauvoo Legion. Woods, the former governor of Oregon and a former justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, made it clear soon after arriving in Salt Lake City that he disliked Young's influence in Utah as much as had Shaffer.54 When the city council appointed a joint Mormon and conservative gentile committee to plan aJuly 4 celebration that included units of the Nauvoo Legion marching in the parade, Woods's administration balked Acting in the governor's absence (but presumably with his permission), Territorial Secretary George Black issued a proclamation reaffirming Shaffer's previous proclamation that the militia could not muster, drill, or parade.55

Black also summoned de Trobriand and insisted that the army back up his edict with force.56 De Trobriand, like other high ranking

49 De Trobriand to William T. Sherman, July 15, 1871, in Post, Memoirs, pp. 435-36.

50 Dwyer, The Gentile, p 72

61 Ibid., pp. 72-73.

52 McKean to Augur, March 8, 1871, in Dwyer, The Gentile, pp. 73.

53 Augur to Sherman, March 13, 1871, in ibid., pp 72-73 On March 18, 1871, Sherman responded to Augur, telling him that he had submitted the letter and report about the Camp Rawlins incident to Secretary of War William Belknap and hoped that Belknap and the president would see the problem in Utah as a sham and that the issues there would "die away." Letter in C C Augur Papers, Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield

54 When asked to meet Young, Woods replied, "the lowest subordinate in the United States ranks higher than any ecclesiastic on earth." See Hubert H. Bancroft, History of Utah (San Francisco, 1889), p. 662.

55 Ibid.; Whitney, History of Utah, 2: 531-33.

86 Bancroft, History of Utah, pp 662-63; See also Ralph Hansen, "Administrative History of the Nauvoo Legion in Utah" (M.A thesis, Brigham Young University, 1954), pp 129-30

army officers, disliked using troops as a territorial governor's posse comitatus or domestic peacekeeping force.57 Such roles often placed politicians in a position to put their plans into action at the expense of the electorate and the reputation of the army. Despite his aversion to the role, de Trobriand dutifully channeled the acting governor's request to General Augur at Omaha It was not long until he received a telegram directly from the secretary of war ordering him to forbid the Nauvoo Legion from participating in the parade, and if necessary, to use force in preventing it.58

As an army officer de Trobriand understood why the secretary of war and local federal officials had forbidden the Mormon militia to participate in the parade; as in the Reconstructed South, a local militia only meant further resistance to federal authority.59 Nevertheless, like his officer counterparts in the South, he was suspicious of the "carpetbag politicians" who were apparently using their positions and the army to promote their own aspirations and self-interests.60 Seemingly convinced in his own mind that a "civil war" could break out if the Mormons resisted, he affirmed to Black that soldiers from the 13th Infantry would be ready to execute his prohibition on July 4; but should the militia march, de Trobriand would only give the command to "present arms," leaving it to Black, as the actinggovernor to give the command to "fire."61 This put Black and other federal officials in a precarious position. Firing on the Mormons in response to Black's order would place the responsibility for instigating a war directly on him, not the army. De Trobriand taught Black an important lesson in American civil-military relations that day: civilian authority over the military means that federal or state officials determine when force becomes an extension of politics.62

Yet, even as Black and the so-called anti-Mormon ring were

57 Most officers would probably agree with an opinion found in the November 25, 1871 (p 236) edition of the Army and Navy Journal that the army would prefer to have "its range of duties or employments removed as far as possible from all risk of collision with civil affairs." See Coffman, The Old Army, pp 246-49; Utley, Frontier Regulars, chap 16; Skelton, An American Profession of Arms, pp 300-301 See also Robert W Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders (Washington D.C : Center of Military History, 1988), chaps. 5 and 10. Nevertheless, some officers did support a role for the army as a domestic peacekeeper in order to expand the army; see Jerry M Cooper, The Army and Civil Disorder: Federal Military Intervention in Labor Disputes, 1877-1900 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980), pp 215-17 Two important articles are David E Engdahl, "Soldiers, Riots, and Revolution: The Law and History of Military Troops in Civil Disorders," Iowa Law Review 57 (October 1971): 1-73; and Engdahl, "The New Civil Disturbance Regulations: The Threat of Military Intervention," Indiana Law Journal 49 (1973-74): 581-617

38 Post, Memoirs, p 424

59 Ibid

60 Ibid., p 425

61 Whitney, History of Utah, 2:533.

62 A paraphrase of Carl Von Clausewitz, On War (New York: Viking Penguin, 1968), p 119

deliberating the implications of firing on the Mormons, de Trobriand prepared his troops for what was to come. On the evening of July 3 de Trobriand ordered the 13th Infantry into Salt Lake City. Refusing to ride personally at the head of only a fraction of his regiment, he placed Major A. S. Hough in command. Hough wrote, "With all the gaiety and politeness of his nation, he put me in command, and expressing his doubts as to whether he should ever see us again, fervently hoped that I might have a pleasant day while waiting on the hot streets of Salt Lake for some overt act on the part of the Mormon military."63 Once in the city, troops were issued forty rounds and placed at intervals along the parade route, where they waited at "stacked arms" for the parade to begin the next morning. 6 4

But de Trobriand was not entirely absent. As the soldiers marched into the city, he became "a self-invited guest" at the Mormon prophet's midday meal. When Young and some of his associates argued that they "had a right to honor the national holiday" by parading their militia, de Trobriand stopped them in mid-sentence. "Gentleman," de Trobriand warned, "I am not here to argue or discuss the questions with you. I have orders to obey, and I will obey them; you have seen my preparations, if your militia, under arms, parades tomorrow, I pitch-in."65 Young, not at a loss for words, assured de Trobriand that the Nauvoo Legion could easily destroy the 13th Infantry. If that was to happen, came de Trobriand's cheerful reply, "[it] would not inconvenience the United States in the least, but would ensure the prompt and thorough destruction of Mormonism."66

During the parade the next day no militia marched. Rather the soldiers of the 13th Infantry were greeted by a procession of young girls dressed in white and crowned with flowers. De Trobriand, in his memoirs, wrote that he appreciated the cleverness of Brigham Young on this occasion.67 Later, after finding out about the general's "lunch" with Young, his officers and men applauded his uncompromising firmness with both the Mormons and the politicians Although it seemed that the Mormons admired the Frenchman for his devotion to duty, the politicians continued to question his devotion to their causes. 68 In a way de Trobriand's particular devotion to duty placed

63 Hough as quoted in McAlexander, History of the Thirteenth, pp 74—75

64 Post, Memoirs, p 424

65 Ibid

66 McAlexander, History of the Thirteenth, pp 74-75

67 Post, Memoirs, p 425

68 Not all questioned his devotion to the federal cause See Justice Cyrus M Hawley to Augur, July 5, 1871, which praises de Trobriand's noble performanc e as "he came promptly at the call of the

him in the esteem of his "enemies" and the disdain of his "friends." By early October, actions surrounding the arrest of Brigham Young convinced the politicians that de Trobriand must be replaced

At the center of the controversy was Utah's Chief Justice James McKean who, like de Trobriand, had commanded a regiment of New York volunteers during the war but who now sought to challenge the entire Mormon hierarchy in order to uphold "federal authority over polygamic theocracy."69 Approaching the point of fanaticism, he wrote to his friend Louis Dent, President Grant's brother-in-law, that "the mission that God has called me to perform in Utah" put him above the law—if local or federal laws stood in the way of striking down Mormonism, "by God's blessing I will trample them under my feet."70 McKean naturally targeted Brigham Young as the major symbol of Mormon power Under the authority of the Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, McKean charged Young with lewd and lascivious cohabitation and

Governor, and all is well." Copy in the de Trobriand Collection, Mormon file, USMA De Trobriand also wrote Sherman about the July 4th incident and of the "praise" he received from Woods and other officials See de Trobriand to Sherman, July 15, 1871, in Post, Memoirs, p 435

59 The best account of this incident is Thomas G Alexander, "Federal Authority versus Polygamic Theocracy: James B McKean and the Mormons," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (Autumn 1966): 85-100; See also Larson, The Americanization, pp 73-75; and Stephen Cresswell, "The U.S Department of Justice in Utah Territory, 1870-1890," Utah Historical Quarterly 53 (1985): 204-22

70 Edward W Tullidge, The Life of Brigham Young (New York, 1876), pp 420-21

George L. Woods. USHS collections.

Brig. Gen. Christopher C. Augur. National Archives.

adultery for living with his polygamous wives, which charge once again pitted the power of the Mormons against that of the federal government. Would Young willingly submit to arrest and arraignment? Telegrams and letters to General Augur from federal officials as well as to de Trobriand demonstrate the intense atmosphere surrounding Young's possible arrest.71

Federal officials apparently believed that the Mormons were on the verge of rebellion and desperately wanted the army to protect them. Governor Woods, either out of distrust or pique—or both— went over de Trobriand's head and telegraphed Augur on September 29, 1871, asking for reinforcements The following day Augur telegraphed de Trobriand telling him that he had ordered two companies from Fort Steele and one from Fort Bridger to reinforce Camp Douglas (bringing the total up to nine companies or 428 soldiers).72 De Trobriand, once again caught between adversaries, again did his duty—in his own manner. He responded to Augur the next day, suggesting that, should there be an outbreak by the Mormons, "under orders or encouragements of the high dignitaries of their Church, there is no doubt that my position here with two hundred men, would be . . . ineffective against thousands of armed religious fanatics ready to lay down their lives as at the beckoning of those they consider as prophets, apostles, and delegates of God."73 Having received Young's word on the matter, de Trobriand was convinced that the Mormons would not rebel He concluded his telegram by welcoming the additional companies but added that he was confident that they would not be needed as no difficulty was contemplated.74

And he was right. Young submitted to federal authorities on October 2 and was placed under house arrest. Daniel H. Wells was arrested the same day and spent a night incarcerated at Camp Douglas, but he was released on $50,000 bail the next day Eventually, McKean's judicial errors caused the cases to be dismissed.75

During these dramatic proceedings it became obvious to Governor Woods and other territorial officials that de Trobriand did not help the government's cause of subduing the Mormons. Indeed,

71 See telegrams dated September 22, 23, 26, 30, and October 1, 1871, in Camp Douglas, Post Record Book, USHS.

72 Augur to de Trobriand, September 30, 1871, Camp Douglas, Post Record Book, USHS The strength of Companies B, C, D, E, F, H, and J of the 13th Infantry and Company D of the 2d Cavalry totalled 20 officers and 408 enlisted men

73 De Trobriand to Ruggles (adjutant general, Department of the Platte), October 1, 1871, 2, in de Trobriand Collection, Mormon file, USMA.

74 Ibid.

75 Alexander, "Federal Authority," pp 91-93

on three separate occasions—in the incident at Camp Rawlins, during the Fourth of July parade, and now with the arrest of Young—he appeared to subvert the wishes of the government and ingratiate himself with Brigham Young and the Mormons. The fact that Young had requested de Trobriand to arrest and protect him under guard at Camp Douglas seemed to solidify their belief that the Frenchman was helping to foster Mormon dissent. This belief was exacerbated by these events and provoked Woods and Justice McKean to importune President Grant and Secretary of War Belknap to replace de Trobriand and send more troops.76

On October 15, 1871, de Trobriand received a telegram from President Grant ordering him to move his headquarters to Fort Steele and placing Lieutenant Colonel Henry Morrow in charge of Camp Douglas. "I am beaten by local politicians of Salt Lake City," he would write William T. Sherman in December, "as the order was not initiated by any of my military commanders, but issued by the President of the United States under pressure of some political influence." Citing discussions between Salt Lake City officials and some of his 13th Infantry officers, de Trobriand explained that his "only fault was to be too much of a gentleman and a soldier, and not enough of a politician."

"General de Trobriand is not one of us," the officials told the army officers, because

he did not associate with our people here he did not shake hands or take a drink with the boys but patronized the Cooperative Store and visited Brigham Young What we want here is not so much a fine gentleman and a soldier as a politician to pull through with us. Now you see Morrow was in politics all his life, and it sticks to him in his military career. He understands our people, gets acquainted with everybody . . . will take a drink with any of us, and makes himself generally popular.77

In a separate communication to De Trobriand, Grant corroborated the officials' reasoning by making it clear that he was not being replaced for military reasons but because the situation called for an officer who was both a "lawyer and politician."78 Since Morrow was both and sought promotion, de Trobriand mistakenly concluded that he had conspired with Salt Lake City officials to remove him from the command of Camp Douglas.

76 Woods to U. S. Grant, October 2, 1871, Philip Sheridan Collection, Roll 18, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C

77 De Trobriand to Sherman, November 1, 1871, Sherman Papers, Roll 17, Library of Congress.

78 According to a Washington insider, "McKean and the other vultures [at Salt Lake] created such a furor that the Secretary of War, William Belknap convinced Grant to make the change." See Charles F Benjamin, Commissioners of Claim, to de Trobriand, January 18, 1872, de Trobriand collection, Mormon file, USMA

Evidence suggests that Morrow had nothing to do with de Trobriand's removal. Upon being ordered to Salt Lake City, Morrow would write three letters to de Trobriand protesting his new assignment Having just lost his daughter, Morrow pleaded with de Trobriand to not blame him for the change in regimental headquarters, as he desired to stay at Fort Steele and attend to his affairs Moreover, as Morrow "fully concurred" with all that the Frenchman had done "in the recent troubles in Utah," he could not see what else he could do. Morrow even telegraphed the adjutant general of the department, telling him that he did not want the job at Camp Douglas as de Trobriand had the full confidence of the U.S. officers and should not be relieved.79 Despite Morrow's efforts, de Trobriand's dislike of politician-soldiers and his belief that the removal was politically motivated caused him to damn Morrow as a co-conspirator with the "vultures and scalawags" of Salt Lake City.80 Indeed, he would never overcome his wariness of politicians or "political-minded" officers.81

After his move to Fort Steele, de Trobriand continued as commander of the 13th Infantry, and he took another leave of absence to visit France in 1872. Soon after his return, Sheridan requested that de Trobriand and the 13th Infantry be placed under his command in Louisiana for Reconstruction duty.82 In 1879, de Trobriand retired from the army and lived out his life traveling between New Orleans, New York, and France, reading, writing, and painting.83

In January 1889Junius Wells wrote de Trobriand, thanking him for the hospitality extended to his father when a prisoner at Fort Douglas. "That occasion has never been forgotten," Wells wrote, "by those who were treated as his guests rather than prisoners." Wells enclosed a steel engraving of Brigham Young with the hope that the general's time in Salt Lake would be remembered fondly. De Trobriand replied, wishing Wells the best and hoping that there would come a time when religious and political differences would be settled.84 Living to see Utah become a state, General de Trobriand died at Bayport, Long Island, onJuly 15, 1897, at the age of eighty-one—a successor to Lafayette, a man of the world, and a friend to the Mormons

79 Morrow to de Trobriand, October 14, 18, 19, 1871, de Trobriand collection, Mormon file, USMA

80 Benjamin to de Trobriand, 18 January 1872.

81 J T McGinniss to de Trobriand, November 22, 1871, de Trobriand collection, Mormon file, USMA

82 The 13th Infantry arrived in New Orleans in October 1873 Hutton, Phil Sheridan, pp 265-66; Post, Memoirs, pp. 443-46.

83 Post, Memoirs, p 522

84 Junius F Wells to Regis de Trobriand, January 31, 1889; and de Trobriand to Wells, February 9, 1889, in Post, Memoirs, pp 430-33

THE MOUNTAINEER.

NO. 1.

TIB IIIITUII

EVERY SATURDAY.

GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, SATURDAY, AUGUST. 27, 1859. VOL. I

AUNT MAQWIRE'S ACCOUNT OF , been Ion- shawls The frocks an 1 petTHrJ MISSION TO MUITLETE- '"-'oats '^'.V J f ;c :l aion S a a 'i""' 1 iT.c«orT, r^,<.w„UTT"r PE» atw.t l<-'» vcar-s I .-aw a notk-e i-i ilic j'Go-pod Trumpet'—I'd left WiggleI'VE Ion very lonesome lituly Jcf-' !?"" a "'" ~

ELAIK FEUOL'SOX & STOUT [^^S^^^^ ^ twZ^i'n^oA^lhZ'^'''^''

TIl.MS: &6 per J»mim in idvance ™1™'lis; but thin- cumlorts nic: bol s ( [ "'= h £ cy*aU

ADVERTISING

• when he comes hack 1 guc-s Hi! be "" ' lor good He's about made up Ins ™' ' l "''!"

•mind to scale down here, and c.civ- P "1" M o !

) hud kit their lield of labor tor the It il3-

kcr He was to sail md Ann Eli.:: came i matiolis fork-.ttill' cuid.A help laugh; .-he tried to look d.gT; I called to see her a lie "o: home Jeff and she was old tha t ma •umderfu dr..»d J

as for sewin', she said they need'nt

'• bodnhink s he'll do well here n-d,.elor d 1

Both newspaper mastheads arefrom Early Utah Journalism.

Turning the Tide: The Mountaineer vs. the Valley Tan

BY ROBERT FLEMING

WHE N READING HISTORY OF UTAH OR THE MORMONS one sometimes sees a statement such as the Valley Tan "was a bitterly anti-Mormon publication which did not circulate far from Camp Floyd."1 More often, however, such histories are silent on the subject The Valley Tans rival, the Mountaineer, has received even less notice in Utah history. Because of the historian's lack of attention, there is a mistaken conception about two of the earliest newspapers in Utah, the Valley Tan and the Mountaineer, neither of which ran more than two years. Their very existence and relative success during an important part of Utah history warrant more research; such work has not been adequately performed. This may be because the Deseret News, the survivor of early Utah newspapers but certainly not the best indicator of the times, has gained most of the historian's attention.

Mr Fleming is a graduate student in history at Brigham Young University, Provo

1 E. Cecil Gavin, U. S. Soldiers Invade Utah (Boston: Meader Publishing Company, 1937), p. 258. Similar statements are made in Orson F Whitney, History of Utah, vol 1 (Salt Lake City: George Q Cannon & Sons Co., 1892), p 724; Richard D Poll et at, eds., Utah's History (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), p 308; and Andrew L Neff, History of Utah, 1847-1869 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1940), p 457

VALLEY TAN.

The secondary literature on the Valley Tan consists only of a thesis written byJames Greenwell in 1963.2 While one-third of his short thesis discusses the Valley Tan, he focuses more on the later Union Vedette, the Camp Douglas newspaper There is no secondary material of any substance on the Mountaineer, which like the Valley Tan is mentioned only briefly in texts and related monographs. However, Cecil Alter gave both newspapers some consideration in his book on early Utah newspapers, as did Chad Flake in a paper delivered at the Utah Newspaper Conference.3

Despite their brief lives, these two Utah newspapers are significant and provide a glimpse into the sources of Mormon-gentile conflict during a difficult period in territorial history. The Valley Tans coming as an "opposition" paper to the Mormons' DeseretNewswas important to the gentiles, as it gave them a voice in the territory. However, sometimes this voice got out of hand. The Mountaineer attempted to serve as a check to the hypercritical attacks of its rival. The strategy of the Mountaineer was simply to try to direct the allegations of the ValleyTan toward issues that could be more easily dealt with while ignoring the real issues. Because of this strategy the Mountaineer was only somewhat successful in refuting many accusations in the Valley Tan and in bringing the truth to the people of Utah.

In 1847, when Brigham Young entered the valley of the Great Salt Lake, he envisioned it as a home for his people, away from direct per-

2 James Richard Greenwell, "The Mormon-Anti-Mormon Conflict in Early Utah as Reflected in the Local Newspapers, 1850-1869" (master's thesis, University of Utah, 1963)

3 J Cecil Alter, Early Utah Journalism: A Half Century of Forensic Warfare Waged by the West's Most Militant Press (Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1938); Robert P Holley, ed., Utah Newspapers— "Traces of Her Past,": Papers Presented at the Utah Newspaper Project Conference, University of Utah (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Marriott Library, 1984)

TANJ^'f wlul e the rapidity of traveling on I [Card from Pastnu&r Welter.] ] MAN DROWNED.—On the afternoon led, peaked and long razor-nosed, blue-

• •—_____ land has been three times greater than! Mails to the Aflati-ic of lastTuesday[26th ult.],a» JUeot Coi- niQutlwd.iiigger-lipped.whue-cyed.soft-

I hoaittwl Irsnjr.^nr^d rranfit-nArhed hlob-

secution, where they could begin to build their Zion. This dream of isolation, that had been slowly deteriorating since the gold rush of 1849, came to a screeching halt when PresidentJames Buchanan sent an army to accompany Alfred Cumming, the newly appointed governor of Utah Territory. Cumming arrived in 1858 replacing Brigham Young, the first governor, who was suspected of treason and rebellion against the United States government. Although Young was disappointed by these actions, he allowed the new governor to take his position.4 Along with Governor Cumming, many other gentiles entered the territory as federally appointed officers or as merchants and contractors following the army.

