Skip to main content

Letter from Orson Hyde, 25 April 1844

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 

Letter from Orson Hyde, 25 April 1844

Source Note

, Letter, , to [the (including JS)], , Hancock Co., IL, 25 Apr. 1844; handwriting and signature of ; seven pages; JS Collection, CHL. Includes address, postal stamps, dockets, and notations.
Two bifolia, each measuring 10 × 8 inches (25 × 20 cm). The paper is ruled with approximately twenty-seven blue horizontal lines, now faded. The letter was trifolded twice in letter style, addressed, and sealed with a red adhesive wafer. The second leaf of the second bifolium was torn when the letter was opened, and the verso of the last leaf contains wafer residue. The letter was later refolded for filing. Small pieces of clear cellophane tape were added sometime after 1930 to the right edge of the second horizontal fold of each leaf and the recto of the last leaf. At one point, the bifolia were attached by multiple staples. The staples have since been removed.
The letter was docketed by Jonathan Grimshaw, who served as a clerk in the Church Historian’s Office (later Church Historical Department) from 1853 to 1856. Graphite notations were later added, apparently by a clerk or secretary for Andrew Jenson, who served as assistant church historian from 1897 to 1941. The letter may have been listed in an inventory that was produced by the Church Historian’s Office circa 1904. By 1973 the document had been included in the JS Collection at the Church Historical Department (now CHL). The document’s early docket and notations, its possible inclusion in a circa 1904 inventory, and its later inclusion in the JS Collection indicate continuous institutional custody.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Cole et al., Encyclopedia of Modern Everyday Inventions, 22; Edelman, “Brief History of Tape,” 45–46.

    Cole, David J., Eve Browning, and Fred E.H. Schroeder. Encyclopedia of Modern Everyday Inventions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003.

    Edelman, Jonathan. “A Brief History of Tape.” Ambidextrous 5 (Falling in 2006): 45–46.

  2. [2]

    Historian’s Office, Journal, 7 June 1853; Wilford Woodruff, Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, to George A. Smith, 30 Aug. 1856, in Historian’s Office, Letterpress Copybooks, vol. 1, p. 364.

    Historian’s Office. Journal, 1844–1997. CHL. CR 100 1.

    Historian’s Office. Letterpress Copybooks, 1854–1879, 1885–1886. CHL. CR 100 38.

  3. [3]

    Bitton and Arrington, Mormons and Their Historians, 48–55.

    Bitton, David, and Leonard J. Arrington. Mormons and Their Historians. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988.

  4. [4]

    “Letters to and from the Prophet,” ca. 1904, [4], Historian’s Office, Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CHL. The JS Collection includes five letters that Orson Hyde wrote in 1844. The circa 1904 inventory does not specify whether the letter received from Hyde is this one, dated 25 April 1844, or the one dated 26 April 1844. The letters were docketed and processed similarly, so the inventory may refer to both letters. (See Letter from Orson Hyde, 26 Apr. 1844.)

    Historian’s Office. Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904. CHL. CR 100 130.

  5. [5]

    See the full bibliographic entry for JS Collection, 1827–1844, in the CHL catalog.

