Skip to main content

Appendix 3: Discourse, circa 4 July 1838

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 

Appendix 3: Discourse, circa 4 July 1838

Source Note

Discourse, ca. 4 July 1838. Featured version printed [ca. Aug. 1838] as Oration Delivered by Mr. S. Rigdon on the 4th of July, 1838, at Far West, Caldwell County, Missouri, Far West, MO: Journal Office, 1838; eleven pages; CHL.
Three bifolia measuring 7¾ × 4⅞ inches (20 × 12 cm). At some point in time, the sheets were sewn together, leaving two needle holes along the fold; later, the sheets were resewn, leaving three holes. The pamphlet was later folded twice, possibly for carrying.
It is unknown when the featured copy of the published oration came into the possession of the Church History Library.

Historical Introduction

On 4 July 1838, delivered a lengthy discourse—which was possibly prepared with help from JS—celebrating the anniversary of independence, pledging allegiance to the nation, and asserting the right of the Latter-day Saints to defend themselves from persecution. The discourse was not an extemporaneous speech but a carefully prepared declaration responding to the developing circumstances in which the Saints found themselves. The “oration” delivered by Rigdon was the outgrowth of three related developments among the Latter-day Saints in 1838: a new resolve to resist adversaries and fend off legal harassment; a renewed effort to develop , Missouri, as a gathering center; and an assertion of the Saints’ rights to expand into neighboring counties unmolested.
The new resolve to fend off legal harassment grew out of the circumstance of the church community in , Ohio, in 1837, when it was severely challenged by economic difficulties, internal dissent, and considerable opposition from local antagonists, including legal harassment. As , editor of the newspaper in nearby , Ohio, later recounted: “Many of our citizens thought it advisable to take all the legal means within their reach to counteract the progress of so dangerous an enemy in their midst, and many law suits ensued.” Dozens of lawsuits were commenced in 1837 naming JS, , and other church leaders as defendants. This legal persecution contributed to the circumstances under which JS abandoned Kirtland in January 1838 and relocated to , with loyal church members to follow. Upon arriving in , JS composed a church “motto” that condemned all such “vexatious lawsuits.” However, these “vexatious” or petty and malicious lawsuits continued after the relocation to Missouri, as disaffected Mormons there initiated legal proceedings against JS and others and encouraged lawsuits for debt among the Saints generally. At the November 1838 hearing that followed the conflicts between the Saints and their Missouri neighbors, testified that in April 1838 JS and Rigdon “appeared to be vexed on account of troubles & law suits they had had.” Corrill, who had disaffected by the time he made his statement, recounted that the two men said “that they would suffer vexatious law suits no longer, & that they would resist even an officer in the discharge of his duty.” In addition, Circuit Court clerk and dissident Mormon testified at the hearing that JS had instructed him not to issue writs against church leaders in suits that appeared to be “vexatious.” While their biases and the specific details of their memory may be questioned, they do affirm the sentiment expressed in the church motto JS composed upon arriving in Far West.
The second development resulted from the abandonment of . Upon arriving in , JS and other church leaders refocused their efforts on developing the settlement as a new headquarters for the church. In late April 1838, they passed resolutions to construct new church buildings and to reestablish the church press and newspaper. JS also dictated a revelation that designated Far West a city of with a , also known as a temple. The revelation directed that the Saints begin laying the foundation for the sacred edifice on 4 July. The revelation closed by announcing that JS would also direct Mormon settlement in “the regions round about.”
The third development stemmed from anti-Mormon opposition to Mormon settlements outside of . Earlier, following the forced removals of the Saints from and counties in the mid-1830s, the legislature created Caldwell County with the intention that it could be safely settled by the Saints. Many anti-Mormons assumed that Mormon settlement would be confined to Caldwell County, although there is no contemporaneous evidence that church leaders agreed to any such arrangement. In June 1838, church members launched settlement projects in in to the north of Caldwell County and in in Carroll County to the southeast. Both settlements grew rapidly. During the previous year, JS had received information regarding ongoing opposition to the Saints settling in adjoining counties. Perhaps anticipating hostility to these settlements, he reportedly delivered a discourse in late June in which he declared that “if the people would let him alone he would conquer them by the sword of the Spirit, but if they would not he would beat the plow shears into swords & their pruning hooks into spears & conquer them.” At about the time of this speech, Mormon men in Caldwell County founded the Society of the Daughter of Zion (later known as the ), a vigilante group intent on defending the church from external opposition.
It was within the broad context of these three developments that the church planned its first formally sponsored Independence Day celebration. By the 1830s, many American communities commemorated independence from the British empire with festivities on 4 July. At these events, ministers, politicians, and other local leaders gave speeches that were frequently prepared in advance and then published. A “committee of arrangements” was appointed to prepare for the 1838 Independence Day celebration in . The committee appointed JS “president of the day”; , JS’s second counselor in the First Presidency, was appointed “vice president”; and , JS’s first counselor in the First Presidency, was named “orator” and invited to give the speech.
Mormon preachers in the 1830s did not normally prepare their sermons beforehand, preferring instead to rely on the Holy Ghost to direct their preaching. However, the text of the Independence Day oration was reportedly prepared in advance. , the church’s printer, recounted decades later that the oration “was a carefully prepared document, previously written, and well understood by the First Presidency.” Although it seems that Robinson meant that the document was prepared in advance and that its contents were understood by the entire First Presidency prior to Rigdon’s delivery, it is possible that Robinson also meant to imply that members of the First Presidency worked together in preparing the document. Rigdon, who was considered a learned and skilled orator, likely composed much or all of the text that he would deliver, but JS or Hyrum Smith may have collaborated in its composition, as the First Presidency had done in the past. It is also possible that JS provided general direction or advice on its content prior to its composition. Ultimately, it is unknown whether the oration was prepared by Rigdon on his own, by the First Presidency generally, or in another way.