Even more disconcerting was the decision ofJohn Floyd, the secretary of war, that the accompanying army should remain in Utah to protect the citizens from the Indians and to ensure a peaceful transfer of power within the territory The over 3,000-man army, commanded by General Albert Sidney Johnston, marched through Salt Lake City and settled in Cedar Valley, near Fairfield, at a place they called Camp Floyd (appropriately named in honor of the secretary of war, an avowed Mormon-hater). This location put the army at an equal distance of thirty miles from two major settlements in the area, Salt Lake City and Provo. The Utah War, as these events came to be called, was rather uneventful in terms of physical combat. The real battle began with the struggle for power and influence within the territory.

Part of the Mormons' quest for autonomy and control in their settlements had historically been to establish a means by which church leaders could present news, messages, and information to members. In Utah that means was the DeseretNews. Established by the Mormon church in 1850 and first edited by Willard Richards, a counselor in the First Presidency, the DeseretNews was the only newspaper in the territory until 1858. Because of its religious purpose and strong Mormon influence, it would probably have seemed very biased and one-sided to the gentiles coming from the East. DeseretNews historian Monte McLaws explained that the editors of the Mormon newspaper were more interested in religion than journalism and were either in the church hierarchy or very close to it; thus it was never immune from suppression and editing by church leaders.5

4 This decision came only after widespread defensive actions by Young and through extensive negotiations led by Thomas L Kane, a long-time friend of the Mormons; see Norman F Furniss, The Mormon Conflict (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960)

5 Monte Burr McLaws, Spokesman for the Kingdom: Early Mormon Journalism and the Deseret News, 1830-1898 (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977), pp xiii, xiv

The motto of the DeseretNews was "Truth and Liberty," and its stated purpose was "to record . . . every thing that may fall under our observation, which may tend to promote the best interest, welfare, pleasure, and amusement of our fellow citizens."6 Although the Mormons had been accustomed to opposition literature and journalism from their Missouri and Illinois periods, in Utah prior to 1858 they had been journalistically unopposed. The events of the Utah War and the settlement of federal troops in the territory fostered bitterness between the Mormons on one side and the army and federal officials on the other. Each side held the other responsible for the growing crime and violence in the territory. The gentiles looked for a means of publicly destroying what they felt was the "scourge of the territory" and of rallying support for their cause. This means finally came in the form of an opposition newspaper. On November 8, 1858, John Phelps, an officer at Camp Floyd, proudly recorded in hisjournal, "The first copy of the Gentile newspaper has made its appearance. It is called 'Valley Tan.'"7

Earlier that year, on September 7, the Valley Tans future editor, Rirk Anderson, had arrived in Salt Lake City from Missouri. He was a successful attorney who had previously written for the Missouri Republican published in St. Louis. Brigham Young and other church leaders speculated that he had been sent by President Buchanan to

6 Deseret News, June 15, 1850

7 The term Valley Tan was originally used in the territory to refer to the first technological process brought to Utah, the tanning of hides; the Utah system was of such quality that it acquired its own name However, the term came to mean any type of home-manufactured goods in the valley, including a strong whiskey loved by the soldiers and a newspaper; see Richard M Burton, The City of the Saints, ed Fawn M Brodie (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1963), p 188 Quotation from John Wolcott Phelps, Diary, November 6, 1859, Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo

Commanding officer's quarters at Camp Floyd was photographed by Simpson expedition, January 1859. USHS collections.

stir up controversy in Utah and to harass the Mormons.8 From the words of one soldier, however, it can be inferred that Anderson was sent by the Missouri press as a "permanent" correspondent to cover the Utah War and its aftermath.9 Anderson also became involved in the territorial government and was appointed as a federal auditor for Utah, later testifying in favor of the Mormons' claim that they had not tampered with or destroyed court and territorial records. He also practiced law in the territory and was listed as the defense attorney for at least one important criminal case. 10 Little else is known of him, but among Mormons he apparently became known as the "homeliest man in the Territory."11

Shortly after his arrival Anderson began to organize all the resources he could find and quickly set up his newspaper shop in Theodore Johnston's building on South Temple in the heart of Salt Lake City. Much of the paper as well as many of the printing supplies and skilled printers he acquired came from the office of the Mormon DeseretNews.12

The first edition of Kirk Anderson's Valley Tan was published and distributed on November 6, 1858, mainly among the troops at Camp Floyd. It was circulated at the relatively high price of eight dollars per annum, or twenty-five cents per single copy, because, as Anderson explained, his costs were higher on the frontier. Each issue contained four pages with five columns per page, making the Valley Tan a little larger than its rival, the DeseretNews. One thousand copies were printed and circulated in the original edition.13 In appearance the Valley Tan was much like many other weekly frontier newspapers of the period. It contained local as well as national and world news. There was a "humorous" section and an editorial column, including letters to the editor. Business advertisements and personal ads often took up more than one-fourth of the print. However, as was quickly noticed, the purposes and practices of the Valley Tan were different from those of other papers of that day.

Anderson wasted no time in lashing out against the Mormons and their beliefs. The very first issue featured a vitriolic attack on the

"Journal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, September 7, 1858, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.

'-' Harold D Langley, ed., To Utah with the Dragoons and Glimpses ofLife in Arizona and California (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1974), pp 106-33

10 Journal History, October 27, November 26, 1858,

11 Scipio Africanus Kenner, Utah As It Is (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1904), p 157

12 Journal History, November 6, 1859

13 Kirk Anderson's Valley Tan, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 6, 1858

legality of polygamy. Subsequent issues also attacked the Mormons for their supposed treason and rebellion against the United States government, their protection of accused Mormons in the court systems, and for alleged acts of "blood atonement" committed by the Danites.14 So strident was Anderson that historian Donald Moorman has called him "that indefatigable military boaster and herald of everything Gentile."15

The Valley Tan was actually owned by John Hartnett, a nonMormon and the federally appointed secretary of the territory, who was also a friend to many prominent church leaders. Hartnett was known to the Mormons as one of the more lenient of the federal officials, but because of his newspaper he was often threatened with violence on the streets.16 When LDS Apostle Daniel H. Wells approached Hartnett regarding the harshness of Anderson's attacks, Hartnett replied that he did not agree with the direction the Valley Tan was taking but that some of the officers at the camp had sent word to Anderson that if he did not "pitch in like hell" they would not patronize him.17 The reasons for Hartnett's continued support of the Valley Tans anti-Mormon stand were clearly economic The troops at Camp Floyd were also pleased to support the Valley Tan, for it substantiated the rumors they had heard in the East regarding the Mormons. As the historian of the DeseretNews, Wendell Ashton, observed, "Utah had become a place of two camps—the army and its followers on the one hand and the Mormon settlers on the other Each now had a news"18 paper.

It is interesting to note that during this time of very serious accusation against the Mormons, the DeseretNews never even mentioned the existence of the anti-Mormon paper nor its demise seventeen months later. This practice of silence was based on a policy of church leaders who thought it was best not to advertise for the opposition by quarreling with them.19 Moreover, when the ValleyTan was about to perish for want of paper the DeseretNews loaned it enough paper to

14 During the Mormon Reformation of 1856-57, church leaders taught that there were some sins for which Christ's sacrifice did not atone; therefore, the sinner's blood must be shed for the atonement Shedding one's own or another's blood under this doctrine came to be known as blood atonement. Many murders in the territory were suspected of being perpetrated by a group of blood atonement assassins known as the Danites

15 Donald R Moorman and Gene A Sessions, Camp Floyd and the Mormons: The Utah War (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992), p 88

16 Langley, To Utah with the Dragoons, p 133

" Journal History, January 6, 1859

IS Wendell J Ashton, Voice in the West: Biography of a Pioneer Newspaper (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1950), p 98

19 Journal History, December 24, 1858

continue until supplies came from the East Additionally, many Mormons advertised in the Valley Tan, thus financially supporting its publication. The reasons for such actions are difficult to assess, although economic gain in the case of the advertisers would be a valid motivation; and Barbara Cloud, in her study of frontier newspapers, explained that it was not uncommon for even opposing newspapers to help each other, for they never knew when reciprocal help might be needed.20

Even though some help was given to the ValleyTan, Brigham Young and other church leaders were not known to speak publicly of this opposition paper; however, Young noted his concern privately in a letter to Apostle George Q. Cannon: "This miserable little sheet, which is published here weekly, is doing its utmost through malicious and false statements to revive old issues, and keep alive the excitement against us; doubtless being sustained by those who are more or less interested in sucking government pap."21 Young added that the paper had little support outside of Camp Floyd and probably would not last long Nevertheless, as evidenced by many comments in his writings and in other records, he became very concerned about the contents of the Valley Tan and often read certain issues with other church leaders, searching for attacks on the church. Young even referred to the attacks of the Valley Tan as the "one-sided warfare."22

Another critic of this opposition paper was LDS Apostle John Taylor In a letter dated January 12, 1859, to George Q Cannon, Taylor observed that the Valley Tan was a "scurrilous paper" that few would notice, and it "being weak, sickly and dying, we will leave it to its fate."23 When church leaders heard a rumor that the federal judges and other appointees were meeting with Anderson to devise a plan to use his newspaper to bring about a "collision" between the Mormons and the army that would end in wiping out the Mormons, they became even more intent on keeping the allegations in the Valley Tan from being read by church members.24 Because of this policy of silence, the Valley Tan went largely uncontested by the Mormons until the late summer of 1859 when the third Utah paper, the Mountaineer, appeared.

20 Barbara Cloud, The Business ofNewspapers on the Western Frontier (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1992), p. 136.

21 Journal History, December 24, 1859.

22 Valley Tan, December 3, 1858

23 Journal History, January 12, 1859

24 Ibid., December 24, 1858

Prior to the coming of the Mountaineer, the editorship of the Valley Tan had changed Kirk Anderson returned to the East in May 1859, reportedly because of bad health.25 Church leaders believed that Hartnett's insistence that Anderson "settle down" in his attacks against the Mormons had forced Anderson to leave, but Hartnett denied this allegation.26 By default the editorship was taken over by Hartnett himself until a new editor could be found. Under Hartnett, the attacks on the Mormons temporarily subsided but with the June 22, 1859, issue Thomas Adams assumed the editorship and vowed to take up where Anderson left off He explained that there were two sides to all questions, and he would take the opposite side of the Mormon view: "The main object is to have an opposition paper."27

The Mountaineer, another pro-Mormon newspaper, appeared during this renewed effort by Adams to battle the Mormons in print. Its motto, "Do What is Right, Let the Consequence Follow," became a warning to Adams and to all who would dare to challenge the rights of the Latter-day Saints to practice their religion The Mountaineerwas edited by three Mormons who were fellow law partners: Seth M. Blair,James Ferguson, and Hosea Stout Blair was a native Missourian and had been one of Sam Houston's Texas Rangers. He was also Utah Territory's first U.S district attorney Ferguson, a young Irishman, had marched with the Mormon Battalion in 1846, was the adjutant-general of the Utah militia, and

Seth M. Blair.

James Ferguson.

Hosea Stout. All in USHS collections.

had fought to keep Johnston's army out of the valley. Stout, a Kentuckian, had been captain of the police in Nauvoo and Winter Quarters and served as the first attorney-general for the provisional state of Deseret.28 Historian Edward Tullidge described Ferguson as having a "capacious intellect" and as being a "brilliant writer and gallant soldier, who was ready to defend his people with his weapon as with his pen." Tullidge called Blair a "compeer every whit worthy of his dashingjournalistic brother."29

The editors set up their print shop in the basement of their law office in the northwest corner of the Council House. They, too, had to get many of their start-up supplies from the office of the DeseretNews because of the spontaneity with which they undertook "this new enterprise." The Mountaineers beginnings were unique. As told by them, all three partners were working late on a Saturday night the 20th of August 1859, reflecting on the present condition of affairs in the city, when they concluded that with a little assistance from their friends at the DeseretNews they could "offer to the public a newspaper in which our feelings and the feelings of our friends and fellow citizens might be found." They immediately went to Brigham Young and on Monday night, August 22, in conference, and with the full support of the First Presidency of the church, it was decided that the first issue would come out on Saturday. The next day, another meeting was held in which others of the Mormon hierarchy were present and the issue of the Mountaineers launching was discussed.30

The first edition was published on Saturday, August 27, 1859, at a cost of six dollars per annum in advance. The subscription agents, listed in the first number and based in each of Utah's then fourteen counties, were instructed to collect cash from subscribers for at least one-third of the cost; the balance could be paid in eggs, stock, vegetables, hay, or other commodities at the going market rate Later they made the paper available free of charge to those who could not afford it. It was printed in the traditional four-page style, but it had six columns per page and was considerably larger than the Valley Tan and twice the size of the Deseret News. Hosea Stout reported that they printed 2,400 copies; 1,000 were distributed on the first day.31 The Mormon church reported that the paper was received by the public

28 Ashton, Voice in the West, p 100

29 Edward W Tullidge, History of Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City, 1886), appendix, pp 5-6

30Journal History, August 22, 23, 1859.

31Juanita Brooks, ed., On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861, vol 2 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964), 701-2

in a very welcome manner. 32 Because the paper was essentially proMormon and endorsed by church leaders, the DeseretNews, then edited byJudge Elias Smith, heralded its beginning and urged its readers to support the new publication. Unlike its counterpart, the Mountaineer openly opposed the allegations printed in the Valley Tan and replied to other untruths in print. Not being church-owned, the Mountaineer could attack the Valley Tan in a way the DeseretNews dared not. In their opening editorial the editors explained the purpose of their paper:

If we shall see slander, we shall tell of it; and if we know ourselves shall not hesitate to tell liars of their falsity We are ready for the contest and we know our side. . . .We do not now appear in our religious character, nor as advocates of our faith. We come before our friends as the advocates of the common rights of man We propose to tell the truth and nothing else.33

This practice of having a newspaper that was not owned by the church but was pro-Mormon continued throughout much of the nineteenth century.34 The editors and owners of the ValleyTan seemed quite annoyed by the prospect of this new paper, which Hartnett reportedly claimed would only "back the damned lies published by the Deseret News."35

The recurring theme supported by the Mountaineer was the editors' perceived violation of the "rights" of Mormons as United States citizens. The first attempt at refuting the stories coming out of Camp Floyd countered a letter from Colonel G H Crossman regarding an alleged counterfeiting scandal involving Brigham Young. The editors of the Mountaineer explained: "He [Crossman] has not only avoided the facts, but has told some things he has not the ability to verify."36 Ironically, Brigham Young was cleared of any wrongdoing in the case, while Crossman was arrested as an accomplice to the scandal.37 The Mountaineer agreed with the prevailing Mormon position that Camp Floyd and the gentile intrusion was the source of all the troubles in Utah and that the gentile newspaper was no more than a pack of lies. Their persuasive discussions of the lack of integrity of the judges and other federally appointed officers in the territory and of the reasons

32 Journal History, August 27, 1859

38 Ibid.

34 McLaws, Spokesman for the Kingdom, p. 173.

36 Journal History, August 23, 1859

36 Mountaineer, August 27, 1859

37 Ibid., October 8, 1859

behind the growing violence and crime in Utah, as well as the issue of unpunished crime, formed the agenda of the Mountaineer.

The rather predictable responses of the existing newspapers in Utah to the Mountaineer were printed in its second edition The Deseret News said that the newcomer had put forth good effort and hoped it would continue to "do good service" by standing up for the rights of man The Valley Tan, however, commented, "The editors 'throw down no gauntlet,' but in effect, say—'knock this chip off my shoulder, if you dare.'"38 And "dare" they did. Within its first fifteen issues, thirteen of the editors' comments, which usually comprised the largest and most important article, sought directly or indirectly to refute the Valley Tans attacks. The other two editorial views included a plea for support of General Sam Houston's bid for the presidency39 and advocated a stronger public education effort in the territory. The language and tone of the Mountaineer were different from the opposition press. Even though the Mountaineer responded to the ValleyTans allegations, its purpose was to remove blame for problems from the Mormons and their leaders, to indict the federal officials and judges, and to challenge the unfairness of it all. The Valley Tan was not always convinced by the claims of the Mountaineer.

It was agreed by both warring newspapers that there was too much crime in the territory and that the guilty parties must be brought to justice. Most of the battle revolved around defining who was committing the violence and who was letting them off. The Valley Tans first issue after the arrival of the Mountaineer outlined two murders in which the victims,John McNeil and Sergeant Ralph Pike, both accused of wrongs against Mormons, were killed before their separate cases could be resolved; in both cases the perpetrators escaped.40 The Mountaineer recognized the atrocity and presented a solution to the problem: "On murder, black-faced, glare-eyed murder, we set our heavy heel. For in it there can be neither excuse or palliation; and blood, blood only can cleanse the bloody hand. . . . [L]et the heaviest penalty fall upon those who having lived here long should be so much more wise and interested." 4 1 The Valley Tan was drawing the Mountaineer into a discussion of blood atonement, and that was exactly where the Mountaineer did not want to be

38 Ibid., September 3, 1859

39 Blair and Ferguson were encouraged by Brigham Young to endorse Sam Houston for the 1860 presidential race; see Journal History, October 4, 1859

10 Valley Tan, August 31, 1859

4' Mountaineer, September 3, 1859

The following issue of the Valley Tan, September 7, detailed two more killings that had taken place during the past week; Adams asked why the murderers were not in jail. The Mountaineer simply replied, "Ourjudges trample the laws under their feet" and followed up in the next issue with a very heated editorial on the federal appointees in Utah. By name they accused each major officeholder, including the postmaster, of various negligences and even crimes. The judges were labeled "prejudiced" and "baneful."42 The editors of the Mountaineer hoped that this would bring the controversies to a more debatable level. However, Blair and Ferguson would have to debate without the help of Hosea Stout. With this issue Stout left his editorship because of "a press of other business." Probably his responsibilities to his law practice became too great. The DeseretNews responded that the Mountaineer would still "hold up" but would not be as "Stout."43

The ValleyTan seemed to ignore the Mormons for a couple of weeks to focus on the growing interest in the performing arts at Camp Floyd A lull in direct attacks against the Mormons was rare, but perhaps the Valley Tan wanted to evaluate its position in relation to the Mountaineer. In its next two issues the Valley Tan highlighted the Military Dramatic Association, which was to open a newly built theater for their performances the following Saturday; the initial performance of Soldier's Circus; and the new Germania Singing Club, which had opened on August 21 in their new social hall. The main source of humor at these performances came from "burlesques" and "personifications" of the Mormons and their leaders. One contented soldier replied, "With the 'Soldier's Circus,' with Willis as clown, the 'Military Dramatic Company,' and the 'Valley Tan' to drink, and the 'Valley Tan to read, we are all right." 44

In the next number, however, the Valley Tan experienced another editorial change. A new editor often meant a renewal of old issues, and such was the case with the new editor and former reporter, N. H. Maguire, who vowed to uphold the federal appointees. He exclaimed, "It is not probable that here, in the very center of our common country, we will relinquish one iota of our individual rights." The gentiles, he wrote, would be willing to tolerate other religions but not as long as those religions taught that "deliberate murder appeases the wrath of God" and that a "plurality of wives" is moral. With regard to blood

atonement he asked, "Is not this unconstitutionality? Is this 'equal and exact justice to all men'?" Acting under the assumption that church members were reading his paper, Maguire further explained to the Mormons the purpose of his writing: "We wish to show you your superlative impudence and inexcusable ingratitude in vituperation against that country, and the officers of that country, under whose flag you are protected and at whose soil your subsistence is drawn "

Then, in the same editorial, Maguire began to show off his talent for accusation and overwrought prose:

You writhe in the gattling chains which you have imposed upon yourselves, in all the hellish misery of self-destroying fiends, and when you see delegates of liberation standing over you, hammer in hand, to burst asunder your fetters, like the Blacksmith's viper, you hiss and dart the tongue of malignity with ever-increasing fury as each succeeding effort goes to prove the utter abortiveness of all your attempts to sink your venomous fangs Was ever before such a deplorable picture presented to the eyes of "NJ54.K man? 4'

Wisely, the Mountaineer did not respond directly to Maguire's viciousness, for this may have been just what Maguire wanted in order to stir up a "collision."

