Letters

Editor:

I am pleased to see the autobiography of George A. Hicks brought to a wider audience in' "I'd Rather Have Some Roasting Ears': The Peregrinations of George Armstrong Hicks," by Davis Bitton (Summer 2000, 196-222), especially as copies of the privately printed book are extremely scarce However, I am disappointed in the defensive Mormon bias of the author.

Bitton concludes that Hicks was a "faultfinder, a complainer, a blamer" (221) and a despiser of religion (222) Could not one more justly interpret Hicks's complaints as courageous protests against what he perceived as abuses of his faith by the church leaders? In a period when silence was safest, he loudly deplored the Mountain Meadows Massacre, protested against John D. Lee—who as an adopted son of Brigham Young and a member of the Missouri Danites and the Council of Fifty was not someone to be crossed lightly—and even challenged Brigham Young himself about the massacre

Hicks may not have been an eyewitness to the instances of violence he attributes to the doctrine of blood atonement, but to write that doctrine off as something that "was never carried out in practice" (210) suggests an unawareness of the research of scholars like D Michael Quinn In The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Quinn documents some two dozen instances of murder or mutilation instigated or approved by Mormon leaders in the name of blood atonement—including the ones cited by Hicks

Could not a more considered analysis of Hicks's thought conclude that a steady Mormon faith underpinned his life but was battered by his disappointment in priesthood inspiration and the actions of church leaders in such events as the unfortunate location of Palmyra, Utah, the 1856 handcart disaster, the Mormon Reformation, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the wisdom of the Dixie Mission? In a period when apostates—some so afraid, as we know from sources like Albert Tracy, Jesse Gove, and Alfred Cumming, that they sought the Army's protection—were streaming back to the States or to California, Hicks stood fast. His deathbed confession of lifelong faith (219) supports this more evenhanded interpretation

Could not one rightly see Hicks as a forerunner of modern Mormonism—the very Mormonism devoutly espoused by Davis Bitton? Hicks objected to polygamy, which the church has renounced; he objected to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which the church has condemned; he denounced John D. Lee, whom the church allowed to be executed; he objected to theocracy, which the church has left behind; he objected to some unwise colonization projects, which the church eventually abandoned "A young smart aleck"? How about a voice from the future?

Sincerely yours, Polly

Davis Bitton replies to Polly Aird:

The faith of George Armstrong Hicks was "battered," Polly Aird says. In his own perception, she says, he was protesting "abuses of his faith by church leaders." I don't use these currently fashionable terms, but I recount his experiences as he presents them and recognize their influence on him. She is certainly entitled, if she wishes, to see Hicks only as a far-seeing, courageous spokesman for the future But such one-dimensional presentism is often unhelpful in seeing issues and personalities in the context of their own time.

Like many others on the frontier, Hicks faced a series of trials Since much of my article was devoted to going over these, I learn nothing from Aird's listing. But how one responds to challenges is always of great importance Is it unfair to point out that others who suffered equally or who knew at least as much as Hicks reacted differently? If at times he merely purveys charges of the anti-Mormon press, should not this be recognized? Is it wrong of me to ask in each instance whether Hicks claims firsthand knowledge? If, writing in 1878, he ascribed the worst possible motivation to his leaders, if for him mere allegation of wrongdoing was sufficient evidence, if he readily indulged in insulting name-calling, should I not say so? I doubt that Ms. Aird means to leave the impression that only Hicks deplored the Mountain Meadow Massacre (try Brigham Young and John Taylor) or that every unsolved murder in frontier Utah can fairly be blamed on the Mormons We may have different standards of what constitutes compelling evidence.

I come not to praise George A Hicks, or to blame him, but to understand him Ms. Aird sees me as "defensive," but nowhere in my article do I defend any of the actions or policies she mentions As a historian, I have a document in front of me Like other vestiges of the past, it is evidence. But evidence of what? I conscientiously evaluate it, accept it as a complex statement of its author's perceptions at a certain point in time, privilege his firsthand experiences as opposed to rumors he heard from others, acknowledge during a certain phase of his life the abrasive personality he himself describes, and sketch a nuanced, not unsympathetic portrayal of one man's evolving attitudes and reactions To determine whether I succeed, whether I have been fair to my subject, readers are encouraged to consult the original article

True enough, the issues that exercised Hicks have been left behind. "If George A. Hicks had been able to hunker down and bide his time," I write, "he might gradually have found things more to his liking" (217).