Rogers argues that the framers of the doctrine of popular sovereignty were so eager to remove slavery from congressional debates that they seemingly forgot that the territories were not states. The territories came under a federal supervision that sought to guide their development, in order to assure that their governments were consistent with the principles of republicanism and loyalty to the Union. Not surprisingly, residents of the territories often resented the exclusive power of the federal government to choose their territorial officers and the ability of Congress to veto the enactments of their territorial assemblies. Rogers argues that in Utah Territory, resistance to federal authority was particularly strong and grew only more intense in light of the expectations of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. This soon came to light thanks to Mormonism’s “peculiar institution.”
Rogers also notes that the Mormon philosophy of government posed a threat to the doctrine of popular sovereignty. In the first place, a theocracy could hardly pass muster as republicanism in Washington. Meanwhile, the anger of the Mormons over past religious persecution in the United States made the federal government suspicious of their loyalty to the Union. These suspicions only grew when non-Mormon federal officials encountered Mormon resistance and anger in 1851. Fearing for their lives, they left the Great Basin and returned to Washington with tales of Mormon disloyalty to the Union. While Mormon leaders managed to avoid serious consequences after this first exodus of federal officials, repeated occurrences only reinforced the belief that the Latter-day Saints could not be trusted to govern themselves the way the proponents of popular sovereignty had envisioned. Rogers’s greatest contribution to our knowledge of this conflict comes from his discussion of Indian policy. He makes the case that Mormon practices in managing Indian affairs were often in direct competition with federal policy. Accordingly, the Mormons had arguably vio-
N O . I 8 5
In this excellent study, Brent Rogers examines the conflict between Washington, D.C. and early Utah Territory through the lens of popular sovereignty. While most historians concentrate on the violence in Kansas Territory as an explanation for the ultimate failure of popular sovereignty, Rogers argues that Utah Territory played a key role in dooming the doctrine. He makes a convincing case that the conflict between the Mormons and Washington over polygamy, theocracy, and the administration of Indian affairs exposed popular sovereignty as little more than “a situation-based, ad hoc sham” that left its proponents with little choice but to backpedal when it only created new conflicts, instead of resolving the debate over slavery (19).
V O L .
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2017. xiv + 383 pp. Paper, $32.00.
I
By Brent M. Rogers
The practice of polygamy in Utah Territory grew to become one of the primary challenges to the viability of popular sovereignty. When Democratic leaders first proposed a policy of allowing territorial residents the autonomy to arrange their domestic relationships, they were thinking of slavery—not the practice of polygamy. Unfortunately, the Republicans were all too quick to tie them together as the “twin relics of barbarism.” While Mormons saw the slogan as an affront to their religion, the real target of the Republicans was the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Democratic leaders soon found themselves in an awkward position when they discovered they could not logically ban polygamy while still allowing territorial residents the freedom to choose or reject slavery.
U H Q
Unpopular Sovereignty: Mormons and the Federal Management of Early Utah Territory
3
BOOK REVIEWS & NOTICES
279