Instead of fighting these overblown accusations, the Mountaineer looked for a way to control the discussion by putting the editorials on a more rational level. It was not afraid of the truth even if that truth came to be understood through an interview that Horace Greeley had with Brigham Young on his trip to California. Greeley's interview with the Mormon prophet was the first formal interview that a newspaperman had ever had with a famous personality and paved the way for an important part of American journalism.46 Young attempted to justify the crimes the Mormons had committed by discussing the Mormon people's belief that they are God's chosen people, in God's chosen place, called to set up God's kingdom on earth. He further explained that the Mormons felt as though the infiltration of gentiles was hindering their sacred work and that they must be stopped "by any means." Young did not accept "the current gentile assumption that the Mormons are an organized horde of robbers and assassins," but he agreed that "There [was] some basis for the current conviction of Mormon guilt that 'Mormon witnesses, grand jurors, petitjurors, and magistrates' determinedly screen the guilty." Furthermore, he stated

45 Ibid., September 28, 1859

46 pY^ k Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History of Newspapers in the United States through 260 Years, 1690-1950 (New York: Macmillan, 1950), p 386

that the majority of Mormons are innocent, but "some are guilty," and that he knew of certain crimes that had been committed by Mormons. He also agreed that it was unlikely that any Mormon suspected of killing a gentile or an apostate would ever be convicted by a Mormon jury in Utah Territory. In conclusion, Young called for a removal of the federal appointees and the restoration of his governorship. For him the solution was to "Let the Mormons have the Territory to themselves." Greeley conceded that this might be the best solution.47 In the next issue of the Valley Tan Maguire condemned Greeley for his concessions and wondered how he could have come to that conclusion after Young had admitted the barbarity of some Mormons.48

In the next two issues of the Mountaineer the editors left the Valley Tan alone and kept their promise of fighting falsehoods wherever they found them. In the October 8 issue they challenged allegations in the California press, particularly those of the SanFranciscoBulletin, on the

Horace Greeley, right, interviewing Brigham Young, left, from an engraving in Harper's Weekly, September 3, 1859.

subject of lawlessness in Utah. On October 15 they defended the Mormon position by using their old standby argument of blaming the federal judges for dereliction of duty. Blair's sarcasm told of his feelings: "Go on gentlemen, continue lying. Suppose you say that the Mormons are guilty of all the murders, rapes, robberies, and villainies of your own Pacific State. We shall have then just as good an opinion of your veracity."49

At the same time, the Valley Tan was undergoing another editorial change after only a month of Maguire and what seemed a bright future for the anti-Mormons. In the October 19 issue it announced that Stephen DeWolfe, the acting U.S. attorney in Utah, would be taking over as editor In his first issue DeWolfe, proclaimed that the paper would continue "to denounce whatever is vicious, corrupting, and degrading, no matter on what pretenses sustained, or by whom, or how extensively practiced." He condemned the allegations of others who claimed that his paper had been established only for a few federal officers and that it was not reflective of the state of affairs in Utah. He was also concerned with the many murders and intended to find the Mormon "band of assassins."50

On October 22, 1859, the Mountaineer turned the tables on the gentiles and accused them of the murders and other crimes taking place in the territory. He listed many people arrested at Camp Floyd who were never convicted because of the judges' loyalty to the army. The editors of the Mountaineer had always been concerned with the growing violence but felt that the notion of a Danite band was "ridiculous fiction." However, they soon admitted that there probably were some Danites but not under directions from Mormon leaders: "We have learned, and we think beyond doubt that such an order is in existence. A real bone and sinew combination of black hearts and bloody hands is in our midst." The editors warned all that might be joined with them to beware, for they would be looking for them.51

It seems as though a consensus had been reached regarding the perpetration of murders in the territory and the urgency to stop them and bring the assassins tojustice, for the tone of the editorials in both papers switched to the issues of the federal government and the rights of the people in Utah The Mountaineer led out in the debate by giving a history of the sufferings of the Saints and their struggles to survive

49 Mountaineer, October 8, 1859.

30 Valley Tan, October 19, 1859

51 Mountaineer, October 22, 1859

and grow, only to have their sovereignty taken away again They wanted only fair judgment.52 In the November 9, 1859, issue DeWolfe replied by publishing the grand jury's report ofJudge Cradlebaugh's justification for federal interference—because the Mormons were "treasonous, rebellious, and savage." In addition, DeWolfe applied Senator Stephen A Douglas's lengthy discourse on popular sovereignty to the illegality of establishing in a U.S. territory an institution at variance with the rest of the nation. He even suggested that polygamy was lessjustifiable than slavery because it did not exist at the time of the U.S. Constitution and was not anticipated by its framers.53 Coincidentally, on the same date, the DeseretNews printed a sermon by Brigham Young that proclaimed, "The loyalty of the Latter-day Saints to the Government of the United States has never been disproved." He argued that the allegations made by the gentiles were malicious and wicked lies.54 The Mountaineer commented that the very notion of troops being sent to Utah was a sure sign of the "corruption of society."55

The Mountaineer had previously published an article that may have sparked DeWolfe's printing of the November 9 editorial. Blair had earlier explained the problem of unpunished crime in Utah by taking a shot at the judicial system in the territory:

The judges were followers of the army and not officers of the citizens; because they came to be the partizans [sic] of speculators, and not the ministers ofjustice; because they came to make war, and not establish peace; because creatures of the administration, they sold themselves to treachery to their creators; because finally, their hearts felt no enmity against guilt, but were ever at war with innocence.56 Blair claimed that everything was in place for the establishment ofjustice, only that the system was corrupt

For the next two weeks there was a lull in direct attacks by the rivals. At this point the Mountaineer seemed to be growing in popularity and wealth, for it added two more lines of advertising space and commented on the large number of letters it received weekly. However, the editors vowed not to print anonymous letters in hopes of avoiding falsehoods.57 Blair and Ferguson had also taken up the popular topic of temperance and spoke often of its goodness. They

52 Ibid., November 5, 1859

53 Valley Tan, November 9, 1859.

54 Deseret News, November 9, 1859

55 Mountaineer, November 12, 1859

65 Ibid., October 15, 1859

57 The Valley Tan never did require a name to be associated with letters to the editor, making them somewhat more suspect.

seemed worried by the reported increase in the making and drinking of liquor; "even the Saints have taken to its use," they cried.58 During this time the Valley Tan received a new look as it added a column and enlarged its pages, making it equal to the Mountaineer. Beginning with the second volume the editors of the Valley Tan lowered the price to only six dollars annually starting November 16, 1859—another attempt to remain competitive with the Mountaineer.

DeWolfe, however, stirred up trouble once more with a "Catalog of Mormon Crimes" in which he accused the Mormons of being bitterly hostile to the federal government, violating the Organic Act, committing murder and daily outrages against gentiles, disabling the court system, making their own laws contrary to the Constitution, screening crime, oppressing right, prostituting their own females, and inciting the Indians to attack and murder.59 The Mountaineer, as if granting some truth to the claims of the Valley Tan, appealed to the constitutional right of the Mormons to hold different views without government interference; appeals were again made to their sufferings at the hands of their persecutors.60

In response, DeWolfe provided his readers with a brief history of the cries of persecution and sufferings of the Saints. He claimed that these cries were one of the most effective agents used by leaders of the Mormon church to keep alive the enmity andjealousy they felt toward the government He even alleged that the Mormons may have brought much of this persecution upon themselves by taking of what was not theirs by "scriptural right." In the same damning article, DeWolfe compared the Mormon's blood-atonement justice to the Spanish Inquisition.61 There was no direct response by the Mountaineer. This further represents the continued efforts of the Valley Tan at direct attacks with little retaliation. Instead, the Mountaineer turned to a discussion of the growing amount of theft among the young men in Utah. Their solution was for reformation above punishment—to get the boys off the streets and into the libraries to be educated.62

During most of December both papers turned to a discussion of the Harper's Ferry incident, and both carried many of the articles from the eastern press regarding the growing problems between North and South. Both newspapers devoted the last issue of the year

58 Mountaineer, November 19, 1859

59 Valley Tan, November 30, 1859.

60 Mountaineer, December 3, 1859.

61 Valley Tan, December 7, 1859

62 Mountaineer, December 10, 1859

to a discussion of the state of affairs in Utah. The Valley Tan heralded the army and federal officers for putting down treason and rebellion and for bringing growth and prosperity to the territory. Improvement in the dress and style of the Mormons was cited as an example of their improved financial condition.63 The Mountaineer featured the events of the world and nation during the past year and acknowledged Utah as a sustaining force for good in upholding and sustaining virtues; however, without placing blame, it called again on the people of the territory to take a stand against crime and violence.64

January passed rather uneventfully for both newspapers. The Mountaineer continued to champion the education of the citizens of Utah as a solution to the territory's ills, even advocating the start of evening classes so more could participate The Valley Tan made almost no direct attacks on the church. Both papers printed many of the articles from the eastern press that came in the weekly mail.

At the end of January the controversial message of President Buchanan to Congress was printed in both papers and fired up the final war between them. The Valley Tan was, again, the first to "pitchin." In response to Buchanan's message, in which he stated that the Mormons could not be trusted, DeWolfe wrote that he had received threats from the church in regard to some matters alleged in his newspaper He added that murder had been sanctioned from the pulpit by church leaders and that it had been proven that many men had been killed in the territory as a result of collusion among high ranking church officials. DeWolfe claimed that the Mormons had a very lenient system of justice; they could sacrifice anyone they pleased in the presence of witnesses and there was not ajury in the territory that would convict them. DeWolfe further estimated that over two hundred murders65 had been committed by Mormons in the territory over the past three years and that not one of the "animals" had been brought to justice and punished. He then challenged the church to deny these claims and threatened to publish the records of proof.66 The Mountaineer while not attempting to offer any evidence, simply responded by calling the writers of the Valley Tan "contemptible vampires" and condemning them for lying and

63 Valley Tan, December 18, 1859.

64 Mountaineer, December 31, 1859

66 DeWolfe's estimate included those killed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and may have been somewhat embellished.

66 Valley Tan, February 1, 1860

for slandering the honest and upstanding leaders of the church.67

In the next issue of the Valley Tan DeWolfe struck at the very core of the Mormon faith— revelation. He condemned those who suffered the poor to pay tithing because of this supposed revelation, while many leaders of the church, who professed to have received the instruction, lived in wealth.68 The Mountaineer, excited about their new press that had just arrived from California, seemed to be growing tired of this endless persecution. They threw up their hands and proclaimed, "So long has the custom prevailed, that it seems to have finally become a law that the people of Utah, or what is commonly termed the Mormons, are proper subjects for the abuse and slander of everybody."69 They elected not to give in to the irrationality of the Valley Tan by responding to its challenges.

In the last issue of the Valley Tan DeWolfe published a letter from Judge Cradlebaugh to the editor of the DeseretNews in which the judge outlined the serious accusations he had against the Mormon church. These allegations included subjection to a theocratic government, treason against the United States, the evil practices of polygamy and blood atonement, and teaching that it is all right to rob and castrate gentiles. The judge explained that he had ample proof of all of these allegations and would be glad to discuss them with the editors of the Mormon newspapers or federal authorities to substantiate each charge.70 DeWolfe followed with what seemed to be a very logical plea to the editor of the DeseretNews:

One thing is certain, whether he represents the religious tenants [sic] of the Mormons or not, as their political representative and delegate, it

67 Mountaineer, February 4, 1860

68 Valley Tan, February 8, 1860

69 Mountaineer, February 11, 186(

70 Valley Tan, February 22, 1860

John Cradlebaugh. USHS collections.

would certainly appear to be his [William H Hooper's] duty to vindicate his constituents ... if he felt able to do so. Mormon newspapers and leaders are in the constant habit of evading the charges so frequently made again [s]t them by attributing them to slander and hired and irresponsible letter writers But here the charges come from no obscure and irresponsible source; they are clearly and specifically set forth; the man who makes them occupies a position of responsibility and honor, that entitles his statements to some weight and consideration, if not disproved or denied. He assumes the burden of establishing the charges if their delegate in Congress will only meet him in public discussion; and if this is declined, the Mormons cannot as they have heretofore, skulk down behind the pleas that irresponsible persons have lied about them; nor can they . . .stifle the freedom of speech by bravado or threats of violence.71

Unfortunately, neither Delegate Hooper nor the Mormon church accepted thejudge's challenge; it would have been exciting to see how such a confrontation might have proceeded. The Mountaineer again had no comment. It seems likely that, given these allegations and no response to them, the attacks by the ValleyTan might have become worse. Much to the dismay of DeWolfe and other gentiles in the territory, the Valley Tan ran out of paper to continue publishing And it was unlikely that it would be loaned paper by the Mormons as before. There was no "farewell" article by DeWolfe, as he had announced his intention to continue the Valley Tan as soon as paper became available. Nevertheless, this was indeed the last issue. The newspaper's demise was not caused by the competition from the Mountaineer, for the Valley Tan seemed to be at its peak. Several other factors may have caused its termination.

It is not known if the shipment of paper DeWolfe was waiting for ever arrived, but the redeployment of all but about 300 soldiers at Camp Floyd during the next month may have contributed to a decision not to resume publication.72 Two additional factors contributed to the demise of the ValleyTan. One was the resignation of George Hales, foreman of the Valley Tan office since its beginning. Hales was told by church leaders that he must quit hisjob or be cut off from the church.73 Second and perhaps more important, John Hartnett, its financial supporter, became ill and left the territory sometime in March. News of his death was recorded later in the Mountaineer.^

Richard F. Burton, who visited Utah just after the termination of the

newspaper, declared it did not last long because of its "overindulgence in Gentile tendencies." He declared it expired after "a slow and lingering dysthesis."75 S. A. Kenner, an early Utah historian, commented that the Valley Tan was "unable to exude its virus as fast as the same was generated [and] it passed away through the congestion of the spleen . . . unhonored, unwept, and unsung."76

As for the Mountaineer, it continued to champion the rights of the Mormons and became ever more like the DeseretNews when the competition disappeared Its circulation and popularity continued to grow, according to the paper's own reports. The editors did not mention the end of the ValleyTan and seemed to go on as before. They reported the departure of General Johnston on March 3. By March 17 things were "looking up," and they printed an article on the future of the Mormons in Utah. "Things sure seem bright," they exclaimed. In July, Blair left the editorship of the newspaper to Ferguson because he was "tired" and wanted to retire, partly because of health reasons He moved to Cache Valley to run a saw mill.77 At the commencement of its second volume, Ferguson looked back and then forward to a better Mountaineer:

At the commencement we were strongly supported by two of the most eminent of the legal profession in our Territory Now they have turned to other occupations It has been our portion of duty to record many a tale of blood and villainy which we would have fain not been called upon to do When we appear again, we trust the next act in the drama will be less gloomy, but we may be mistaken It is true that the army and its disgusting appendages have nearly all evaporated They have been directly or indirectly the source of all the troubles in Utah.78

Immediately after this issue and throughout the remaining year of its existence, the Mountaineer continued to have difficulty obtaining the paper it needed and more than once gave its own supply to the Deseret News to sustain the dominant newspaper in the territory. The Mountaineers last issue was published on July 20, 1861. At that time it was announced that operations would be suspended for a time because of a lack of paper but that there was a good prospect for a fresh supply; however, the DeseretNews received the benefit of this fresh supply.79 But with the breaking up of Camp Floyd and the departure from Utah of many gentiles as a result of the Civil War, the

Mountaineer had become expendable. The Mormons would have no journalistic opposition in Utah Territory until 1863 with the coming of the Union Vedette at Fort Douglas. Several years later, the DeseretNews commented that the Mountaineer had died of "Episinthic Impecuniosity."80

There is no doubt that this was a time of many murders and much upheaval in Utah Territory One former Mormon author seemed to agree with the reports of the Valley Tan when he observed that had the army not come to Utah and taken a stand against the Mormon practices, the killings may have been much worse. 81 Richard T. Ackley, while passing through Utah on his way to California, observed, "there never was a place where there were so many desperate fellows as Salt Lake City" and referred specifically to the Danites.82 Another writer, obviously familiar with the words of church leaders regarding the doctrine of blood atonement, said in defense of the church: "It is obviously a perversion and distortion of their theology to argue or insist that the Mountain Meadows Massacre had its origin in the orthodox conception of blood atonement."83

It is not known conclusively whether the Mormons or the troops at Camp Floyd were the source of the growing crime and violence in the territory. It seems as though both parties were involved to some extent, although there is not sufficient proof to indicate that church leaders were ordering this violence. But, the issues were real, and church leaders wanted to avoid a "collision" between the troops and the Mormons. Their choice of allowing a third newspaper, the Mountaineer, to intervene on behalf of the Mormon people proved somewhat successful. Although the ValleyTan continued its harsh attacks and there seemed no end to the sharp blows directed toward the Mormons, the Mountaineer was able to bring some order and balance to the journalism of the period. The time was right for another newspaper, and the editors were equal to the task. Exercising a proper rationalism in the face of an irrational opponent served them well. Because of the Mountaineers courage in the defense of truth, the Deseret News editors must have gained the insight and courage that would, ten years later, allow them to participate more actively in the great battles that would ensue between them and the anti-Mormon SaltLakeTribune.

80 Deseret News, September 29, 1874.

81 Thomas B.H Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints (New York: D Appleton and Company, 1873), p 410

82 Richard T Ackley, "Across the Plains in 1858," Utah Historical Quarterly 9 (1941): 219

83 Neff, History of Utah, p 412

American Indians and the Public School System: A Case Study of the Northern Utes

BY KIM M. GRUENWALD

TH E EXPERIENCES OF AMERICAN INDIANS in boarding schools have been the subject of many historical monographs, but the experiences of Indian children in public schools have not been the focus of any major study. This gap in our exploration of twentieth-century Indian history should be redressed because the public school classroom has been a major meeting ground between Indian and white cultures since the early 1900s For most of the twentieth century, more than 50 percent of Indian children have attended public rather than boarding schools, and the issue of public education has been a key ingredient in all federal Indian policy decisions. At the local level, the many mutually exclusive goals of Indians and whites are laid bare as both struggle to educate Indian children

At the national level, the federal government sought to use public schools as agents of assimilation in the early 1900s. Policymakers believed that if Indian children mingled with whites in school, their parents might join the white community in local education organizations If, through public schooling, the Indian students and their parents would assimilate into the dominant culture, the tribes would disintegrate and the need for reservations with them.1

The federal government knew white prejudice would hamper its attempt to assimilate the Indians, but the Indian Bureau also believed that "association" would override prejudice. The bureau planned to silence objections by paying tuition for the students since Indian land was nontaxable and raised no money for local school districts. Local officials favored this. They claimed that white patrons in rural districts

Dr Gruenwald is assistant professor of history, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio She wishes to thank Charles S Peterson, Clyde F Milner II, and Floyd A O'Neil for their support while she was researching her master's thesis, "The Ute Indians and the Public School System: An Historical Analysis, 1900-1985," at Utah State University, on which this article is based, and Forrest Cuch and Roger Beckstead for access to crucial files.