The prepared oration was lengthy, amounting to over ten pages when printed. The opening section pledges allegiance to the nation and expresses deep patriotic sentiment. It rehearses the birth of the nation, venerates the founding fathers, and extols the political principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the , especially freedom of religion. It also recounts the history of persecutions endured by the Saints and the violations of their constitutional rights. The subject then shifts to the purpose and function of the they planned to build as a place of both religious and secular education. The secular education obtained therein would contribute to the national project of producing a literate citizenry that, through informed voting, could preserve American freedom. The conclusion of the speech returns to the violations of American freedom suffered by the Saints. Invoking the right to defend themselves, the oration declares the firm resolve of the Saints to resist any future physical threats or vexatious lawsuits. It threatened any mob who attacked them that they would fight back with deadly force and wage a “war of extermination.” This phrase was commonly used in the nineteenth century to describe intractable conflicts such as the violent struggles between European American settlers and Native American peoples. While adamant and somewhat threatening in tone, the oration clarifies that the Saints would never be the aggressors and would never violate the rights of others.
The discourse apparently drew on an 1833 JS revelation that provided guidance for how the Saints were to respond to future mob violence. If any man were to “smite” or otherwise attack them, the Saints were to “bear it patiently.” However, following an opponent’s third offense, the revelation instructed that the Saints were to “warn him in my [God’s] name that he come no more upon you.” If the antagonist persisted, the Saints were informed: “thine enemy is in thine hands and if thou reward him according to his works thou art Justified.” Similarly, the 1838 Independence Day oration featured here recounted how the Saints were “wearied of being smitten” and that they had endured this abuse “with patience.” The sermon further stated: “we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more,” proceeding then to declare that persecution would provoke a “war of extermination.” The close parallels between the two texts strongly suggest that the oration was deliberately formulated to comply with the requirements of the 1833 revelation. As First Presidency scribe wrote in JS’s journal, the discourse represented the church’s “decleration of Independance from all mobs and persecutions which have been inflicted upon us time after time untill we could bear it no longer.” Hereafter, all enemies had been duly warned and the Saints were justified in fighting back.
delivered the oration to a large audience. Recounting the events of the day in JS’s journal, estimated that there had been “several thousands of spectators” who gathered for the celebration, which was held at the public square in the center of . JS presided over the celebration. recalled that “a stand was erected for the officers and orator of the day, large enough also to seat several distinguished visitors.” This stand was erected on the north side of the public square. It was likely situated near the , in the northeast corner of the public square, where the presidency would oversee the ceremonial laying of the temple cornerstones. The celebration began at ten o’clock in the morning with a parade in which both the regiment of the state militia and the Danite society marched, as well as several church leaders and the temple architects. After the procession formed around the temple excavation, JS offered a prayer and the band played a number. Various church officers then participated in the ceremonial laying of the cornerstones for the temple that the Saints planned to build in their burgeoning community—a symbol that they intended to build a religiously oriented city and that they were building to stay. The procession of military and civilian officers then formed again around the stand, where the festivities culminated with Rigdon’s delivery of the oration. According to George W. Robinson, Rigdon delivered the discourse “under the hoisted flagg representing the Liberty and independence of these .” Following Rigdon’s emphatic conclusion that the Saints would no longer withstand persecution without fighting back, the assembled crowd responded with “a shout of hosanna.” The First Presidency then descended from the stand and “marched to the south side of the public square,” where the assembled troops “passed in review before them.” This demonstration of military preparedness brought the celebration to a close.
Efforts were soon made to publish the oration, perhaps as an attempt to further comply with the 1833 revelation’s injunction to warn the Saints’ opponents not to attack them. The text of the sermon was shared with attorney and newspaper editor Peter H. Burnett of , Missouri, who printed it in his paper, the Far West. Copies of this newspaper version of the oration are apparently not extant. The discourse was also published in pamphlet form by the church printing office in . Although the manuscript of the oration is not extant, church printer occasionally supplied clarifying information in brackets in the printed text, indicating that he was attempting to accurately reproduce the text of the manuscript he had been given. At the same time, however, Robinson introduced a few minor typographical errors. The August 1838 issue of the Elders’ Journal included an editorial by JS in which he encouraged church members to obtain copies of the pamphlet for its history of the church’s persecution and its expression of their “fixed determinations” that they would not “be mobed any more without taking vengeance.” Although the sermon struck a defensive posture and was intended as a declaration of freedom from further persecution, anti-Mormon vigilantes and newspapers regularly cited it in subsequent months as evidence that the Saints meant to defy the law and wage war against other Missouri citizens. For both the Latter-day Saints and their opponents in Missouri, the oration set the tone for the conflict that followed.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Howe, Autobiography and Recollections, 45; see also Adams, “Grandison Newell’s Obsession,” 159–188.