Historical Introduction

On 25 April 1844, wrote the first of five extant letters he sent to JS and the in , Illinois, from informing them of his activities on the council’s behalf in the capital city. Hyde was there to present to the Congress and President a memorial that, if approved, would make JS a member of the United States Army and authorize him “to raise a Company of one hundred thousand armed volunteers” to protect settlers in the , the , and “other Lands contiguous to this nation.” The Council of Fifty, which was discussing possible locations for the should they need to leave Nauvoo, had initiated and approved this memorial earlier that spring.
Addressing the question of where the Saints might establish a gathering place outside of was a central reason for the formation of the in March 1844. Relocation would offer the Saints the opportunity to institute their own laws to ensure their protection, to proselytize among Native Americans, and to ease tension with their neighbors. The council’s record notes that at a meeting on 11 March all council members “seemed agreed to look to some place where we can go and establish a Theocracy either in or or somewhere in .” The memorial Hyde delivered to Congress and originated in a Council of Fifty meeting on 19 March. On that occasion, suggested that the council consider a resolution that “communication be made immediately to the General Government through our representative, Mr , specifying that General Joseph Smith will protect the Texas and Oregon from all foreign invasion if the General Government will authorise him to raise volunteers in the for that purpose.” The council further discussed the resolution on 21 March, appointing Richards, , and as a committee to draft the petition and to take the petition to . On 26 March 1844, the council unanimously sustained the drafted memorial along with a motion to send a similar memorial to Tyler.
Upon receiving the assignment to take the memorial to , was determined to do all that he could to ensure that Congress or approved it. At a meeting in the afternoon of 4 April 1844, Hyde asked how he should respond to questions from Washington politicians. He later recounted that JS’s response was to “go and do the best you can, act like a King and get the very best things done for us that you can.” Optimistic that Congress would be receptive to the petition, Hyde departed for Washington immediately following the 4 April meeting, bearing copies of the memorial for Congress and Tyler. He also carried a letter that identified him as an of ’s city authorities and recommended him “to the due consideration of all the Exeutive officers of the government, both houses of Congress, and gentlemen generally of the .”
In his 25 April letter, informed JS and the that he had arrived in and had met with , who was there on behalf of the City Council. Hyde recounted the 24 April visit that he and Pratt had with several members of the congressional delegation, including representatives and , about the Latter-day Saints’ memorial and potential destinations for future settlement. In the letter, Hyde explained the specific viewpoints these politicians offered regarding how the memorial would affect relations between the and Great Britain over the jointly occupied . Hyde opined that Congress was unlikely to pass any bills relating to or Oregon and that the Saints would be better off moving to either place sooner rather than later. If the Saints became the early majority in Oregon, Hyde reasoned, other settlers might be discouraged from migrating there.
addressed his letter to the “through” JS, the council’s standing chair, but addressed the wrapper of the letter to , who was not only a council member but also the postmaster of , which meant that he could send and receive mail without charge. On the morning of 13 May 1844, JS received the letter and another dated 26 April from Hyde and subsequently called for the Council of Fifty to meet that afternoon. At the meeting, after Hyde’s letters were read, JS and other council members expressed dismay that Hyde had struck out the clause in the memorial proposing to appoint JS as a member of the Army. Thereafter, the council passed a resolution stipulating that delegates of the council must “carry all Memorials through Congress without alteration.” On behalf of the council, a scribe, possibly , wrote a letter to Hyde in response, which and brought to .
’s original letter was preserved among the church’s records. also copied the letter into the record of the . The original letter is featured here.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    The others are Letter from Orson Hyde, 26 Apr. 1844; Letter from Orson Hyde, 30 Apr. 1844; Orson Hyde, Washington DC, to “Dear Brethren,” Nauvoo, IL, 9 June 1844; and Orson Hyde, Washington DC, to “Dear Brethren,” Nauvoo, IL, 11 June 1844, JS Collection, CHL.

  2. [2]

    Memorial to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, ca. 24–26 Mar. 1844.

  3. [3]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 26 Mar. 1844.

  4. [4]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 10 and 11 Mar. 1844.

  5. [5]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 19 Mar. 1844.

  6. [6]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 21 Mar. 1844.

  7. [7]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 26 Mar. 1844. The memorial Hyde presented to Tyler is nearly identical to the one the council wrote to Congress. However, it asked the president to use executive power to grant the memorial, while the memorial to Congress requested that Congress pass the memorial as a bill. (JS, Memorial to John Tyler, 30 Mar. 1844, copy, JS Collection, CHL; Memorial to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, ca. 24–26 Mar. 1844.)

  8. [8]

    When the council approved the memorial to Congress on 26 March, Hyde “felt as though he could prophecy that Congress would grant our memorial.” (Council of Fifty, “Record,” 26 Mar. 1844.)

  9. [9]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 4 Apr. 1844; Orson Hyde, Washington DC, to “Dear Brethren,” Nauvoo, IL, 9 June 1844, JS Collection, CHL.

  10. [10]

    JS, Journal, 31 Mar. and 4 Apr. 1844; Letter of Recommendation for Orson Hyde, 30 Mar. 1844, draft, in Letter of Recommendation for Orson Pratt, 12 Mar. 1844, draft, JS Collection, CHL; see also Orson Hyde, Washington DC, to “Dear Brethren,” Nauvoo, IL, 9 June 1844, JS Collection, CHL.

  11. [11]

    Nauvoo City Council Rough Minute Book, 12 Feb. 1844, 2. The city council selected Pratt to present a memorial to Congress that outlined the persecutions and property losses the Saints experienced in Missouri in the 1830s and that petitioned the government to grant the city of Nauvoo territorial status. (See Memorial to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, ca. 16 Dec. 1843–12 Feb. 1844.)

  12. [12]

    In a pamphlet detailing his presidential platform, JS stated his belief that the United States was entitled to the entirety of the Oregon territory. (See General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States, ca. 26 Jan.–7 Feb. 1844.)