1 Irving G Hendrick, "The Federal Campaign for the Admission of Indian Children into Public Schools, 1890-1934," American Indian Culture and ResearchJournal 5 (1981), no 3, pp 16-17 AnnualReport of the Commissioner ofIndian Affairs (Washington, D.C, 1906), pp 41-42 (hereinafter cited as Annual Report followed by the year); AnnualReport (1914), pp 7-9; (1913), p 25; (1915), p 4; (1918), p 28; (1929), p 6

were nearly as poor as the Indians, making the burden of providing school for nontaxpaying Indians even greater. This argument had some validity in Utah's Uintah and Duchesne counties where, due to depressed economic conditions, public schools were poorly supported. Basin schools closed a month early in 1921 because of lack of funds. The federal government's drive succeeded; in 1914 public school districts across the country enrolled more Indians than Indian Bureau schools did for the first time.2

Albert H. Kneale, Uintah and Ouray reservation superintendent from 1915 to 1925, strove to be the first in that office to promote association between white and Indian children in the classroom In 1921 he optimistically stated:

If I can put these Indian children into the public schools among the white boys and girls and let them fight and learn that 25 cents is a quarter of a dollar, by the end of six years I can abolish the Indian agency altogether, for the Indian population will be gradually assimilated in the affairs of the communities and the Indians will be able to take care of themselves.3

But if Kneale approved of the mingling of the races, he had to report that local whites had other ideas. Whites commonly believed that the Utes did not want to progress—they willingly lived in filth and squalor with blankets, war paint, and long hair. Gambling was said to be "bred in the bone" among Utes, and they engaged in common-law marriages. In addition, measles and scarlet fever ran rampant at the crowded Whiterocks boarding school making whites fear for the health of their own children. School officials did not openly oppose Indian enrollment, but "there was revolt on the part of teachers and white patrons." When one teacher refused to allow Indian students into her classroom, the county superintendent backed her up. White parents at another school turned away children, saying that they had trachoma although the agency physician gave them a clean bill of health.4

Not surprisingly, the Indians did not seem to want the races to

2 Annual Report (1910), p. 15; (1911), p. 27; (1914), p, 7; Vernal Express, April 21, 1921.

3 Salt Lake Telegram, February 24, 1921; Superintendent's Report, Uintah and Ouray Agency, 1921, in Superintendents' Annual Narrative and Statistical Reports from Field Jurisdictions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1907-1938, Uintah and Ouray, National Archives, RG75, rolls 158 and 159, microfilm, Uintah County Library, Vernal, Utah (hereinafter these reports will be cited as Superintendent's Report followed by the year) Note: the preferred spelling for natural features is "Uinta" Mountains or Basin; for political and other designations it is "Uintah" County, School District, or Reservation

1 Superintendent's Report, 1910-15, 1921, 1922, 1929 Superintendent of the Uintah and Ouray Agency to Earl Thompson, April 19, 1920, and to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, May 1, 1920, box 19, in Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1897-1912, 1916-52, National Archives, Denver Branch, RG75, Bureau of Indian Affairs (hereinafter cited as Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence)

mingle either. Before schools strictly enforced attendance, one reservation superintendent reported that Utes living close to public schools enrolled their children there but did not send them, knowing no one would come looking for them He felt that parents on both sides objected to whites and Indians attending the same schools.5

But Kneale also cited a different kind of example of the Indians' attitude in 1917. That summer the reservation had its first successful agricultural fair for Indians. In the past when non-Indians were in charge, most Indians did not attend. But when Indians managed the exhibits and games, nearly all the Utes attended and, according to Kneale, enjoyed and benefited from it The Utes actively resisted events planned for them by whites but were interested in programs that could improve their lives when they themselves ran them.6

Despite poor race relations, the number of Utes in Uinta Basin public schools increased in the 1930s. Knowing that many children did not attend school at all, the new reservation superintendent used money as a lever. In 1932 the Uintah and Ouray Agency announced that next year tuition would be paid according to actual daily attendance rather than in lump sums to the districts By 1935 over 100 Ute children attended public schools, and the number stayed over 100 until the 1950s In 1934 the superintendent credited thisjump to the interest public school officials showed in Indian students after the Indian Bureau strengthened the criteria for receiving tuition funds.7

An important turning point in federal Indian policy occurred in 1933 with the appointment ofJohn Collier to the post of Indian commissioner. He wanted to stop the break-up of reservations and help tribes reestablish their old social structures. In the area of education he continued the old policy of pushing to educate children in public schools—but for a new purpose. The federal government had established boarding schools to separate Indian children from their homes to facilitate the transmission of white culture, but Collier wanted to increase Indian enrollment in public schools so that children would not be torn from their homes, allowing Indians to socialize their children in their own way. 8

Collier also urged Congress to pass theJohnson-O'Malley Act in

5 Superintendent's Report, 1911, 1920, 1928.

6 Ibid., 1911, 1917

7 Ibid., 1932, 1934; William B Showalter to David Gourley, April 19, 1941, box 19, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence.

8 Hendrick, "The Federal Campaign," p 29; Donald K Sharpes, "Federal Education for the American Indian," Journal of American Indian Education 19 (October 1979): 20

1934. Unlike the old policy of paying tuition to school districts, the new act let the bureau make contracts with the states to provide funding for special programs to meet Indian needs. Utah school districts used most of the Johnson-O'Malley funds to provide lunch for Indian students.9

Despite the federal government's about-face, local attitudes did not change During the depression, school districts still demanded that Indian children in poor health be sent to the reservation's Whiterocks boarding school. Crowded public schools also transferred Ute students to the boarding school because whites objected to them. In 1934, 58 percent of whites in the Basin depended on relief, and many blamed this on the fact that Indian land could not be taxed for the good of the county. Since poor economic conditions kept many whites from paying taxes, little money was available for schooling children of any race. 10

Resentment and hostility increased. The reservation superintendent received complaints that bus drivers passed up Indian students at assigned stops or failed to wait for children running to catch the bus One bus driver wrote that he could not keep whites and Indians from quarreling Whites taunted and jeered at the Utes, telling them they had no right to ride the bus because they paid no taxes. Four Indian students refused to ride the bus, and their parents demanded that the district provide another way for them to attend school.11

9 Ibid

10 Superintendent's Report, 1935; Coulsen and Geneva Wright, "Indian-White Relations in the Uintah Basin," Utah Humanities Quarterly 2 (October 1948): 348-51; L W Page to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, October 12, 1933, and John Collier to Grace Lambert, January 6, 1934, box 19; Paul L Fickinger to Roy Adams, November 30, 1938, and Samuel H. Thompson to Supt. C.C. Wright, August 9, 1939, box 20; Roy Adams to Lewis W Page, August 27, 1935, box 18; H.M Tidwell to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 25, 1930, box 19, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence.

11 A Alwyn Call to C C Wright, March 7, 1937; C C Wright to A A Call, February 20, 1937; C C Wright to Charles Glines, September 24, 1940; Charles Glines to C C Wright, September 23, 1940, box 21, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence

John Collier, commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1932-45. National Archives photograph.

Many teachers demonstrated an open prejudice that made the Indian children feel unwelcome. A depression-era non-Indian student in the Uinta Basin gave the following example:

I remember one of the hymns we were required to sing in the school It was from an old Protestant hymnal It went: "Let the Indian and the Negro, Let the rude barbarian hear, Of the glories of the kingdom "

These lyrics did not wash with the Indian students. When they would not sing those words, the teacher would become incensed.12

A shift in local tactics did occur in the early 1940s when Basin residents began talking about building a consolidated public high school for the students of Uintah and Duchesne counties. Schools at that time were small, isolated, and run down; so a new school with more facilities in a central location would serve the children better. NonIndians wanted the federal government to provide one-third of the funding through the Indian Bureau because the school would benefit the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. In their proposal, the school districts played to new federal attitudes toward Indian culture by saying the new high school would strive to meet Indian needs with culturally relevant material, a promise that remained unfulfilled.13

The federal government and the school districts haggled for the next decade. The districts argued that 80 percent of their land was nontaxable, but the federal government said too few Indian students would benefit—over 3,000 non-Indian children would attend the school, compared with approximately 300 Utes. The Indian Bureau complained that other federal agencies would have to deal with the government-owned land problem, but the districts kept applying to the Indian Bureau for the funds In 1947 all parties concerned (except the Utes) finally came to an agreement. The Indian Bureau contributed $250,000, the counties contributed $150,000 each, and the new school was to "be available to all Indian children of the districts on the same terms as other children, without payment of Federal tuition."14 But with the passage of federal impact legislation in 1952

12 Floyd A. O'Neil, "The Indian New Deal: An Overview," in Indian SelfRule: First Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan, ed Kenneth R Philp (Salt Lake City, 1986), p 43

13 Committee of the State Department of Public Instruction, "A Survey of Duchesne County School District and Uintah County School District, 1941," box 17, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence

14 Ibid., pp. 31-42; D. S. Myer to Area Directors and Reservation Superintendents, October 19, 1950, box 21; Willard W Beatty to Forrest R Stone, May 23, Stone to John S Boyden, February 26, 1947, Stone to Ernest L Wilkinson, April 3, 1946, box 18, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence

American Indians and thePublicSchoolSystem 251

and 1954, the school districts once again received funds to compensate them for lost taxes.

Inset: Whiterocks school, ca. 1940s.

Below: Young Ute boys in uniform at the Whiterocks boarding school. Both photographs courtesy of the Regional History Center, Uintah County Public Library, Vernal.

By the 1940s the boarding school at Whiterocks needed major renovation. With the new high school available, all parties concerned (except the Utes) decided to close it down. Ute public school enrollment jumped from 128 to 404 in the three years prior to 1950.15 By 1952 the boarding school had closed completely, and the federal government finally attained its goal of enrolling nearly all Ute children in the Uinta Basin in the state's public school system.

15 A Alwyn Call to Roy Adams, December 14, 1951, and Harold M Lundell to Adams, March 6, 1952, box 10; Adams to Ralph M Gelvin, April 8, 1952, box 19; Stone to Gelvin, March 9, 1951, and Charles B Emery to Walter V Woehkle, February 26, 1951, box 21, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence

After World War II the Indian policy pendulum swung back to assimilation. Under Indian commissioner Dillon S. Myer the federal government planned to terminate its traditional responsibilities for the welfare of Indian nations. He wanted Indians to move to cities where they could learn to make their way in the mainstream economy without government help. As in the earlier eras of assimilation and the New Deal, the Indian Bureau expected public school educators to work toward the federal government's goal for the Indian nations.16

With the addition of over 250 new Ute students, the local school system immediately showed signs of strain. The districts needed new rooms and more teachers to relieve the overload; moreover, even veteran teachers had little experience in dealing with Indian children. The districts asked the federal government for new calculations of the amount of aid they were to receive, but officials told them to submit a report and "we will see what we can do."17

The Indians had difficulty with the changes as well. Parents who had counted on the boarding school to provide room, board, and clothing for their children were suddenly confronted with paying for all of that themselves. Prior to the 1950s many Ute Indians were destitute. Although in the 1940s the average family size was over six members, most Utes lived in two-room frame houses or log cabins, and some still lived in tepees.18

Two economic factors helped the Utes cope for a short time. First, in the 1940s oil was discovered on the reservation, and by 1951, the income from leases was substantial. Second, in 1951 the Utes won a suit against the federal government worth $17,000,000. The tribe used thejudgement to pay debts they owed to the government, to start recreation and housing programs, and for payments of $4,000 per person from 1951 to 1954.19

Ute children failed at the new high school in Roosevelt, receiving mostly Ds and Fs in their classes. In 1951 only three of twelve Indian seniors were eligible for graduation, and thirty-one of forty-

16 Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, 2 vols (Lincoln, Neb., 1984), 2:1060-61

17 A Alwyn Call to Roy Adams, December 14, 1951, and Harold M Lundell to Adams, March 6, 1952, box 10; Adams to Ralph M Gelvin, April 8, 1952, box 19; Forrest R Stone to Gel,vin, March 26, 1951, and Charles B. Emery to Walter V. Woehkle, February 26, 1951, box 21, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence

18 Joseph G Jorgensen, "Sovereignty and the Structure of Dependency at Northern Ute," American Indian Culture and ResearchJournal 10 (1986), no. 2, pp. 81-82; Wilson Rockwell, The Utes: A Forgotten People (Denver: Sage Books, 1956), pp 257-59; Paul Sanchez, "Development of the Northern Utes," Uintah and Ouray Agency, 1965, p 5, photocopy in Indian Education Files, Office of the Education Coordinator, Ute Tribe Education Division, Fort Duchesne, Utah, hereinafter referred to as IEF/UTED.

19 Jorgensen, "Sovereignty," p 80; Sanchez, "Development," p 5

seven Indian students were failing The principal reported that the Ute students refused to take part in gym classes, did not bring their supplies to home economics, and sat idly in core classes. A compilation of teacher comments about Ute students alleged that one-third of the students failed due to absenteeism, many refused to try or would not participate, some started school too late and could not catch up, some would not study, and at least one was "just plain lazy." In their comments on 68 Indian students, teachers made not one encouraging or positive statement. This trend continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s.20

Some white parents felt that their own children received a poorer education because the schools slowed the pace of learning to meet "the slower learning rate of the Indian children." Non-Indian residents believed that Utes failed primarily because of a poor attitude— they felt Utes did not want to succeed. Non-Indians theorized that the Indians had a history of living in squalor, associating hunger and poverty with a hunting and gathering economy. If Utes did not want to farm, it meant they did not want to improve their lives—they refused to replace their traditional economy with a "better" one. 21

This "poor" attitude showed up at school. One researcher who talked with educators at Union High theorized that the teachers' prejudice against Utes came from the Ute children's resentment of them

One teacher said that the children spent all their time complaining about things that early Uinta Basin residents had done to Indians, apparently not realizing that these grievances had occurred only fifty years earlier. Being raised by parents and grandparents who had experienced prejudice and land confiscation in the Uinta Basin made these acts seem immediate to fifteen-year-old Ute students.22

But the Ute children of the 1940s and the early 1950s failed because they were hopelessly unprepared by the Whiterocks boarding school for the work demanded of them when they transferred into the public schools, and each year they fell further behind. Rather than encouraging graduation, the boarding school principal had just expected Ute children to leave and begin agricultural work when old

20 D arre n D Atkinson, "Educational Adjustment of Ute Indians Compared to the Mixed Bloods, and Native Whites at Union High School, Roosevelt, Utah" (master's thesis, Utah State Agricultural College, 1955), pp. 5, 25; Statements from the Teachers Concerning Indian Children in Union High School and Roy Adams to Charles E Reed, December 10, 1951, box 21, Uintah and Ouray Miscellaneous Correspondence

21 Henrik G. Lundgren, "A Study of the Language Development of Ute Indian Children" (master's thesis, University of Utah, 1969), p 6; Atkinson, "Educational Adjustment of Ute Indians," pp 28-32, 39

22 Ibid.

enough. The boarding school and the public schools theoretically taught the same thing, but records indicate that the boys had spent the majority of their time at Whiterocks caring for the school facilities and livestock, while the girls' education had consisted of cooking, cleaning, laundering, and sewing.23

Local residents and teachers thought the Utes failed due to laziness, but one observer, after speaking to the parents rather than to "people associated with the Utes," found that the Utes saw things differently. He believed that their children's education was very important to the Utes. Some felt that their children would succeed if they understood their social and physical environment in the Basin better, while others wanted their children to compete more effectively with whites in the cattle business. But he also found that some who had supported the transfer of their children from the boarding schools to the public schools opposed the move the next year, after their children experienced public education. Many Utes ultimately disapproved of the closing of the boarding school because it threatened their way of life by casting their children into a hostile environment where classes, teachers, and students assaulted their self-image daily.21

One student, recalling her days in the public schools in the late 1950s, corroborates these observations. Gloria Thompson said teachers wanted Ute children to be seen and not heard. She remembered texts that portrayed Indians as savages or red men and also stated that little or no communication existed between the schools and Ute parents. The Utes were used to the boarding school handling all aspects of their children's lives and were not accustomed to dealing with public school administrators and teachers All these factors combined to make her feel as if she did not belong and could not be a part of the school system.25 Thus, from the Ute point of view, students failed because the schools did not welcome them or try to meet their needs.

During the 1960s faculty at the University of Utah became interested in the problems of Ute students The university maintained a counseling program at Union High School from 1961 to 1964, and graduate students wrote master's theses on Ute achievement, attitudes, and perceptions about education. The Utes' average daily attendance improved and grades in vocational and physical education classes rose,

23 Superintendent's Report, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1921; Bob Chapoose, interview with author, April 14, 1988, for text see Gruenwald, "The Ute Indians."

24 Gottfried O Lang, "The Ute Development Program: A Study in Culture Change in an Underdeveloped Area within the United States" (Ph.D diss., Cornell University, 1954), pp 335-40

25 Gloria Thompson, interview with author, April 14, 1988, for text see Gruenwald, "Ute Indians."

but overall the GPA of the Utes remained close to the D average of 1958. Ute grades in core classes stayed the same or even went down in some cases. One researcher concluded that the reason for these poor results was the relationship between the Utes' posture toward the nonIndian world and non-Indian attitudes toward Ute concerns Ute students had to display a "withdrawal from white goals" for peer and tribal acceptance, and non-Indians showed "a lack of understanding and unwillingness to make constructive concessions" to Indian needs. This created a cycle in which the behavior of each reinforced the attitudes of the other.26

Some Utes echoed this view that the attitudes of the Utes were as much at the core of student failure as the attitudes of whites. Ute leader Conner Chapoose stated in an interview that Indian parents did not understand what went on in school, and because they did not understand the system they could not help their children. He also said that Ute parents openly wondered about the good of schooling in front of their children and conveyed a sense of directionlessness to them. Other Ute interviewees agreed that the parents were not supportive enough of their children's education and needed to get more involved.27

The children themselves felt keenly their failure to succeed in school, and they too blamed both the whites and the Utes. Indian students felt discriminated against by white parents and principals but also resented their parents' failure to care about their educational experiences. They knew they were failing but lacked the skills to catch up. With Ute values pressing them from one side and their failure to acquire a mainstream education pressing them from the other, Ute students felt lost and many dropped out of school.28

In the mid-1960s federal policy toward Indian education took a different sort of turn, one not dictated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The war on poverty fought by the Johnson administration sought to establish federal programs for children below the poverty line. The Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 provided funds to meet the special educational needs of low-income families rather than merely doling out money to school districts for their general operating budgets New programs were to enrich offerings to the "educa-

26 Phil E Wennhold, "A Study of Academic Performance by Ute Children" (master's thesis, University of Utah, 1967), pp 14, 16-17, 23-27

27 Conner Chapoose, August 22, 1960, Duke #5; Marietta Reed, 1970, Duke #605; Katherine Jenks, July 23, 1970, Duke #606; Linda Pawwannie, September 17, 1968, Duke #371; all in the Duke Oral History Collection, Marriott Library, Special Collections, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

28 "Human Relations and Leadership Development Program," unpublished report, 1973, pp 30-34, IEF/UTED

tionally disadvantaged." Many Indians in the United States, including the Uintah and Ouray Utes, qualified to receive these funds.29

But one important area of continuity existed between the old Indian education policies and this new act: the federal government did not consult Indians about programs designed for them. Indian groups across the country objected, and several won the right to reviewJohnson-O'Malley programs. In addition, the National Indian Leadership Training program in New Mexico launched a campaign to educate Indian parents about ways to have an impact on local schools. The Navajos established a tribally run school in 1966 and in 1968 established the Navajo Community College—the first college to be directed and controlled by Indians.30

Utah school districts experienced this same surge in Indian activism. In 1969 the Ute Tribe and the University of Utah initiated a series of meetings to discuss local Indian education. A year later they created the Uintah Basin Educational Council, "organized and charged with the responsibility of developing a program to deal with the problems related to Indian education in the Uintah [sic] Basin."

Between January and April 1970 forty-one non-Indians and thirty-five Indians met three or four times a month to identify problems and outline goals. Believing that conflict between whites and Utes constituted the main obstacle, the council attempted to create a dialogue between the two groups During meetings small, mixed groups discussed issues such as the lack of effective reading programs for all students and the lack of sufficient communication between schools and parents and between students and teachers. The council targeted such problems as the adverse effects of labeling on the Ute students' self-esteem and the lack of Indian representation on education boards and committees. The council also emphasized the absence of teachers qualified to handle the special problems of a culturally mixed school population. They planned to devise new teaching procedures, improve relationships between the cultures, individualize the curriculum, and work toward increasing educational opportunities for both Indians and non-Indians in the basin.31

29 Margaret Connell Szasz, Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination since 1928 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1977), pp. 181-87.