    Howe, Eber D. Autobiography and Recollections of a Pioneer Printer: Together with Sketches of the War of 1812 on the Niagara Frontier. Painesville, OH: Telegraph Steam Printing House, 1878.

    Adams, Dale W. “Grandison Newell’s Obsession.” Journal of Mormon History 30 (Spring 2004): 159–188.

  2. [2]

    See Madsen, “Tabulating the Impact of Litigation on the Kirtland Economy,” 227–246.

    Madsen, Gordon A. “Tabulating the Impact of Litigation on the Kirtland Economy.” In Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch, 227–246. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014.

  3. [3]

    See Motto, ca. 16 or 17 Mar. 1838. An influential nineteenth-century law dictionary defined a “vexatious suit” as “one which has been instituted maliciously, and without probable cause, whereby a damage has ensued to the defendant.” (“Vexatious Suit,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 2:472.)

    Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union; With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Deacon and Peterson, 1854.

  4. [4]

    See Letter to Oliver Cowdery and Others, ca. 17 June 1838.

  5. [5]

    John Corrill, Testimony, Richmond, MO, Nov. 1838, p. [31]; John Cleminson, Testimony, Richmond, MO, Nov. 1838, pp. [51]–[52], Transcript of Proceedings, 12–29 Nov. 1838 [State of Missouri vs. JS et al. for Treason and Other Crimes]; see also Motto, ca. 16 or 17 Mar. 1838.

  6. [6]

    Minutes, 21 Apr. 1838, in JSP, D6:110–111.

  7. [7]

    Revelation, 26 Apr. 1838 [D&C 115:6–12, 18].

  8. [8]

    LeSueur, “Missouri’s Failed Compromise,” 113–144.

    LeSueur, Stephen C. “Missouri’s Failed Compromise: The Creation of Caldwell County for the Mormons.” Journal of Mormon History 31, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 113–144.

  9. [9]

    See Letter from William W. Phelps, 7 July 1837; and Letter from David Thomas, 31 Mar. 1838; see also “A History, of the Persecution,” Times and Seasons, Mar. 1840, 1:65–66.

    Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839–Feb. 1846.