  13. [13]

    In spring 1844, Lyman Wight and Heber C. Kimball, who shared Hyde’s hope that the Saints could relocate to uninhabited land, submitted a petition to Congress asking the federal government to let the Saints purchase public lands in a federal territory on a friendly repayment schedule. (See Journal of the Senate of the United States, 28th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 June 1844, 331; and Lyman Wight and Heber C. Kimball, Petition to U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 1844, Record Group 46, Records of the U.S. Senate, National Archives, Washington DC.)

    Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Being the Third Session of the Twenty-Seventh Congress, Begun and Held at the City of Washington, December 5, 1842, and in the Sixty-Seventh Year of the Independence of the Said United States. Washington DC: Thomas Allen, 1842.

    Wight, Lyman, and Heber C. Kimball. Petition to U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 1844. Petitions, Memorials, Resolutions of State Legislatures, and Related Documents Which Were Referred to the Committee on Public Lands during the 28th Congress. Petitions and Memorials, 1816–1948. Record Group 46, Records of the U.S. Senate, 1789–2015. National Archives, Washington DC.

  14. [14]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 11 and 19 Mar. 1844; “List of Letters,” Nauvoo Neighbor, 17 Jan. 1844, [3]. As a postmaster, Rigdon was entitled to franking privileges, meaning he could receive mail for free.

    Nauvoo Neighbor. Nauvoo, IL. 1843–1845.

  15. [15]

    JS, Journal, 13 May 1844; Council of Fifty, “Record,” 13 May 1844; see also Letter from Orson Hyde, 26 Apr. 1844.

  16. [16]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 13 May 1844.

  17. [17]

    Council of Fifty, “Record,” 13 May 1844. Hyde was not in Washington when Wight and Kimball arrived, but he received the letter on 8 June 1844 upon his return to the capital. This letter censured Hyde for taking matters into his own hands by revising the memorial. (Kimball, Journal, 2 and 8 June 1844; Orson Hyde, Washington DC, to “Dear Brethren,” Nauvoo, IL, 9 June 1844, JS Collection, CHL; see also Letter to Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt, 13 May 1844.)

    Kimball, Heber C. Journal, Nov. 1845–Jan. 1846. CHL.

  18. [18]

    See Letters from Orson Hyde, 25 and 26 Apr. 1844.

Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation. *Letter from Orson Hyde, 25 April 1844 Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 1, 10 March 1844–1 March 1845 History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844] “History of Joseph Smith”
I will now give you my opinion in relation to this matter. It is made up from the spirit of the times in a hasty manner; nevertheless I think time will prove it to be correct:
That Congress will pass no act in relation to or at present. She is afraid of , afraid of and afraid the presidential Election will be twisted by it. The members all appear like unskilful players at chequers afraid to move, for they see not which way to move advantageously. All are figuring and playing round the grand and important questions. In the days of our Lord, the people neglected the weightier matters of the law, but tithed mint, rue, annis [anise], and cummin [cumin], but I think here in they <​do​> little else than tithe the mint.
A member of congress is in no enviable situation. If he will boldly advocate true principles, he loses his influence and becomes unpopular; and who<​ever​> is committed and <​has​> lost his his influence, has no power to benefit his constituents: so they all go to figuring and playing round the great points. said that Mr. Smith could not constitutionally be constituted a member of the Army by law; and this, if nothing else would prevent its passage. I observed that I would, in that case, strike out that clause. Prehaps I took an unwarrantable responsibility upon myself; but where I get into a strait place, I can do no better than act according to what appears most correct.
I do not intend the opinion that I have hastily [p. 5]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Letter from Orson Hyde, 25 April 1844
ID #
1340
Total Pages
8
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page
  • Orson Hyde

Footnotes

  1. [14]

    See Matthew 23:23; and Luke 11:42.

  2. [15]

    Hyde was referring to section 3 of the memorial, which would have made JS a member of the United States Army and authorized him to “act as such in the United States and Territories, and on all lands bordering upon the United States and Territories.” Hyde agreed with Semple’s assertion that the clause was unconstitutional and decided to strike it out before submitting it. When JS learned what Hyde had done, he became upset because he had specifically advised Hyde “not to suffer any part of the memorial to be stricken out, but if Congress will not pass it in its pure original State, let them reject it altogether.” At its 13 May 1844 meeting, the Council of Fifty addressed this point by rebuking Hyde for altering the petition. In a letter to the council dated 9 June 1844, the day after he received the council’s response to his 25 and 26 April letters, Hyde provided some of his reasoning for striking out that particular clause. (Memorial to the United States Senate and House of Representatives, ca. 24–26 Mar. 1844; Council of Fifty, “Record,” 21 and 26 Mar. 1844; 13 May 1844; Orson Hyde, Washington DC, to “Dear Brethren,” Nauvoo, IL, 9 June 1844, JS Collection, CHL.)

Go to page