30 Prucha, The Great Father, 2:1102; Szasz, Education and the American Indian, pp. 185-96.

31 The council referred to itself as the "Uintah" Education Council Fred A Conetah to D E Ostler, September 18, 1970; Ashel J Evans, Superintendent to Urban/Rural School Development Program, U.S Office of Education, September 14, 1970; Uintah Basin Education Council, "Design for the Improvement of Educational Opportunities," June 22, 1970; a full run of the minutes of all the January to April 1970 council meetings is available, as well as all the above documents as photocopies, in IEF/UTED

But in September of that year both the Ute Tribe and the school districts had difficulty finding money to implement their plans. Fred Conetah, a member of the tribal business committee, wrote, "to date no projects have been funded." No records or accounts of the council exist to indicate whether it should be judged a success or a failure, but the council did achieve its most important goal: the members of the Ute Tribe and the residents of the school districts were talking to each other The dialogue, although often acrimonious, continued in the years following.32

Along with this new dialogue came new tactics as the Utes began to directly confront the public school districts about policies that censured their culture. In 1972 WestJunior High suspended seven boys because they wore long hair, violating a dress code. A few days after the incident occurred 204 Ute parents attended a meeting to plan a confrontation.33

The school district maintained that certain standards of cleanliness and proper dress had to be enforced or the school district would not be teaching children a proper way of life. Non-Indians felt long hair represented a rebellious and disruptive influence. Many white parents expressed concern that if Indians wore their hair long, their own children would want to as well At least one regarded long hair as immoral; he felt it would lead to girls wearing short skirts, children using drugs, and other degenerate activities, until no education would take place in the schools at all The Utes maintained that long hair was part of their culture and a symbol of pride, as well as a statement of group identity. The Utes maintained that hair length had nothing to do with education, and a dress code outlawing long hair seemed to target Indians. One Ute parent stated, "Education is more

33 Uintah Basin Standard, November 9, 1972

Fred A. Conetah, 1924-80, was a member of the Ute Tribal Business Committee. From A History of the Northern Ute People

32 Conetah to Ostler, September 18, 1970; Evans to Urban/Rural School Development Program, September 14, 1970; Ute Tribe Education Division, "The Ute Indian Tribe Comprehensive Education Plan" (September 1983), pp 81-83, IEF/UTED

important than keeping them home from school because of their hair."34

The battle eventually went through the district court system, and in 1974 the combatants reached a compromise. The school districts permitted Ute students to wear their hair long if they signed an agreement with the school district stating they would "braid, wrap and/or tie it with the dignity and pride of my people."35 This debate over long hair illustrates the surge in Ute demands for increased participation in their children's education that came to a head in the early 1970s Instead of retreating to the reservation as they might have in the 1920s and 1930s, the Utes began to stand up and challenge whites about what Ute children had to deal with in the public schools

On the federal level, a Senate Special Subcommittee on Indian Education published the Kennedy Report in November 1969. It stated that public schools across America had failed to educate Indians properly. Finding that Indians achieved well below average and faced prejudice in school, "the committee insisted on increased participation and control by Indians of their education ."36 In 1970 President Richard M. Nixon called for a federal Indian policy of "self-determination without termination" that included educational, economic, and governmental goals. Known to educators as Title IV, the Indian Education Act of 1972 provided money for programs such as adult education, curriculum development, the development of new and innovative methods, and the training of Indian educational personnel and counselors. In essence the act amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to specifically include Indians.37

Ute participation in their children's public school education dramatically increased with the passage of Title IV One of the most important new projects involved communication: counseling to augment communication between the schools and the Indian children and the establishment of parent advisory committees (PACs) to increase communication between parents and the schools. The Title IV counselor became responsible for advising Indian children who

34 Minutes of meeting of Ute tribal members, parents, and the Uintah School Board, October 13, 1972; Bruce G. Parry, Division of Indian Affairs to Governor Calvin L. Rampton, October 26, 1972; David C VanderKraats, Community Development Specialist, to Forrest Cuch, Januar y 30, 1974; Lynn A Raveston to Ashel Evans, Superintendent , Octobe r 19, 1973; Meeting Minutes, Lon g Hair Issue, September 13, 1973; Robert C Chapoose to Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune, n.d.; Ute Tribe Education Division to Dr Walter Talbot, State Superintendent, October 20, 1972, IEF/UTED

35 Student-Administration Contract, WestJunior High, 1974, IEF/UTED

36 Prucha, The Great Father, 2:1103-106, 1139-40

37 Ibid., 2:1140; Szasz, Education and the American Indian, p. 198; Americo D. Lapati, Education and the Federal Government: A Historical Record (New York, 1975), pp 45-47; Sharpes, "Federal Education for the American Indian," pp 21-22

had academic, attendance, and behavioral problems and for facilitating communication between the school and home. Title IV made mandatory the participation of parents; PACs were to conduct needs assessments to determine how Title IV money should be spent and to evaluate the programs once implemented.38

The Ute Tribe also used Title IV funds and their own funds to change what their children encountered in the classroom. A Ute history and culture course that began in 1967 under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has operated under Title IV since 1972. Ute educational leaders also generated curriculum material specific to Ute culture Despite such gains, one important factor in the implementation of Title IV stood in the way of greater success for the history and counseling programs: the core curriculum remained unaffected by changes made to accommodate Utes. For one-half hour Ute children learned that their culture had value, but for the rest of the day they confronted the same old curriculum that emphasized Euro-American history and presented negative stereotypes of Indians.39

Beyond the negative images, students also had to deal with a value system at odds with their own BettyJo Kramer, a member of the Anthropology Department of the University of Utah employed by the Ute Tribe as an educational administrator in the early 1980s, observed that Ute parents voiced concern about the way public schools presented awards for scholastic and athletic achievement. The Utes felt that those who tried hardest should be rewarded; for example, rather than giving awards for finished artwork, teachers should emphasize the creative process that went into the production of art. Kramer felt that the Utes focused on process while the dominant culture focused on results, much to the detriment of the Indian students who emphasized personal commitment more than the end products that would result in good grades or awards.40

Other factors came into play as well Educational leaders continued to report that Indian parents did not become involved enough in their children's schooling. In 1980 one report concluded that "Indian parents have a feeling of alienation from the white man's school system and view the school as a white man's institution over which they as

38 Szasz, Education and the American Indian, p 199

39 Norma Denver, interview with author, April 14, 1988, for text see Gruenwald, "Ute Indians"; Ute Tribe Education Division, "Ute Indian Tribe Comprehensive Education Plan" (1983), p 6

1(1 BettyJo Kramer, "The Dismal Record Continues: The Ute Indian Tribe and the School System," Ethnic Groups 5 (1983): 162-63

parents have no control."41 A second problem involved the ratio of Indian students to white students. Most Utes attended Todd Elementary and WestJunior High where they made up half of the student population. When they entered Union High, however, between 80 and 90 percent of their peers were white.42

Although Title IV programs did not work out precisely as planned, their implementation made the relationship between the Ute Tribe and the district more complex. During the summer of 1974 education coordinator Forrest Cuch wrote letters to the school district stating that the Utes' education division should have a role in evaluating JohnsonO'Malley personnel and input in how the school district spent the funds. In 1977 Cuch wanted to know why the school district did not ask the Ute Tribe to participate in the planning and implementation of the Uintah School District's teacher in-service training program entitled "Todd Elementary Unified Approach to Indian Education."43

41 National Indian Training and Research Center, "Needs Assessment for Ute Education Department and the Uintah School District, 1978-79," p 22, IEF/UTED Wil Numkena, "Report on Indian Education Activities in the State of Utah," May 1978, p 7, and "A Report on Indian Education in the State of Utah, 1979-80," June 1980, p 9, Indian Education Files, Office of the Special Assistant for Indian Education, Utah State Board of Education, Salt Lake City, hereinafter referred to as IEF/USBE

42 National Indian Training and Research Center, "Needs Assessment," p. 9; Gruenwald, "Ute Indians," pp. 172-73.

Forrest S.

Members ofthe WestJunior High Band, 1972-73, from the school yearbook in USHS collections.

43

Cuch to Frank Andreason, Director of Pupil Personnel, July 23, 1974; Cuch to Andreason, June 21, 1974; Cuch to John Childs, January 26, 1977; photocopies in IEF/UTED.

By the late 1970s Ute achievement in the public schools had not risen significantly above the failures of the 1950s. Children at the elementary and junior high level still fell further behind their non-Indian counterparts in each grade. The 1977 graduating class contained only eight of the thirty-eight Utes who had begun in ninth grade four years earlier An equal number of Ute students attended the Union High School and BIA secondary schools off the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, yet most of the small number of graduates had attended the BIA schools. Ute achievement continued to be low because many Indian students remained unprepared to perform needed school work at Union High School. In 1985, although over half the ninth grade class at WestJunior High had failed English and a quarter had failed math, with a substantial number failing social studies as well, 96 percent of them continued to high school.44

Perhaps because of failures like these all over the country, a crucial transition occurred. American Indians concluded that the advisory role mandated by Title IV programs was not enough, and the federal government responded to new demands by giving tribes the right to administer Johnson-O'Malley programs themselves in 1977. The Utes took over that function the next year The JohnsonO'Malley program had many of the same components as the Title IV program, but it also included teacher in-service training, head start curriculum, summer school, and youth leadership training. In the early 1980s Utes pushed to control Title IV, too.45

Unfortunately, records seem to indicate that the programs were poorly administered no matter who was in charge In 1987 Roger Beckstead, the new elementary education director for the Uintah School District, reported:

After reviewing the grant application for the 1986-87 year and the objectives contained therein, I feel it was never made clear to the Title IV staff the kinds of data they should be keeping in order to verify the objectives Consequently, the data does not exist at this time to complete the report in what I consider an acceptable way.

Beckstead used attendance as an example The objective stated that it was to rise 5 percent, but the Indian counselors told him they did not have the correct records. When Beckstead completed the report with

11 National Indian Training and Research Center, "Needs Assessment," pp. 11-17, 33; Robert Chapoose, Title IV Counselor, pp 2-7, IEF/USBE

15 Ute Tribe Education Division, "Comprehensive Education Plan," p 15

the data he had, including statistics on reading skills, he checked the box labeled, "50 percent or less of objectives were met."46

For its part, the federal government failed to enforce its self-determination policy In 1986 the U.S Department of Education audited the Indian education program in the Uintah School District, conducting an on-site visit complete with interviews. The auditor reported: "adequate progress toward achieving the goals of the grant" was in evidence, and "acceptable evaluative procedures are being followed."47 The auditor reported these findings despite the fact that over half the Ute students failed a majority of their classes that year; the next year Beckstead felt compelled to note that the records kept were inaccurate and inadequate for evaluation to take place. Obviously there was little incentive for school districts to follow federal policy when those auditing the program rubber-stamped local efforts regardless of results. By 1986 the school districts had cut a Ute bilingual program and cut the Title IV counselor position to half-time as federal funds dwindled, and the core curriculum remained unchanged.

During the twentieth century, in the area of education, federal strategies have swung on a pendulum between assimilation and attempts to maintain Indian culture. Local white strategies have evolved from trying to exclude Indians from public schools, to inviting them in but not making them welcome, to participating in federal policies targeting Ute educational disadvantages. Local Ute strategies have evolved from retreat to confrontation in an attempt to change what their children encounter in school.

Despite changes, some things remain the same. Local whites continue to believe that Utes must change in order to become members of society. Some observers attribute this attitude to the influence of the Mormon church. For their part, local Utes have made forays into mainstream white society in terms of economic strategies but have not embraced mainstream schooling because the price is too high: the destruction of their culture.48 In the 1980s local school districts did not allow Title IV programs to "taint" the core curriculum, and the Ute Tribe lobbied for the establishment of a separate, alternative Ute high

46 Roger Beckstead to Whom It May Concern, November 19, 1987, photocopy in Indian Education Files, Office of the Elementary Education Director, Uintah School District, Vernal, Utah, hereinafter referred to as IEF/EED

47 Hakim Khan, Acting Director of Indian Education to Phillip E Ellis, Superintendent, April 23, 1986, photocopy in IEF/EED

48 Kramer, "The Dismal Record," pp 159-69; Jorgensen, "Sovereignty," pp 75-94; Gruenwald, "Ute Indians," p. 219.

school and community college that would emphasize self-expression and long-term goals for the future of the Ute Tribe itself

In this power struggle the school districts hold all the cards and have nothing to gain by changing the educational system The Utes will settle for nothing less than the right to determine what and how their children are taught, but self-determination policies have proven impossible to enforce. The Utes, too, see nothing to gain in changing their position, because to them compromise means the end of their way of life.

While the local school districts and the Ute Tribe do battle, the casualties of war are Ute children. The one consistent trend in twentieth-century Ute education is the children's failure to receive an education. For employment by the tribe itself, Ute youths know that a white man's education does not count for much. BettyJo Kramer concluded that to accept the school system's plan for them meant "separat[ing] themselves from mundane tribal life," while "failing . . . reaffirm[ed] their tribal identity."49

The opposing plans of both sides are clearly evident in two statements outlining the mission of a bilingual program for Utes The Utah State Board of Education stated that:

the basic purpose of the program is to teach concepts in the child's native tongue while developing the child's skill, knowledge and understanding of English As soon as English is controlled, instruction in the child's native tongue is discontinued

The Ute Tribe Education Division stated that their aim wasto: retain and expand the use of the Ute language and preserve Ute cultural traditions. The primary intent of these projects is to strengthen self-concept and identity among Ute Indian youth and the Ute Indian community in general.50

The Utes believe that their tribe will not survive if their children are forced to abandon their essential Ute identity, and if that means their children fail in Uinta Basin schools, then so be it.

49 Kramer, "The Dismal Record," pp 163, 168-69

50 Elliot C Howe, Coordinator of Bilingual Education to District Directors of State Bilingual Education Programs, August 23, 1977, in IEF/EED; Ute Tribe Education Division, "Comprehensive Education Plan," p 21

Utah's Constitution: A Reflection of the Territorial Experience

BY THOMAS G ALEXANDER

BETWEEN 1849 AND 1895 UTAHNS DRAFTED NO LESS THAN SEVEN constitutions before Congress finally admitted the state into the Union in 1896.1 Though each of the constitutions differed in detail, each of them drew on one of three models. The first three constitutions drafted in 1849, 1856, and 1862 relied principally on the Iowa Constitution of 1846 as their model.2 Those of 1872, 1882, and 1887 borrowed from the Nevada Constitution of 1864.3 Delegates to the 1895 convention used an eclectic model. They drew on the previous six constitutions—especially the last three, but they also relied on numerous other constitutions especially those of Washington, Idaho, Montana, California, New York, Colorado, and Wyoming for various provisions.4

In addition, while the delegates drew their general framework from other constitutions, they included in each of them certain measures to answer local concerns For instance, the constitution of 1872

Dr Alexander is Lemuel Hardison Redd, Jr., Professor of Western American History at Brigham Young University, Provo

1 On the drafting of the various constitutions see: Jerome Bernstein, "A History of the Constitutional Conventions of the Territory of Utah from 1849 to 1895," (M.S. thesis, Utah State University, 1961) For the proceedings of the convention of 1895 see: State of Utah, Official Report of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Salt Lake City on the Fourth Day of March, 1895, to Adopt a Constitution for the State of Utah, 2 vols (Salt Lake City, 1§98)

2 Peter Crawley, The Constitution of the State ofDeseret (Provo: Friends of the BYU Library, 1982), p 12 Until Crawley's work, most authorities had believed that the constitution of 1849 was modeled on the 1818 Illinois Constitution. See: Martin B. Hickman, "Utah Constitutional Law," (Ph.D. diss., University of Utah, 1954), pp 42-44

3 On the models for the constitutions see Bernstein, ""A History of the Constitutional Conventions," pp 41-42, 57, 67; Gordon Morris Bakken, Rocky Mountain Constitution Making, 1850-1912 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1987), pp 6-7; Joh n J Flynn, "Federalism and Viable State Government—The History of Utah's Constitution," Utah Law Review (September 1966): 311-25; Martin Berkeley Hickman, "Utah Constitutional Law," (Ph D diss., University of Utah, 1954), 42-77; and Hickman, "The Utah Constitution: Retrospect and Prospect," in Neal A. Maxwell and Edward W. Clyde, Interim Report of the Constitutional Revision Commission Submitted to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of Utah (Salt Lake City: Constitutional Revision Commission, 1971), pp 27-29 Hickman cites also a constitution of 1867 in one work and of 1869 in another Actually, in January 1867 the territorial legislature petitioned for admission, and on October 7, 1869, the people held a mass meeting to petition for statehood In neither case did they actually hold an additional constitutional convention See Andrew Jenson, ed., Church Chronology: A Record of Important Events Pertaining to the History of the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1914), pp. 76, 81.

4 For the sources of the various provisions see the memorials and committee reports filed with records of the Utah State Constitution in the Utah State Archives In general, the endorsement pages of the memorials and committee reports cite the sources of the various provisions See especially the memorials filed in box 2, Statehood Constitutional Convention, 1895, Convention Records, Utah State Archives, Salt Lake City (hereinafter cited SCC 1895.)

adopted woman suffrage and provided for a system of proportional representation that would probably have guaranteed the election of at least some non-Mormons to the legislature. The 1872 constitution also tried to address objections to polygamy by declaring that the territory would accept any provisions that Congress wished to impose if the majority of Utah citizens approved them in a referendum.5 The 1882 constitution also granted woman suffrage and provided that the state's school system would remain free of sectarian influence.6 The 1887 constitution established an item veto, guaranteed religious freedom for schoolteachers, and set up ajuvenile correction system. It also prohibited the practice of polygamy and forbade the amendment of the antipolygamy article without congressional approval.7 The 1895 constitution granted woman suffrage, as other western states such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana had previously done, but it generated heated debate. Ultimately, over the objections of a sizeable minority, mostly made up of Protestant Republicans, the delegates adopted woman suffrage and rejected a proposal to submit the article for a separate vote.8 The convention also drew on numerous sources, particularly its practical experience with water use and with an 1880 law on appropriation and irrigation.9

Previous scholars such asJerome Bernstein,John J. Flynn, Stanley S. Ivins, Martin B. Hickman, and Gordon M. Bakken have written extensively about the sources of the Utah State Constitution.10 They have generally recognized that certain customs influenced Utah's constitutional tradition. Although observers like Bernstein, Ivins, and Bakken have cited local conditions as catalysts for various constitutional provisions and others like Flynn and Hickman have specified the federal and state constitutional traditions as major sources, none have explicitly seen the 1895 constitution as the fruit of the political, social, and economic experience of Utahns with territorial government.

In fact, Hickman, perhaps the principal interpreter of Utah constitutional law and a man I admired and considered a close friend dur-

5 Bernstein, "A History of the Constitutional Conventions," pp 46-50

6 Ibid., pp 58-59

7 Ibid., pp. 68-69.

8 Stanley S Ivins, "A Constitution for Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly 25 (1957): 102-5; See also Bakken, Rocky Mountain Constitution Making, pp 93-98

9 J R Murdock, chair of committee on irrigation and agriculture, n.d., box 2, folder 37, committee report 16, citing the numerous petitions and proposed draft provisions submitted to the convention for the irrigation article, SCC 1895

111 See the discussions in Flynn, "Federalism and Viable State Government," pp 312-22; and Hickman, "The Utah Constitution," pp 18-27

ing his lifetime, believed that although "the Utah constitution shares [an] . . . indebtedness to the past with every other written constitution. ... it is not to Utah's political and social history as a territory that one must look for the origins of the Utah constitution."11 He argued instead that the legacy of the federal and state constitutions influenced Utahns, particularly in the adoption of such features as three branches of government, bicameralism, checks and balances, separation of powers, and a bill of rights. I believe he is right about these influences. He also argued—again rightly—that the Utah Constitution bore the stamp of the Progressive tendency during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to include provisions expected to correct some problems caused by the mistreatment of employees and abuse of the community by powerful and impersonal business corporations.12

In interpreting the sources of the Utah Constitution, Hickman and Flynn also pointed to the influence on Utah of changes in state constitutions during the nineteenth century. During the nineteenth century citizens of various states became increasingly outraged by the corruption of their legislatures by powerful interests. In a rush to promote economic development, states and municipalities had borrowed money for schemes to invest in canals and railroads that made little practical business sense. The panic of 1837 and the succeeding depression left many states hard pressed to pay their debts, and the economic collapse bankrupted a number of municipalities.

By the late nineteenth century the open venality of legislators and governors also horrified the drafters of constitutions. Fearful of the consequences of unrestricted power, members of constitutional conventions tried to control the tendency of legislators and governors to accept bribes and "campaign contributions" in return for favors to business corporations. They generally tried to counter such corruption by limiting legislative discretion and establishing boards of examiners to review state expenditures by executive departments.13

These authorities will find no disagreement with me about those sources of features of Utah's 1895 constitution. Clearly Utahns drew on the federal experience, the experience of other states, and the Progressive movement for its various provisions. Nevertheless, in con-

11 Hickman, "The Utah Constitution," p 18 For Hickman's contribution to Utah constitutional law see: Hickman, "Utah Constitutional Law," esp. pp. 19-36, for a discussion of constitutional change leading to Utah's constitution and pp 74-75 for the argument against the history of the relations with the territorial government as the basis for the 1895 constitution

12 Hickman, "The Utah Constitution," pp 18-21 and 26-27

13 Ibid., pp 21-26; Flynn, "Federalism and Viable State Government," 312-14

trast to some of these authorities, I will argue that Utahns also drew on their territorial political, social, and economic experience for various provisions of the 1895 constitution. I must hasten to add, however, that I read Utah's territorial history quite differently than previous scholars.

At the outset we must understand that Utah became increasingly less a Mormon commonwealth, especially between 1870 and 1890 In 1870 Mormons still made up 98 percent of Utah's population. In the next twenty years, with the growth of mining, railroading, and commerce, the composition of the population changed so dramatically that by 1890 Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Orthodox, Buddhists, and sundry others constituted nearly 44 percent of Utah's citizenry. That was a larger percentage than at present.14 Impelled by the growth of the non-Mormon population, as early as 1888 Mormons began to share power with non-Mormons in city governments in Ogden and Salt Lake City (at times with LDS General Authority approval), nonMormons controlled the local governments in most of Utah's mining towns, and non-Mormons soon began to sit in the territorial legislature.15 Moreover, beginning in 1872 non-Mormons sat in each of the constitutional conventions.