  10. [10]

    Abner Scovil, Testimony, Richmond, MO, Nov. 1838, p. [50], Transcript of Proceedings, 12–29 Nov. 1838 [State of Missouri vs. JS et al. for Treason and Other Crimes]. In the wake of the 1838 conflict, JS expressed similar sentiments in a March 1839 letter: “If the inhabitance of the state of Missouri had let the saints alone and had been as deserable of peace as they ware there would have been nothing but peace and quiatude in this State unto this day.” (Letter to the Church and Edward Partridge, 20 Mar. 1839.)

  11. [11]

    See Historical Introduction to Constitution of the Society of the Daughter of Zion, ca. Late June 1838; see also Historical Introduction to Letter to Oliver Cowdery and Others, ca. 17 June 1838.

  12. [12]

    See Hay, “Providence and the American Past,” 79–101; Maier, American Scripture, chap. 4; and Criblez, Parading Patriotism.

    Hay, Robert P. “Providence and the American Past.” Indiana Magazine of History 65, no. 2 (June 1969): 79–101.

    Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.

    Criblez, Adam. Parading Patriotism: Independence Day Celebrations in the Urban Midwest, 1826–1876. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Press, 2013.

  13. [13]

    Celebration of the 4th of July, Aug. 1838.

  14. [14]

    See Revelation, Feb. 1831–A [D&C 43:15]; and Revelation, 22–23 Sept. 1832 [D&C 84:85]; see also Jackson, “Oratory of the Great Basin Prophets,” 489–520.

    Jackson, Brian. “‘As a Musician Would His Violin’: The Oratory of the Great Basin Prophets.” In A New History of the Sermon: The Nineteenth Century, edited by Robert H. Ellison, 489–520. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010.

  15. [15]

    Ebenezer Robinson, “Items of Personal History of the Editor,” Return, Nov. 1889, 170; see also William W. Phelps, Testimony, Richmond, MO, Nov. 1838, p. [88], Transcript of Proceedings, 12–29 Nov. 1838 [State of Missouri vs. JS et al. for Treason and Other Crimes].

    The Return. Davis City, IA, 1889–1891; Richmond, MO, 1892–1893; Davis City, 1895–1896; Denver, 1898; Independence, MO, 1899–1900.

  16. [16]

    See, for example, Vision, 16 Feb. 1832 [D&C 76]; and Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Co., MO, 25 June 1833.

  17. [17]

    Kiernan, Blood and Soil, chap. 8.

    Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.

  18. [18]

    Revelation, 6 Aug. 1833 [D&C 98:22–31].

  19. [19]

    JS, Journal, 4 July 1838.

  20. [20]

    JS, Journal, 4 July 1838; Celebration of the 4th of July, Aug. 1838.

  21. [21]

    Ebenezer Robinson, “Items of Personal History of the Editor,” Return, Oct. 1889, 148. The contemporaneous report of the celebration published in the church newspaper also spoke of “the stand, where the oration was to be delivered.” (Celebration of the 4th of July, Aug. 1838.)

    The Return. Davis City, IA, 1889–1891; Richmond, MO, 1892–1893; Davis City, 1895–1896; Denver, 1898; Independence, MO, 1899–1900.

  22. [22]

    JS, Journal, 4 and 27 July 1838; Celebration of the 4th of July, Aug. 1838.

  23. [23]

    Celebration of the 4th of July, Aug. 1838.

  24. [24]

    JS, Journal, 1–3 Aug. 1838; Ebenezer Robinson, “Items of Personal History of the Editor,” Return, Nov. 1889, 171; Burnett, Recollections and Opinions, 53.

    The Return. Davis City, IA, 1889–1891; Richmond, MO, 1892–1893; Davis City, 1895–1896; Denver, 1898; Independence, MO, 1899–1900.

    Burnett, Peter H. Recollections and Opinions of an Old Pioneer. New York: D. Appleton, 1880.

  25. [25]

    Ebenezer Robinson, “Items of Personal History of the Editor,” Return, Nov. 1889, 171. The pamphlet’s title page named the “Journal Office” as the publisher. This was the church printing office that published the Elders’ Journal, the official church newspaper edited by JS.

    The Return. Davis City, IA, 1889–1891; Richmond, MO, 1892–1893; Davis City, 1895–1896; Denver, 1898; Independence, MO, 1899–1900.

  26. [26]

    Elders’ Journal, Aug. 1838, 54.