Historians generally cite the breakup of the Mormon People's party and anti-Mormon Liberal party as landmark events Landmark events these breakups undoubtedly were, but they also ratified a condition that already existed That is, by the early 1890s Utahns increasingly relied on conditions other than religion to dictate political, social, and economic preferences.16

By the time of the state constitutional convention in 1895, on a number of crucial matters, the division between Republicans and Democrats became more significant than the division between Mormons and non-Mormons. Perhaps the most striking RepublicanDemocratic cleavage appeared in the convention over whether the state ought to invest in or lend its credit to private business ventures. The Republican party tended to support such investments and the Democrats opposed them.17

14 Richard D Poll, et at, eds., Utah's History (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), pp 692-93.

18 On the situation in the cities see Thomas G Alexander and James B Allen, Mormons and Gentiles: A History of Salt Lake City (Boulder, Colo.: Pruett, 1984), pp 99-100; Richard C Roberts and Richard W Sadler, Ogden:Junction City (Northridge, Calif: Windsor, 1985), pp. 52, 56.

16 On this matter see Thomas G Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times ofWilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), pp. 262-63, 274-77, 281-82.'

17 Ivins, "A Constitution," pp 106-7

In this connection, it is important to understand the change that has taken place in American politics since the nineteenth century Then the Democratic party tended to champion states' rights and limited government. The Republicans, on the other hand, favored national supremacy and activist government as long as it benefited the business community.

Throughout the nineteenth century, also, differences of opinion appeared particularly between the more conservative and localist Jeffersonians and Democrats and the more nationalistic Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans on the role of the federal government in administering the territories.18 To most of us today it seems quite evident that the creation and administration of territories derived from the powers granted Congress in Article 4 Section 3 of the U.S Constitution—the Property Clause. In its wording the Property Clause granted Congress the power to make "all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States." By contrast, during the nineteenth century Americans proposed at least three theories to interpret that clause, two of which—had they prevailed—would have tied the hands of the federal government quite tightly The earliest theory, the theory of national supremacy, proposed an expansive and nearly unlimited administrative role for the federal government in the territories In 1828 the U.S Supreme Court, speaking through Federalist and Chief Justice John Marshall in TheAmerican Insurance Company v. Canter (1828), said that Congress governed the territories by virtue of the Property Clause. Marshall said further that the citizens of the territories enjoyed "the privileges, rights, and immunities, of the citizens of the United States . . . They do not, however, participate in political power."19 Marshall's ruling meant that territorial residents had all the rights of American citizens except self rule. In Marshall's view they had no right to govern themselves.

Marshall's nationalist theory remained in vogue only for about twenty years. During the 1840s and 1850s, as the controversy over the expansion of slavery into the western territories began to rip at the fabric of the nation, certain politicians proposed a territorial theory

18 For general discussions of the American territorial system and its application in the Mountain West see Earl S Pomeroy, The Territories and the United States, 1861-1890: Studies in Colonial Administration, 2d ed (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1969); Jack Ericson Eblen, The First and Second United States Empires (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968); John Porter Bloom, ed., The American Territorial System (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1973); Howard R Lamar, The Far Southwest, 1846-1912: A Territorial History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966); and Thomas G Alexander, A Clash of Interests: Interior Department and Mountain West, 1863-1896 (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977)

19 The American Insurance Company^. Canter, 26 U S 514 (1828) at 542

competing with the nationalist theory that historians have called territorial sovereignty, popular sovereignty, or—sometimes in derision— squatter sovereignty The theory of popular sovereignty found its major supporters among northern Democrats who understood that the slavery question could easily tear the nation apart. In late 1847 Congress began to consider the organization of the territory the United States had captured from Mexico in the Mexican War and to which the nation would subsequently gain title in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). As the debate progressed in December 1847 Michigan Senator Lewis Cass, who became the Democratic candidate for president in 1848, spelled out the theory of popular sovereignty in a letter to the Niles National Register, a national political newspaper. He proposed a limited reading of the Property Clause and a natural rights view of sovereignty. He said that the Property Clause granted Congress the right "to manage, preserve & disposeof such property as it might possess. . . . But the lives and persons of our citizens [living in the territories], with the vast variety of objects connected with them, cannot be controlled by an authority which is merely called into existence for the purpose of making rulesandregulationsfor thedispositionand managementofproperty." In his view the U.S. Constitution limited the power of Congress "to the creation of proper governments for new countries, acquired or settled, and to the necessary provision for their eventual admission into the union, leaving in the meantime, to the people inhabiting them, to regulate their internal concerns in their own way."20

Implicit in Cass's argument lay the proposition that sovereignty did not derive from the rights of citizens of states, as Marshall had argued, but from natural rights consistent with human intelligence and liberty. Under those conditions territorial citizens had the right to make decisions for their own local concerns Cass said that he found it "inexpedient" for Congress to exercise any authority "which questions the intelligence of a respectable portion of our citizens."

Any congressional regulation of local matters, he thought, smacked of despotic power over sections of the nation's common territory.

Significantly, Cass's theory of popular sovereignty served as the

20 Lewis Cass to A O P Nicholson, December 23, 1847, Niles National Register, January 8, 1848, pp 293-94. For discussions of territorial expansion and the various constitutional theories see Eugene H. Berwanger, The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967), and Robert W Johannesen, Frontier Politics on the Eve of the Civil War (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1955) For a general discussion of constitutional development during the period see Harold M Hyman and William M Wieck, Equal Justice under Law: Constitutional Development, 1835-1875 (New York: Harper and Row, 1982)

view of most Mormons in Utah during most of the territorial period Over and over again they argued for the right of local home rule and popular sovereignty.21 For instance, the entirely Mormon 1862 constitutional convention grounded its argument for admission to the Union on the theory of popular sovereignty. In the memorial, the delegates said that statehood was "their unquestioned right." They argued further that Congress's only functions in admitting states were to determine whether a state had a republican form of government, whether the population warranted statehood, and whether the people of the territory approved admission.22

Both the nationalist and the popular sovereignty theories of territorial administration faced a challenge from another theory proposed to protect slavery—the states' rights theory. This theory reached its greatest strength immediately prior to the Civil War as aggressive southerners and their northern supporters fought a rear-guard action to protect slavery. In his 1857 decision in Dred Scottv. Sandford Chief Justice Roger Taney, while professing agreement with Marshall's opinion in the Canter case, implicitly rejected it with his left hand while with his right hand he wrote the states' rights theory into constitutional law

Like proponents of the theory of popular sovereignty, Taney based the states' rights theory on a narrow interpretation of the Property Clause. Arguing that the clause applied only to territory acquired under the Articles of Confederation and owned by the United States at the time of adoption of the constitution, he ruled that the Property Clause did not apply to regions acquired since 1789

Following this view with a strict interpretation of the constitution, Taney said that since nothing in the Property Clause specifically said

21 See, for instance, B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Century One (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1930), 5: 20-23, 391-98

22 Hickman, "Utah Constitutional Law," pp 46-47

ChiefJustice Roger B. Taney.

that it applied to new acquisitions, the provision prohibited Congress from applying certain restrictions to new territories.23 After casting out the Property Clause and imposing a strict construction on the constitution, Taney had to find a different theory to allow the federal government to acquire and govern the territories. He found such permission in what • ^ he saw as the general prerogative of any sovereign to acquire new territory and the right specifically delegated to Congress by the constitution to create new states.24

For Taney the trail fashioned with this argument led to the proposition that since the constitution did not enumerate any specific authority for Congress to govern territories except those acquired before 1789, newly acquired territories were the common property of all the states and not the property of the United States. Under those circumstances, Taney said, Congress could pass no law depriving citizens of any state of rights they might enjoy either in their own states or as citizens of the United States.25 In effect, Taney's decision repealed previous congressional attempts to regulate slavery such as the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). It also implicitly invalidated the provision of the Utah and New Mexico territorial organic acts that allowed the territories to regulate or prohibit slavery. Thus, just as it repudiated Marshall's theory of national sovereignty it also repudiated Cass's theory of popular sovereignty.

In the charged atmosphere of the abolitionist movement and intense antislavery sentiment, Taney's states' rights theory did not remain unchallenged for long. Opposed to the expansion of slavery

23 Dred Scottv. Sandford, 60 U.S., 393 (1857) at 432 For a general discussion of the Dred Scott decision see Don E Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp 372—73 Fehrenbacher argues, rightly I believe, that Taney's interpretation of Marshall's decision was "untenable."

24 Dred Scottv. Sandford at 443, 447-48.

25 Ibid, at 449-50

Abraham Lincoln.

into the territories, Abraham Lincoln and members of the recently organized Republican party could stomach nothing that protected such an abominable practice. In his first inaugural address Lincoln explicitly rejected Taney's view of the Property Clause; and Republicans in Congress, with the president's approval, rejected Cass's popular sovereignty doctrine as well.

Grounding his revived theory of national sovereignty on majority rule and on an expansive interpretation of the constitution, Lincoln said that it neither granted nor withheld any specific power of the federal government over territory belonging to the United States. Rather, such power rested with the people, who could exercise it through their representatives. A popular majority is, he said, "the only true sovereign of a free people."26 Implicitly rejecting the role of the Supreme Court as general interpreter of the constitution, Lincoln held that Taney's decision created no general precedent but applied only to the Dred Scott case itself. For a binding constitutional precedent, he said Americans must look to the wisdom of the majority of the people. Continuing, in what may have been a reference to Madison's argument in the Tenth Federalist Paper, Lincoln argued that in the absence of specific constitutional limitations the majority ruled, since it was still "held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments."

The alternative to majority rule—and by this he meant the majority of American citizens not the majority in a territory—was either anarchy or despotism. Anarchy—since a minority that refused to accept majority rule could create chaos for the nation. Despotism— since without majority rule "people will have ceased to be their own rulers . . . [particularly if they resign] their Government into the hands of [the Supreme Court.]"

Congress moved rapidly to enact laws consistent with Lincoln's resurrection of John Marshall's nationalist theory of the Property Clause In June 1862 in the first piece of territorial legislation passed after Lincoln's election, Congress prohibited slavery in the territories.27 In doing so, the Republican majority swept away arguments by Representative Charles A. Wickliffe of Kentucky and Senator John S. Carlile of Virginia objecting to the abrogation of provisions of North

27 12 U.S Statutes alLarge432 (June 19, 1862)

26 Abraham Lincoln, "First Inaugural Address," in James D Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), 7: 3210-11

Carolina's cession to the United States of lands in Mississippi and Alabama and the infringement upon treaty rights of Indians who held slaves.28 In a similar nationalist mood, the same Congress passed the Morrill Antibigamy Act, which prohibited the practice of polygamy in the territories and invalidated a Utah law incorporating the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Moreover, just as Chief Justice Taney did not specifically overrule Marshall's decision in the Canter case, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court wrote the nationalist theory of territorial administration into law without specifically overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the 1872 case of Clinton v. Englebrecht Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote a decision that cut two ways. Chase overruled the high-handed efforts of Utah Chief Justice James B. McKean to ignore Utah law by having the U.S. marshal recruit people from the streets to serve on juries. At the same time, Chase said that although the people of the territories ought to be left with the widest possible latitude, "consistent with the supremacy and supervision of National authority," their authority derived from "certain fundamental principles established by Congress," specifically spelled out in the territorial organic acts and from the authority of Congress granted in the Constitution's Property Clause.29

Moreover, the passage of the Poland Act in 1874, which restructured the administration ofjustice in Utah, and decisions in the 1880s by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite reaffirmed the nationalist theory of territorial administration Two of Waite's decisions—one of which came from Utah—seem particularly important. In Reynolds v. United States, Waite said that a statute prohibiting polygamy in the territories lay "within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control."30 In National Bank v. County of Yankton (1879), upholding the validity of railroad bonds issued by Dakota Territory, Waite ruled that "It is certainly now too late to doubt the power of Congress to govern the Territories." Furthermore, implicitly denying any vestiges of state or popular sovereignty in the territories, he said that the territories

28 Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 2d sess. (1862), pp. 2030, 2066-68, 2618.

29 Clintonv. Englebrecht 80 U.S. (13 Wallace), 434 (1872) at 441, 444, 446, and 447. On the career of Judge McKean see Thomas G. Alexander, "Federal Authority Versus Polygamic Theocracy: James B. McKean and the Mormons," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (1966): 84-100.

30 Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) at 166.

bear the same relation to the federal government as the counties do to states.31

Agreeing with this nationalistic theory of territorial administration, the Republican majority in Congress danced on the graves of the dead popular sovereignty and states' rights theories by enthroning a theory of territorial administration called the pupilage theory. Under this theory, the people of the territories stood in relationship to the people of the United States as school children learning to govern themselves in preparation for statehood.

Exercising plenary power under the nationalist and pupilage theories, Congress controlled virtually all aspects of territorial administration. Under the territorial system, the federal government set the lengths of sessions of territorial legislatures, determined the size of the legislatures, paid the salaries of federally appointed executive and judicial officers, and paid the salaries and expenses of members of territorial legislatures Moreover, Congress prohibited the territorial legislatures from supplementing these salaries through additional appropriations, gave the governor an absolute veto over acts of the territorial legislature, and prohibited special legislative sessions without congressional approval.

These theories conflicted with the views of most territorial citizens who favored popular sovereignty. Nevertheless, Congress asserted its authority. In 1878 in an economy move, House Appropriations Committee Chairman John D. C. Atkins of Tennessee proposed to reduce the size of both houses of the territorial legislatures, to decrease the length of legislative sessions from sixty to forty days, and to diminish legislative salaries. In justifying the proposal, Atkins said that Congress has "supreme control over the Territories."32

The territorial delegates rose immediately to protest. Delegate Orange Jacobs of Washington Territory pointed out that the territorial organic acts had spelled out the size of the legislatures, and he complained that the appropriations committee had proposed these changes in defiance of the provisions of the organic acts and without consulting the delegates or the members of the House Territorial Committee. Other delegates such as William W. Corlett of Wyoming and Stephen S. Fenn of Idaho argued that Congress showed no real concern for territorial problems, particularly for the difficulty of secur-

ing an adequate sampling of opinion with small legislatures or in the short sessions allowed under the bill.33

Waxing eloquent in opposition to the move, Fenn leveled a blast of hyperbole at Atkins and his committee. "The Committee on Appropriations," he said, "look upon the Territories as their servants, or very much as a guardian would who had been appointed such over some half dozen female infants, and when they had labored for his interests until they had reached the age of fifteen years he drives them out into the streets and makes them submit themselves to prostitution to gratify his greed."34

In response to such impudence, Congressman Milton J. Durham of Kentucky rose to administer the territories what he called "a little spanking." He pointed out that the federal government paid the salaries of territorial officials; it did not do so for the states. The government appointed the executive and judicial officers and paid the salaries, he said, because territorial citizens were "children, incompetent to take care of yourselves." The territories, he said were "passing through the pupilage that every Territory ought to go through."

Responding to Durham, Delegate George Q. Cannon of Utah rose to denounce the pupilage theory and to propose a compromise. First, he said that if economy were the real intent of Congress, the territories would much prefer to lower the salaries of legislators so they could retain the same number of members and hold the longer sessions. He argued, as the other delegates had, that the proposed reduction in the length of sessions and number of members would make conducting their business effectively very difficult for the legislators.

At the same time, he tried without success to reintroduce the theory of popular sovereignty. His constituents would gladly pay "all our legislative expenses and pay the salaries of our governor andjudges if we had the privilege of electing them. But so long as they are selected for us, and our legislation is supervised, and no bill can become law, however unanimously passed, without the sanction of the governor, then I think that the Government which appoints the men should pay them."35

Congress allowed the territorial delegates to express their opinions, but delegates could only lobby; they could not vote. When the votes were counted Congress had not swerved from its resolve to exer-

cise its sovereign right to treat territorial citizens as children On the basis of the nationalist and pupilage theories Congress reduced the salaries, the size of the legislatures, and length of the sessions.36

Moreover, during the 1880s Congress, with the support of the American people, used a well-cured hickory stick to teach the tune of nationalism and pupilage to Utahns.37 In 1882 it passed the Edmunds Act which opened a second classroom in the series of lessons designed to teach the Mormons not to practice polygamy or theocracy. The law made a misdemeanor of cohabiting with more than one woman. The act also disfranchised men and women who practiced polygamy and turned the territory's election apparatus over to five federal appointees. The Edmunds-Tucker Act passed in 1887 escheated—we might call it confiscated—the LDS church's property for the benefit of the territorial schools, disfranchised all Utah women, turned the administration of public schools over to a federal appointee, abolished the territorial militia, and asserted federal authority in various other ways.

The courts upheld the various provisions of the Edmunds Act, and in 1890 Justice Joseph Bradley waxed even more expansively in upholding the Edmunds-Tucker Act. He said that "The power of Congress over the Territories of the United States is general and plenary, arising from and incidental to the right to acquire the Territory itself, and from the power given by the Constitution [quoting from the Property Clause] to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States."38 Nor did Congress hesitate to continue to exercise its authority as a schoolmaster over territories in general as well as over Utah Territory in particular. In 1886 Congress passed the Springer-Harrison Act, sponsored by Representative William M. Springer of Illinois and Senator (later President) Benjamin Harrison of Indiana. Springer's original bill, essentially noncontroversial, was part of a general movement during the nineteenth century to eliminate legislative grants of

36 Ibid., pp 2982, 2988, 2998, 5502-03

37 For more detail on the actions of Congress, local administrators, and judges and the changing attitudes of Utah citizens see Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum, Zion in the Courts: A Legal History of the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp 129-60; Martha Sonntag Bradley, " Hide and Seek': Children on the Underground," Utah Historical Quarterly 51 (1983): 133-53; Edward Leo Lyman, Political Deliverance: The Mormon Questfor Utah Statehood (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986); and Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth, pp 191-287

38 The Late Corporation of the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter—day Saints v United States 136 U.S 1 (1890) at 42 See also Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S 15 (1885) at 44, where the court upheld the right of Congress to vacate Utah's registration offices and appoint the Utah Commission to control local elections

special privilege. It required territories to pass general acts on such matters as incorporation and divorce.39

Harrison had introduced a bill to control territorial indebtedness, but after Springer's bill passed the House, the Senate added the provisions as amendments to the Springer bill. Springer's original bill had little impact on most territories, since most had already passed laws prohibiting such special acts, but Harrison's amendments reinforced the nationalist and pupilage theories by severely limiting any local discretion in incurring debts. Under the Harrison Act, no territory could incur a debt in excess of 1 percent of its assessed property valuation, and subordinate units such as cities and counties had a debt limit of up to 4 percent of assessed valuation. In addition, the act prohibited any territory from subscribing to stock in corporations or lending territorial credit in support of any such enterprise. Finally, the act reaffirmed the already existing right of Congress to annul any territorial law.40

In line with the Progressive sentiment of the age, Congress also introduced into the territories measures for public health and safety In 1891 Congress set up the offices of coal mine inspector for the territories of Utah, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.41

In considering the impact of territorial administration on Utah, historians have assumed that Utah's conflicts with the federal government were unique and have done so by neglecting to place Utah's experience in the general context of nineteenth-century territorial administration. Surveying the other western territories we find conflicts between federal appointees and local people in other places as

39 See the legislative history of HR5179 and S2626, 49th Cong., 1st sess (1886) In some ways the Springer bill was redundant since Congress had already prohibited special charters in 1867; see Gordon M Bakken, The Development of Law on the Rocky Mountain Frontier: Civil Law and Society, 1850—1912 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1983), p 118

40 24 U.S Statutes at Large, 170 (1886)

41 Alexander, Clash of Interests, p. 175.

Benjamin Harrison.

well. In other territories the conflicts resulted from differences over politics, economics, and Native American policy and religion. In each case, however,just as in Utah the principal issues were the same—local vs national authority and popular vs national sovereignty

In other territories powerful local groups challenged the authority of the federal government and its appointees. In most cases they campaigned for popular sovereignty but ran head on into the roadblock of the nationalist and pupilage theories instead. In Montana, for instance, the conflict between territorial governor Benjamin F. Potts on the one hand and the coalition of Wilbur F. Sanders and the Fisk brothers on the other was in part at least a dispute within the Republican party over patronage and control. Many Montana citizens also sympathized with the Confederacy rather than the Union, a view that generated conflicts during the Civil War and Reconstruction.42 In Idaho a controversy erupted between nationalist governor Mason Brayman and members of the local "Boise Ring" that included territorial secretary Edward J. Curtis, surveyor general Lafayette Cartee, U.S. attorney Joseph W. Huston, and Idaho Statesman editor Milton Kelly.43 In Arizona and New Mexico conflicts between local and national interests resulted from such issues as Hispanic culture, Catholicism, conservation of natural resources, Indian policy, and Progressivism.44 In Washington Territory conflicts flared between local antimonopolists and lumber companies on the one hand and the Northern Pacific Railroad on the other. Nationalistic territorial governors Elisha P Ferry and Watson C Squire generally supported the railroad.45

In each case such conflicts retarded admission of the territories as states In practice, Congress would not admit any territory into the Union until its residents had learned through training in nationalism to fit comfortably within the limits of acceptable behavior as citizens of the United States. Initially, both New Mexico and Utah rejected English common law because of existing Mexican civil law and Mormon customary law. In both territories pressure from national interests, especially from federal judges, forced the adoption of the

42 Clark C Spence, Montana: A Bicentennial History (New York: Norton, 1978), pp 80-81

43 Thomas G. Alexander, "Mason Brayman and the Boise Ring," Idaho Yesterdays 14 (1970): 21-27. See also Ronald H Limbaugh, Rocky Mountain Carpetbaggers: Idaho's Territorial Governors, 1863-1890 (Moscow: University of Idaho Press, 1982)

44 Lamar, The Far Southwest, pp 444-47, 486-99

45 Robert E. Ficken, The Forested Land: A History of Lumbering in Western Washington (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1987), pp 40-47; and Kenneth N Owens, "Pattern and Structure in Western Territorial Politics," in Bloom, ed., The American Territorial System, p 167

national system of English common law which both territories incorporated into their state constitutions.46

The efforts to integrate the people of the territories into the American nation was not simply an exercise in western bashing by easterners and midwesterners. As Lincoln recognized in his first inaugural address, every nation, even a pluralistic federal republic like the United States, has certain limits of acceptable behavior that are generally established by the consensus of the people The need for such consensus became increasingly critical in the late nineteenth century After all, Americans had learned in the blooddrenched battlefields of Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, and Shiloh that an excessive insistence on local rights could destroy the Union even more easily than excessive nationalism could destroy individual liberty. Operating under the nationalistic and pupilage theories the federal government taught citizens in the territories to learn to live within the Union as well as to live in their local communities.