  27. [27]

    On 12 September 1838, anti-Mormons in Daviess County and Livingston County stated in a letter to Missouri governor Lilburn W. Boggs that “for several weeks past the Mormons have been making formidable preparation for a civil war—and one which they are pleased to call a war of extermination,” doubtless a reference to the 4 July 1838 oration. The editor of the Western Star, a newspaper based in Liberty, Missouri, asserted on 14 September that the 4 July speech contained “the essence of, if not treason itself” and that Rigdon’s declaration that vexatious lawsuits would not be tolerated was “a manifestation of a disposition to prevent the force of law.” (“Citizens of Daviess and Livingston Counties,” Daviess Co., MO, to Lilburn W. Boggs, 12 Sept. 1838, copy, Mormon War Papers, MSA; “The Mormons,” Missouri Argus [St. Louis], 27 Sept. 1838, [1].)

    Mormon War Papers, 1838–1841. MSA.

    Missouri Argus. St. Louis. 1835–1841.

In celebrating this, the anniversary of our independence, all party distinctions should be forgotten, all religious differences should be laid aside. We are members of one common republic, equally dependent on a faithful of its laws for our protection, in the enjoyment of our civil, political, and religious privileges. All have a common interest in the preservation of the Union, and in the defence and support of the constitution. Northern, southern, and western interests, ought to be forgotten, or lost for the time being, in the more noble desire to preserve the nation, as one whole; for on this depends the security of all local and sectional interest; for if we cannot preserve them by supporting the Union, we cannot by rending it in pieces. In the former there is hope, in the latter fear. In one peace, in the other war.
In times of peace, it ought to be our aim and our object, to strengthen the bonds of the Union by cultivating peace and good will among ourselves. And in times of war, to meet our foes sword in hand, and defend our rights, at the expense of life. For what is life when freedom has fled? It is a name, a bubble; better far sleep with the dead, than be oppressed among the living.
All attempts, on the part of religious aspirants, to unite church and state, ought to be repeled with indignation, and every religious society supported in its rights, and in the exercise of its conscientious devotions. The Mohameden, the Pagan, and the Idolitor, not excepted, and be partakers equally, in the benefits of the government. For if the Union is preserved, it will be by endearing the people to it; and this can only be done by securing to all their most sacred rights. The least deviation, from the strictest rule of right, on the part of any portion of the people, or their public servants, will create dissatisfaction, that dissatisfaction will end in strife, strife in war, and war, in the dissolution of the Union.
It is on the virtue of the people, that depends the existence of the government, and not on the wisdom of legislators. Wherefore serveth laws, (it matters not how righteous in themselves,) when the people in violation of them, tear those rights from one another, which they -[the laws]- were designed to protect? If we preserve the nation from ruin, and the people from war, it will be by securing to others, what we claim to ourselves, and being as zealous to defend another’s rights, as to secure our own. If on this day, the fathers of our nation, pledged their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honors, to one another, and to the colonies which they represented, to be free, or to loose all earthly inheritance, not life, and honor excepted. So ought we to follow their example, and pledge our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honors, as their children and successors, in maintaining inviolable, what they obtained by their treasure, and their blood.
With holy feelings, sacred desires, and grateful hearts to our Divine Benefactor, ought we to perform the duties of this day, and [p. 5]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Appendix 3: Discourse, circa 4 July 1838
ID #
9645
Total Pages
12
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page
  • Printed text

Footnotes

  1. [8]

    In 1830, in his famous debate with Robert Hayne, Daniel Webster had held that disunion posed a threat to American freedom because it exposed the country to foreign powers. (Belz, Webster-Hayne Debate, 143–144.)

    Belz, Herman, ed. The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Union: Selected Documents. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2000.

  2. [9]

    “Mohameden” was a common European designator for adherents of Islam. Although Thomas Jefferson and other American founders advocated the extension of religious liberty to cover Muslims, the idea had not yet obtained widespread acceptance by 1838. (See Beneke, Beyond Toleration; and Spellberg, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an; see also Letter to Isaac Galland, 22 Mar. 1839; and Letter to Edward Partridge and the Church, ca. 22 Mar. 1839.

    Beneke, Chris. Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

    Spellberg, Denise A. Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders. New York: Knopf, 2013.

  3. [10]

    This language echoes the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Go to page