In Utah, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others had to learn to live together. In the 1850s and early 1860s that proved extremely difficult, as the cases of run-away officials like Perry Brocchus, Henry Day, Lemuel Brandebury, Willis Drummond, and John Dawson demonstrated.

The 1880s and early 1890s became a crucible in which the fires of nationalism and pupilage smelted Mormons, Protestants, Catholics,Jews, and others into Utahns and Americans. Mormons in Utah had to learn that the American nation would never allow a polygamic theocracy into the Union. At the same time, Utahns of other faiths also had lessons to learn. Both Mormons and those of other faiths had to learn to cooperate in politics, business, and society.

Fortunately, Utahns were blessed during the 1880s with some honest and judicious officials who served as teachers. Although Utah Chief Justice Charles S. Zane probably wreaked more havoc on the Mormon community than any other federal official by imprisoning men who practiced polygamy, the Mormons admired him for defending their cities and towns and by acting fairly in disputes with the Utah Commission. In the election that inaugurated statehood, Utahns rewarded Zane by electing him the first chiefjustice of the Utah State

46 Bakken, The Development ofLaw, pp. 22-24. Only Louisiana, of all the states, has retained civil law. Significantly, Louisiana became a state in 1812, prior to Marshall's decision in Canter and during the period before the national or pupilage theories had been elaborated

Supreme Court.47 Territorial governor Caleb W. West led in the initiative to bring Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews together to organize the Chamber of Commerce in Salt Lake City, and local people and women's groups built bridges to one another as they all strove for statehood.48 In the early 1890s people of all faiths worked together to organize national political parties, and LDS church leaders sought non-Mormon capital for investment in a wide range of business enterprises.49

In some cases Utahns learned lessons from other states and territories that probably ought to have remained unlearned, since graft crept into Utah as into other territories and states Most territorial legislators recognized that the federal government did not pay high enough salaries to retain excellent people as territorial governors. As a result the lawmakers worked out various creative ways of providing additional money. In Arizona, for instance, the legislature designated the governor as ex-officio superintendent of public instruction and provided an additional salary of $1,000 for that office. The Utah legislature paid governor Eli H Murray $2,000 for a "mythical messenger," which he apparently used, with legislative approval, for himself.50

Earlier administrations apparently winked at such activities, but the Cleveland administration launched a campaign against corruption. In 1886 Secretary of the Interior L. Q. C. Lamar ordered the territorial governors to veto any acts that appropriated such additional compensation. Under such directions Governor Murray vetoed a general appropriation act that included the messenger's salary even though he would have benefited and even though the veto created a financial crisis in the territory both for himself and for his successor, Caleb West.51

In summary, the late nineteenth-century American territories— including Utah—functioned within a historical condition of nationalism and pupilage that prepared citizens for statehood Like good

47 On the career of Judge Zane see Thomas G Alexander, "Charles S Zane, Apostle of the New Era," Utah Historical Quarterly 34 (1966): 290-314

48 On the development of women's groups see Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Schism in the Sisterhood: Mormon Women and Partisan Politics, 1890-1900," in Davis Bitton and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, eds., New Views of Mormon History: Essays in Honor of Leonard J. Arlington (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987)

49 O n developments during this period see Lyman, Political Deliverance.

50 Alexander, Clash of Interests, p 69; specifically on the Utah situation see Salt Lake Herald, January 30, 1886, cited in Journal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City

51 Ibid.; Deseret Evening Neivs, May 13, 1886; and Journal History, April 20, 1886 For a discussion of this episode see Thomas G Alexander, "The Federal Frontier: Interior Department Financial Policy in Idaho, Utah, and Arizona, 1863-1896," (Ph.D diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1965), p 162

children in school, Mormons in Utah learned through their territorial experience to curb such eccentricities as polygamy and excessive religious involvement in politics and economic development

Concurrently, as part of the same historical condition, Utah's Catholics, Protestants,Jews, and others learned from the same schoolmaster to cooperate with Mormons in political parties, in business enterprises, in labor unions, in women's clubs, and in hundreds of other ways.

Thus, that Utah's constitution contained so many provisions resembling those of other states resulted from a maturation that took place in the context of the territory's political, social, and economic history. The delegates included the various provision, in the constitution willingly; they did not draft the document under duress. Utah incorporated, for instance, provisions limiting the public debt similar to those in the Springer-Harrison Act and coal mine inspection like the federal law, because they had come to see the value of such measures

At the same time, within a general framework that they had learned to accept as part of their heritage, Utah's delegates debated certain provisions such as woman suffrage, water appropriation, regulation of corporations, and protection of labor In sum, Utah's 1895 constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances, auxiliary precautions, progressive legislation, limitations on the governor and the legislature, numerous clauses of general legislation, and other features resulted from the historical experience of Utahns as they learned to become American citizens.

Waters of lion: The Politics of Water in Utah. Edited by DANIEL C MCCOOL (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1995 xii + 202 pp Paper, $24.95.)

In the fall of 1990, when University of Utah political science professor Daniel McCool told his students that the assignment for the quarter was to write a chapter in a book, half the class dropped out the first day. When he told a fellow professor of his plan, the colleague laughed and said, "They'll forget about your book the minute they get a grade." Such was the inauspicious beginning of Waters ofZion: The Politics of Water in Utah. Professor McCool was not deterred, and the students that remained in the course not only finished the class but four years and several revisions later were authors of chapters in the book. McCool said that out of this experience he learned a very important lesson: "never underestimate your students."

The book is divided into four parts: "The Second Driest State," "Conflict over Priorities: The Central Utah Project," "Alternative Uses and Sources," and "Conclusions."

In Part I the authors provide an information base necessary to understand the complex history of water development in Utah and "how much water there is, where it can be found, and what it can be used for." The authors discuss what an exalted position water has assumed in our culture. Water is notjust a key natural resource, it is the "key to all success—if we only had enough water, then a robust economy and happy families would naturally follow." The authors suggest two reasons for this mythical status of water.

The first relates to the West's unique natural features: "its enormous expanses of open space, vertical relief in the form of serrated mountains and deep canyons, dramatic variations in temperature and weather and aridity." Man cannot easily change any of these features, but water can be diverted, dammed, pressurized, and directed Thus, water became the "medium by which we could remake the West into a region more suitable for human habitation." The second reason for water's lofty place in our culture is political Only the federal government had the necessary resources to pay for the huge projects. To get federal support a case had to be made for the importance of water not only to the national economy but also to national security "So supporters of western water development painted a much more grandiose picture: water development would strengthen the nation, fulfill our collective dream of manifest destiny, and make America even greater."

In the last decade these arguments for development have fallen on increasingly deaf ears for two main reasons. First, the federal government is deeply in debt and this indebtedness is finally getting some serious attention. Second, the environmental movement has gained a very strong foothold in Congress that is not likely to diminish anytime soon. With federal money gone and all development projects having to meet environmental concerns,

the era of large dam building has substantially come to an end.

Part II treats the Central Utah Project, "the central element of [Utah] water plans since the 1960s." The project was authorized more than three decades ago as one of several projects in the Colorado River Storage Project of 1956 The main purpose of the CUP was to, "get Utah's share of Colorado River water over the Wasatch Mountains into the Wasatch Front." The authors discuss this undertaking and the many problems associated with its development, including funding, the Ute Indians, the repayment battle, and the environmentalists. Each has played a role in slowing the CUP and making it more expensive than ever imagined at the outset. The authors do a very creditable job in describing each of these obstacles and how they were addressed as the project moved forward at a tortoiselike pace They point out the changes that have taken place in the Central Water Conservancy District (the agency created to finance and manage the CUP) over the three decades as it has adjusted to the changing economic and political environment. This part ends by discussing the 1992 Central Utah Project Completion Act. It explains how this act, which

authorizes the final stage of funding, is a far cry from the initial funding acts. Environmental issues are addressed, the repayment plan is much more burdensome on the users of the water, and the concerns of the Ute Indians appear to be at least substantially satisfied

Part III leaves behind the CUP and focuses on ground water, conservation, and instream flow issues—all covered in a simple yet informative manner. Part IV draws the separate parts into a whole by discussing Utah's water politics within a national perspective.

As one who is neither an expert nor a tyro in water history, I found the book to be most informative and insightful Though the CUP is the major focus of the book, there is adequate coverage of other water-related issues such as conservation, instream flow, and ground water It is a book I found worth reading notjust once but twice I encourage others interested in Utah to read it Thank you, Professor McCool, for having faith in your capable students. You and they have made an important contribution to Utah history.

MICHAEL E CHRISTENSEN Utah Foundation Salt Lake City

Confessions of a Coal Camp Doctor and Other Stories. ByJ. ELDON DORMAN. (Price, Ut. Peczuh Printing Co., 1995 xii + 197 pp Paper, $14.95.)

Young Dr Eldon Dorman arrived in Consumers, Utah, on aJanuary day in 1937, riding in the back of a coal truck because he had wrecked his car on an icy curve in Spanish Fork Canyon He found several patients waiting in the office and before midnight had delivered a baby Accustomed to collecting his bills largely in barter goods, Dorman received "the surprise of my life when the father pressed a twenty-

dollar bill in my hand shortly after I severed the umbilical cord. . . . That crisp new bill in my otherwise empty pocket made me think I had come to the right place and indeed, I had" (p. 2).

The three Gordon Creek coal camps—Consumers, Sweets, and National—that Dorman had been hired to serve as a physician were among more than twenty such communities hung on mountainsides or

crowded into canyons in the Carbon County coal fields. Some coal camps such as Hiawatha and Kenilworth were well-built and well-maintained company towns that provided some social amenities The Gordon Creek camps were near the bottom of the scale— remote, often snowbound, composed for the most part of huddled tar-paper shacks Photographer Dorothea Lange, who visited the area in 1936, viewed them as exemplifying the worst kind of industrial slums For Dorman, however, the camps were not oppressive places but filled with interesting people and challenges In the process of treating mining and barroom injuries, slogging through deep snow and mud for house calls, and quickly learning "who was doing what to whom and approximately when" (p. 15), he gained a lifelong respect for "the old-time Austrian, Italian, Greek and Welsh coal miners" who asked for nothing but "a chance to work—to dig the coal to pay off his debts, feed and clothe his family and perhaps send his son to school" (p 11) Even though more coal is now produced from the eastern Utah fields than ever before, the coal camps themselves have virtually disappeared.

Dorman's anecdotes are an affectionate tribute to a vanished way of life. Dr Dorman lived in Consumers for only three years before the camp was dismantled. His coal camp memories occupy the first half of the volume The second half moves back in time to Dorman's boyhood experiences on the submarginal homesteading frontier in Colorado and forward to his fifty-year career as an ophthalmologist and civic leader in Price His memoirs reflect the wide range of his personal interests, including the politics of the local medical society, the fellowship of the deer hunt, and the history and prehistory of the region. Perhaps more important, the book captures some of the qualities that have gained Dr Dorman a multitude of friends: an outgoing and unaffected personality, an earthy sense of humor, a certain feistiness, and an unwavering zest for life His friends will find a familiar voice in this book. Readers who have not had an opportunity to make his acquaintance will discover one of Utah's genuine "originals."

Park City Underfoot: Self-guided Tours of Historic Neighborhoods. By BRENT CORCORAN. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995. xii + 168 pp. Paper, $10.95.)

Like its predecessor guide to Salt Lake City, Park City Underfoot attempts to provide a comprehensive but not academic guide to historic sites in this community The book serves as a reminder to visitors and residents who have forgotten that in its heyday Park City was not only boisterous, vibrant, and congested—as it is today—but it was also a dirty, polluted, and until recently a somewhat ramshackle town off the beaten track Corcoran does not gloss over the less seemly aspects of

Park City's history but instead, through the narratives of individual structures, manages to convey a sense of the community by presenting the many phases the town has experienced since its inception in 1872 The book is geared to a mass audience and promotes the character and flavor of Park City, both contemporary and historic, rather than being a guide to strictly historic sites

Park City Underfoot is divided into walking and bicycle tours, three of each, that highlight about 160 sites;

EDWARD A GEARY Brigham Young University

each tour is prefaced by a short description of the topography or physical layout of the area to be toured It also includes an introduction concerning the history of the town and environs, a brief architectural history, a glossary of architectural terms, and a bibliography so that the reader has access to a broader context in which to understand the history of each site Maps guide the walker or cyclist through each tour, and several photographs highlight individual structures and architectural details A practical consideration is the mention in the text of where to park for each tour and the indication of public parking, restrooms, and telephones on each map

Corcoran includes a few paragraphs concerning each site, occasionally pointing out adjacent structures not included and nearby features such as historic stairways and retaining walls The information in the book differs enough from the text found on the small plaques installed by many owners of historic buildings in Park City that between the book and the plaques the more diligent user can obtain a quick, relatively complete history of an individual site. Generally, Corcoran mentions several previous owners, sometimes provides an anecdote about a former resident or interesting object found during renovation, and often points out architectural details. Although the first item provides a useful starting point, the succession of ownership frequently becomes tedious, particularly if no more information than a name is mentioned. While the anecdotes often veer toward an emphasis on the vices experienced by "Parkites," such as prostitution and drinking, and sometimes take on a sensational tone, they enliven the text and help provide a comprehensive view of life in Park City, particularly during the mining boom days This is especially true in the description of Park City's

historic saloons, which, the author points out, provided not only refreshment but served as an important gathering place for men who had only a room in a boarding house to call home. The quotations from the local newspaper are well chosen and round out the narrative; more of these would have been a welcome addition

Although the book is billed as catering to historic sites, Corcoran has no hesitation about including descriptions of recent construction in addition to those buildings that are truly old Some might find this misleading, but this reviewer finds it refreshing. The construction of the Park City and Deer Valley ski resorts has certainly shaped the area's recent past, and the accounts of development and planning battles are helpful in understanding why construction undertaken in the last fifteen years looks the way it does. The author manages to be entertaining as well as diplomatic in relating such sagas, nowhere more so than in the description of the experience of the Mrs. Fields company and her cookie college—one of the best entries in the book

Park City Underfoot, however, could be improved upon First, although the photographs themselves are high quality, more of them would be useful, perhaps in a smaller size if necessary. This would be helpful to the "armchair tourist" who is interested in the town or particular site but has no intention of actually undertaking a tour. Photographs relating more of the surroundings of chosen sites would better convey the town's unique environment, and using historic photographs or a map outlining features such as mine openings and the open canal that ran down Main Street would emphasize the community's prominent mining heritage Including such items would lessen the dependence on the mention of colors of structures and contemporary business names to help those

intent on following a tour. Second, the book tends to be uneven in its treatment of sites, especially on the bicycling tours, as to what is described and what is excluded. For example, the bicycle tour of Snyderville Basin has a lengthy history of the Wolf Mountain resort but barely mentions the Hurley Farm.

Overall, however, Park City Underfoot is a readable, informative, and often amusing guide. It will attract readers with both an interest in local history and an affinity for the "Aspenized" aspects of the community

Mary Bradford faced a challenge in writing the biography of Lowell Bennion: how to be candid and objective about a saint For many Utahns, Lowell Bennion was the most inspiring Mormon in their lives, some would claim in the twentieth century Although Bennion has been given numerous awards and honors that testify to his stature, it is his love and charity for humanity in this modern day that inspired three generations. To them he elevated the institutions—university, church, institute, and councils—to which he devoted his life. His many books and essays have drawn a large audience, and the weight of his prestige has caused many to seek his endorsement. His career will likely remain a high watermark of moral behavior for many decades in Utah and Mormondom.

So how does this biography measure up? Amazingly well Bradford presents a believable Bennion, not a myth. Readers see Lowell as human, sometimes stumbling, and often less than efficient. It is clear that he had the great advantage of stimulating parents. Milton Bennion created a daunting legacy as one of Mormondom's great educators; Lowell mastered the legacy. As a young man he chose to marry Merle Colton just before he left for his mission to Germany in 1928, some-

thing unheard of today but not unusual then Thereafter, the Bennions studied in Europe during the early 1930s, only to be tested with anguish as their infant daughter, Laurel, died there The book then details Bennion's notable career in the LDS education system, chiefly at the University of Utah LDS Institute. His move to the U. faculty in 1963 as assistant dean of students and professor of sociology is detailed, as is his third career, beginning in 1972 and continuing to 1988 at the Community Services Council in downtown Salt Lake City A side indulgence was his founding and managing the Teton Valley Boys Ranch in Idaho from 1961 to 1985.

Of the hundreds of professors and church educators in Utah, Lowell Bennion occupied a unique position, perhaps the most respected for both his thought and his impact. As an institutional person, he reflected publicly about roadblocks that plague such organizations His message was that people are what count and institutions sometimes abuse people He was driven by the concept of service to individuals and tried to get organizations to focus on action that helps individuals, particularly those in need His life was devoted to service, modeling that devotion by constant acts of individual compassion. This idealism often led him into

ELIZABETH EGLESTON Salt Lake City

Lowell L. Bennion: Teacher, Counselor, Humanitarian. By MARY LYTHGOE BRADFORD (Salt Lake City: Dialogue Foundation, 1995 xx + 389 pp $24.95.)

controversy Bradford shows how Bennion's concern for African Americans and the discrimination they suffered in Utah was a long-held theme, one he dealt with deftly, pricking the community's conscience but not polarizing his audience. She also admits that the eventual solution inside the Mormon church came about quite independently of Bennion

The author deals openly with conflicts in Bennion's life, but in context The most famous was his clash with Ernest Wilkinson, who became church commissioner of education in 1953 Bennion did not agree with Wilkinson's strategy for increasing attendance at the LDS Institute. Their styles were so fundamentally different that one of them eventually had to go. Wilkinson was the boss and considered Bennion dispensable Bennion chose to resign rather than accept a transfer; it was a matter of principle. Bradford suggests that Bennion came away from the confrontation more reconciled than those around him She is able to portray the conflict dispassionately, without surrendering to partisanship.

There are other memorable moments in the book: Lowell's friendship with T Edgar Lyon, hisassociation with university colleagues, his teaching in

many settings, his relationship with David O. McKay, his dependence on Merle, his bonding with his children at the Millcreek farm The best aspect of the work, however, is the way the author captures Bennion's mind; she weaves his thought into the chapters without repeating his essays. They spice the book and cause the reader to ponder beyond the narrative

There are two important dimensions of this book: thoughtfulness and candor. The reader savors the meat of Bennion's ethics but also appreciates the author's rigor: facing the conflicting decisions within the church leadership, seeing the high price Merle and the children paid for Lowell's constant devotion to others, dealing with the difficulties of raising their family, admitting his lack of administrative sense Those who have been influenced directly by Lowell Bennion will congratulate the author and cherish the book. Those who have not known him will be brought to understand that some of the most important people in Utah's history were not in the top positions of institutions.

DOUGLAS

Within the first twenty-one pages of this modest tome, consisting of acknowledgments and a personal preface, the reader knows three things: The author is a devout Mormon, is a lineal descendent of the focus of the book—Mormon bishop and participant in the Mountain Meadows massacre (an event that occurred in September 1857)—and is convinced

that her great-grandmother, Priscilla Klingensmith Urie, wasone of the children "too small to tell tales" who survived the massacre If so, her convictions, though not necessarily conclusive, becomes truly an ironic twist to this biography

The author begins, asbackground, a history of the formation of the Mormon church, Klingensmith's con-

D. ALDER Dixie College St. George, Utah

Mountain Meadows Witness: The Life and Times of Bishop Philip Klingensmith. By ANNA JEAN BACKUS. (Spokane: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1995. 302pp. $32.50.)

version, and the 1847 trek to the new Zion in what would become the Territory of Utah She tells of the mission assignments of Brigham Young that sent Klingensmith to the southern territory to establish settlements for the faithful

In November 1851, an expedition of eleven wagons and eleven men, Klingensmith among them, led the vanguard that would establish Cedar City. In all, there were thirty-five individuals involved in this initial phase, dubbed the "Iron Mission" inasmuch as there had been discoveries of iron and coal deposits in the area. On May 12, 1852, Klingensmith was ordained first bishop of Cedar City.When he testified in the first John D Lee trial in 1875, he stated that he was acting in that capacity in the fateful year of 1857. In that year he served in the Iron County Militia (a relic of the Nauvoo Legion), commanded by Isaac C Haight

Now the author shifts scenes to an early date in 1857 when a group of Arkansans banded together to form the Fancher party, captained by Alexander Fancher, headed for California When these immigrants arrived in Salt Lake City they found the place in turmoil over the news that Albert SidneyJohnston's federal army was on its way at the direction of President Buchanan to punish the "treasonous Mormons." According to tales related by the author, these immigrants had done little to ingratiate themselves with the Mormons and by the time they reached Cedar City tensions were at fever pitch, in fact, to a point that church officials there had decided to "waste" them Ms Backus gives a good account of the actions of church authorities in creating an atmosphere of fear and anger George A Smith, first cousin of the martyred Joseph Smith, and apostle and first counselor to Brigham Young (as well as commander of the militia in the southern district) was passionately hammer-

ing home the fact that Mormons had long been oppressed and this incursion by the federal government was a new persecution to be resisted. Compounding the situation was the randy actions of the immigrants

Klingensmith's testimony in the first Lee trial is a recount of what happened when fifty or so militiamen, in combination with a horde of furious Indians, killed 120 men, women, and children of the Fancher party Klingensmith testified in the face of the other Mormon witnesses who were hostile in their silence and who consistently "disremembered" any details of the affair. Klingensmith was the witness at that trial who broke the vow of silence invoked by Lee and Haight immediately before the massacre. At times his testimony was evasive, sometimes he confessed to an inability to remember (it being eighteen years after the fact), explaining that he was experiencing a "dumb justification."

The common belief at the time was that there were eighteen surviving children; only seventeen were rounded up byJacob Forney, the Indian agent, and returned by the army to their families in Arkansas. The theory is that the eighteenth child remained in southern Utah and was reared in the Mormon faith. Backus is convinced that the child, Priscilla, raised by Phil Klingensmith and his wife Betsy, was actually a Fancher She also believes that Priscilla was the twin sister of Triphenia Fancher, another survivor who was returned to Arkansas. Interestingly, Klingensmith told the court that it was he who parceled out the children to various Mormon families and that he had taken one child, a tiny girl, into his own home and his wife had "brest fed it." Priscilla married John Urie; she was the author's great-grandmother.

The circumstances of Klingensmith's death are shrouded in mystery. The Salt Lake Daily Tribune, August 4, 1881, reported that he was murdered

and his body was found in a prospect hole in Sonora, Mexico The author relates another version: his (Klingensmith's) twin sons were told by Indians on the south rim of the Grand Canyon that a man named Klingensmith had lived with them, died, and they had buried him.

History, in its twisting and turnings, makes fascinating reading, and Ms Backus has penned an interesting, thoroughly researched book

HUGH C GARNER Salt Lake City

Educationfor Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928.

By DAVID WALLACE ADAMS. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995. xii + 396 pp $34.95.)

In Education for Extinction, David Wallace Adams moves beyond the usual case study, policy analysis, or reformer biography to combine all the stories into a cohesive in-depth portrait of the world of the off-reservation boarding school Dividing the study into three parts, Adams examines policy formation, strategies of implementation, and Indian responses.

Post-Civil War reformers believed that the only way to save Indians from extinction was to destroy their culture and replace it with a "civilized" one "The next Indian war would be ideological and psychological, and it would be waged against children" (p. 27). But finding that reservation schools did not give them enough control over young minds, reformers sought to separate Indians from their environment Army officer Richard Henry Pratt established the first off-reservation boarding school at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1879, and twenty-four others soon followed

When the Indian children first arrived at school, a white man cut their hair, replaced their clothing, Anglicized their names, and forbade them to speak their own language. The children faced alien architecture, strange food, and a plethora of diseases. School officials designed a life filled with "relentless regimentation" and corporal punishment to bring students

to an understanding of a world ruled by clocks and schedules In order to teach self-reliance and self-sufficiency, the boys learned manual trades and the girls domestic science.

Indian students resisted by running away or setting fire to the schools, although passive resistance became the norm. Most accommodated themselves to their new situation, usually for pragmatic reasons But upon returning home the children found that the isolated, primitive reservations provided them with few opportunities to utilize new attitudes toward hygiene, better farming methods, or industrial training Rifts grew between parents and children and between progressive and traditional tribal factions. In the end, reformers judged their program a failure because the students did not internalize the white world But the children had changed (even if, by white standards, not enough), and they became "cultural brokers" between their tribes and the white world

Adams is forced to draw conclusions carefully due to the nature of the sources available for this study. Indian accounts lean heavily toward a fairly small body of adult autobiographies, and letters written by students lean heavily toward those written to Pratt that he chose to publish as part of his own agenda The author also relies heavily on school newspapers whose

editorial policy must surely give a narrow picture. One is also struck by the fact that much of what is available to us from this time period is found in government documents written by those interested in preserving their jobs

This well-written and compelling volume is useful on a number of levels The uninitiated should welcome an introduction to a truly comprehensive array of historiography revealed in the footnotes and to discussions of a wide variety of pertinent topics, including theories of acculturation and "total institutions" as well as nineteenth-century definitions of civilization and savagery The specialist will find an excellent one-volume treatment of

Indian-white relations from multiple perspectives during the transition years between reservation and New Deal Indian policies All readers will find fascinating individual tales and interesting discussions of such topics as CarlisleHarvard football games and the uses officials made of national holidays

Well-chosen illustrations add much to the reader's understanding. This short description and analysis of the contents cannot do justice to the depth and richness of Adams's argument or narrative

KIM M GRUENWALD Kent State University Kent, Ohio

Great Excavations: Tales of Early Southwestern Archaeology, 1888-1939.

By MELINDA

ELLIOTT (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1995. xviii + 251 pp. Cloth, $40.00; paper, $20.00.)

Great Excavations is a well-researched, generally accurate, and nicely written account of the exciting early years of southwestern archaeology Author Elliott treats us to a series of captivating and informative tales about other sites and the characters who studied them, from the earliest "discoveries" of Anasazi cliff dwellings by the Wetherills through the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley Expedition— the last grand-scale southwestern archaeological expedition The book covers the period from the late 1880s until the start of World War II, a period in which archaeology and its practitioners matured from the wild and undisciplined youthful exuberance of the early days to the more restrained and scientific field it is today.

Each of the eight chapters focuses on a different archaeological site or project. The sites were chosen because of their importance in southwestern prehistory and presented in rough chronological order of when they were

studied, giving the reader an introduction to the development of ideas and theories in the region. The book begins with Mesa Verde, where the remote cliff dwelling with names like Cliff Palace and Sun Temple first captured the imaginations of a generation of Americans Lured by popular magazine articles and newspaper advertisements, scientists as well as throngs of tourists and artifact hunters visited the mesa The years following the first visit by Richard Wetherill to Cliff Palace in 1888 saw several archaeological studies and thousands of relatively unsupervised visitors. Large collections of artifacts were made and numerous sites were severely damaged. These depredations outraged many scientists and citizens, and as a result the nation's first law protecting antiquities was passed in 1906

Chapters on the work conducted at Pecos Pueblo, Aztec, Hawikuh, Chaco Canyon, Snaketown, Awatovi, and Monument Valley chronicle changes in

the methods and ideas of archaeologists over time. Early consensus was that the monumental architecture and finely crafted tools and ornaments must have been produced by cultures that had come up from Mexico and returned, not the ancestors of the historic American Indians Such speculation was gradually supplanted by scientifically defensible interpretations as scholars refined their methods and their thinking Stratigraphic excavation, first employed on a large scale at Pecos by A V Kidder, is chronicled, as are advances in seriation, ceramic classification, and dendrochronology, all of which contributed significantly to an understanding of the meaning of the archaeological remains

Equally interesting is the way Elliott brings the dry, dusty ruins to life by introducing us to some of the unique personalities of southwestern archaeology, including the Wetherill family, A. V Kidder, Earl Morris, NeilJudd, and

John Otis Brew. Many of these early archaeologists were explorers and adventurers as much as scientists, and the ingenuity and perseverance required of them to carry out their studies make for compelling reading. Telling and sometimes amusing anecdotes are scattered throughout the book, with stories about an exceptional camp cook, lazy students, professional enmity, and the two famous Model T's—"Old Blue" and "Pecos Black." Well-chosen photos and figures enrich the text

Enjoyable and informative, Great Excavations illuminates an era in the discovery of our southwestern heritage that is unsurpassed in excitement, adventure, and romance It would make a great traveling companion for your next visit to the farther reaches of the Four Corners.

KEVIN T JONES Utah State Archaeologist

Book Notices

The Wordfrom Weber County: A Centennial Anthology of Our Best Writers. Edited by BOB SAWATZKI (Ogden: Friends of the Weber County Library, 1996. xxiv + 468 pp Cloth, $30.00; paper, $15.00.)

With the recent publication of Great & Peculiar Beauty: A Utah Reader, a centennial anthology of more than 1,000 pages, the state's literary heritage appeared to be well covered Those familiar with the depth of that heritage, however, will not be surprised to learn that Weber County has come up with an anthology of its own that fills almost 500 pages

Ogden boasts two Pulitzer Prize winners to date: Bernard DeVoto and Phyllis McGinley, but the Junction City and Weber County can also claim an impressive group of other writers of history, fiction, poetry, and essays

Former and current Weber State University faculty, including Brad L Roghaar, LaVon B. Carroll, Levi S. Peterson, Robert S Mikkelsen, Neila C Seshachari, Richard W. Sadler, Gordon T. Allred, Wayne Carver, Russell Burrows, Mikel Vause, and Richard C Roberts, provide some of the most muscular writing in the volume For example, a chapter from Allred's Kamikaze, a biographical work on the World War II experiences of Japanese suicide pilotYasuo Kuwahara, is breathtaking

Margaret Rostkowski, Ogden High School teacher and author of acclaimed novels for young people, is represented by a chapter from one of her novels She also selected for publication a group of poems by Ogden High students dating from 1942 to

1995, a small indication of the school's long and impressive writing program. In addition to excerpts from their work, novelist Richard Scowcroft and poet Sister M. Madeleva Wolff each merit lengthy biographical notes by Glen Wiese and John Sillito, respectively, that add to our appreciation of these bright but undervalued stars in the literary firmament.

Much more could be said about this impressive anthology pulled together by Bob Sawatzki, but readers will enjoy discovering its delights for themselves. Sawatzki is the editor of rough draft, a literary magazine published by the Weber County Library that is nearing the end of its second decade. That in itself says something important about the arts in Weber County.

Daughter of the Regiment: Memoirs of a Childhood in the Frontier Army, 18781898. By MARY

LEEFE

d

by

THOMAS T SMITH

LAURENCE Edite

(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996 xxx + 208 pp $35.00.)

Mary Leefe Laurence's memoir adds to a growing body of information about childhood on the American Frontier. It reaffirms some of the conclusions reached by Elliott West in Growing Up with the Country: Childhood on the Far Western Frontier (1989) For example, the wide open spaces of the plains often instilled feelings of foreboding in children. Mary remembered a "nameless dread lurking unseen in

their vast solitude." West found an almost inborn fear of Indians in pioneer children. Mary expressed fear and even hatred of Indians because of "the death and torture of our loved ones," but she recognized later, as an adult, that she and other whites had "failed perhaps to appreciate the flagrant injustices perpetrated on the Indians by our own government." Despite the hardships of the frontier, many children, including Mary, recalled with nostalgia a lot of positive, happy childhood experiences woven into the fabric of their lives

Mary's life was different, though, from that of a settler's child She felt that she was part of her father's military unit and shared pride in it. She developed affectionate relationships with many of the enlisted men who treated her with avuncular interest, and she admired their sense of humor in the face of "all kinds of drab and arduous duty." Finally, the army provided both structure and variety in her life as her family moved from post to post

artist of talent and sensitivity toward his subjects."

A Bibliographical Guide to the Study of Western American Literature. Edited by RICHARD

W ETULAIN

and

N JILL

HOWARD 2d ed (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995. xii + 471 pp. $39.95.)

This updated reference work includes most of the items listed in the 1982 edition plus critical essays and books published through 1994 It reflects both increasing interest in the field and changing trends in western American literature, such as ethnic and women writers and the environment. Despite new trends, though, the bibliographic listings are still dominated by the likes of Willa Cather, Samuel Clemens,James Fenimore Cooper, Jack London, and John Steinbeck. Fewer recent scholars have been attracted to such authors as Hamlin Garland, Bret Harte, Robinson Jeffers, and William Stafford, the editors note

Cyrus E.

His Small Bronzes and Plasters. By

Dallin:

(Corning, N.Y.: Rockwell Museum, 1995 Ill pp. Paper, $22.50.)

KENT AHRENS

This handsome production offers a rich descriptive narrative of Utah's most famous sculptor and many of his works, including (despite limits suggested by the title) some of his monumental figures. Most of the forty-four high-quality halftones are of Dallin's creations, reflecting the range of his interest while revealing the extent of his special predilection for Native American subjects The author does not see Dallin as the equal of August Saint-Gaudens or Daniel Chester French but acknowledges him as "an

In addition to entries on more than 300 writers, the bibliography has special sections on the Beats, local color, dime novels, western films, Indians, Mexican-American literature, the environment, women and families, and western Canadian literature This volume is the place to begin for anyone interested in western American literature.

Wind Energy in America: A History. By ROBERT W RIGHTER (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996. xxi +361 pp. $34.95.)

Righter, a professor of history at the University of Texas, El Paso, has written

a fascinating account of historical and contemporary efforts to utilize wind as a source of electricity. Included in his narrative are the first European windmills, the nineteenth-century electric experiments that empowered rural America, and the immense, acres-wide wind farms that feed the power grid in late twentieth-century California and elsewhere

This is a lively story of eccentric inventors, technical innovation, and power industry politics To date, individuals and small businesses have contributed the most to wind energy development; and for rural Americans, according to Righter, individual, decentralized power systems provide a reasonable alternative to service from giant utility companies.

church leaders in Utah: ex-slave holders, interracial polygamists, gamblers, distillery operators, former mountain men, prospectors, mercenaries, and disgruntled and/or disaffected Mormons. Moreover, Apostle Lyman dabbled in spiritualism.

By the time of the Utah War, 185758, San Bernardino had grown to a city of 3,000 When Young recalled Mormons from all the satellite settlements about two-thirds of the townspeople felt obliged to leave the fruit of their hard work behind and return to Zion.

Leo Lyman has crafted a powerful narrative from a wealth of original sources, including contemporary journals It is sure to be the definitive history of the San Bernardino colony for years to come.

San Bernardino: The Rise and Fall of a California Community.

By EDWARD

LE O LYMAN (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996. xiii + 469 pp. $24.95.)

Among accounts of the Mormon settlement of numerous towns, none is more fascinating than that of San Bernardino in southern California. For one thing, Brigham Young was never enthusiastic about it, yet he allowed two of the church's apostles—Amasa M. Lyman and Charles C. Rich—to begin organizing the venture in 1850 The following spring when Young saw the number of people with their cattle and equipage ready to leave from Peteetneet (Payson), he was dismayed

As San Bernardino began to prosper as one of the largest settlements in southern California, it attracted a diverse mix that was not pleasing to

The Colorado River through Glen Canyon before Lake Powell: Historic Photo Journal, 1872 to 1964. By ELEANOR INSKIP. (Moab, Ut.: Inskip Ink, 1995. 95 pp. Paper, $25.00.)

Historic Glen Canyon of the Colorado River, now mostly submerged beneath Lake Powell, lives again in this haunting photographic and literary evocation Although drawn from a variety of sources, most of the historic photographs come from river runners Gus Scott and Katie Lee and National Geographic photographer Walter Maeyers Edwards, and most are published here for the first time They are interpreted by carefully chosen quotations from contemporary documents and later interpretive works, and their location is identified by modern mileage buoys on Lake Powell.

Membership in the Utah State Historical Society is

open to everyone.

We invite you to join.

If you are already a member you may use this form or a piece of plain paper to purchase gift memberships, or fill in the "Share the Wealth" coupon and we will send those you list a special invitation to join the Society

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Membership Secretary

Utah State Historical Society

300 Rio Grande

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

Please enter my one-year membership in the category checked. I understand that I will receive Utah Historical Quarterly, the Newsletter, and Beehive History. I have enclosed a check or money order in the amount indicated:

Individual, $20.00 Senior Citizen (65 or over), $15.00 Student, $15.00

Institution, $20.00 Business, $100.00 Contributing, $25.00 Sustaining, $35.00

Patron, $50.00 Sponsor, $250.00 Benefactor, $350.00 Life, $500.00 Name Address

SHARE THE WEALTH

Please invite the following persons to join the Historical Society:

Name Address

Name Address

Name Address

Brigham Young Academy

More about Jacque Baker's Painting

The painting on the cover of Utah Historical Quarterly was commissioned by L Douglas Smoot and completed in December 1995 by artist Jacque Baker of West Point, Utah. Painted in oil-washed acrylic and vivid with color in the Americana style, it depicts the Education Building, the first on historic Academy Square in Provo The building was designed byJoseph Don Carlos Young (seated on the fountain) and completed in 1891. It has been identified by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as the most important unrestored building west of the Mississippi River Currently a proposal to locate the Provo City Library at Academy Square is moving forward. The painting is part of a fund-raising effort to preserve the building; prints of it are for sale by the Brigham Young Academy Foundation.

BRIGHAM YOUNG ACADEMY PAINTING

To purchase a print of Jacque Baker's Brigham Young Academy painting— thereby contributing to the Academy renovation effort—please fill out this form and return it to the address below. If the proposal to renovate the Academy as the new Provo City Library fails, the proceeds from the prints of Jacque Baker's painting will go the Brigham Young University Alumni Association's Replenishment Grant Scholarship Fund.

Print size is 18 inches tall by 22 inches wide.

Unsigned Prints @ $40 ea $

Signed Prints @ $70 ea $

Total enclosed

Name

Address City State Zip

Please enclose a check payable to BYU Alumni Association Allow five to six weeks for delivery.

Mail completed form and check to: BY Academy Painting, 149 Alumni House, Provo, UT 84602-2420

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Department of Community and Economic Development Division of State History

BOARD OF STATE HISTORY

PETER L. GOSS, Salt Lake City, 1999 Chair

CAROL CORNWALL MADSEN, Salt Lake City, 1997 Vice-Chair

MAX J. EVANS, Salt Lake City Secretary

MARILYN CONOVER BARKER, Salt Lake City, 1999

DAVID L BIGLER, Sandy, 1997

BOYD A. BLACKNER, Salt Lake City, 1997

LORI HUNSAKER, Brigham City, 1997

CHRISTIE SMITH NEEDHAM, Logan, 1997

RICHARD W. SADLER, Ogden, 1999

PENNY SAMPINOS, Price, 1999

AUGUSTINE TRUJILLO, Salt Lake City, 1999

JERRY WYLIE, Ogden, 1997

ADMINISTRATION

MAX J EVANS, Director

WILSON G. MARTIN, Associate Director

PATRICIA SMITH-MANSFIELD, Assistant Director

STANFORD J. LAYTON, ManagingEditor

The Utah State Historical Society was organized in 1897 by public-spirited Utahns to collect, preserve, and publish Utah and related history. Today, under state sponsorship, the Society fulfills its obligations by publishing the Utah Historical Quarterly and other historical materials; collecting historic Utah artifacts; locating, documenting, and preserving historic and prehistoric buildings and sites; and maintaining a specialized research library. Donations and gifts to the Society's programs, museum, or its library are encouraged, for only through such means can it live up to its responsibility of preserving the record of Utah's past

This publication has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended

This program receives financial assistance for identification and preservation of historic properties under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The U.S Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap in its federally assisted programs If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C 20240