Mormon History
Open Letter to William S. Godbe - 1871
Daily Corinne Reporter – October 7, 1871
HISTORY OF MORMONISM.
(Written expressly
for the Corinne Reporter and containing a
true and succinct account of the Reign of Terror in Utah. -- Ed.)
Argus on the New
Movement -- He Settles the Question of Morality -- Grant Comparisons and Fine
Deductions..
Salt Lake City, Oct. 12, 1871.
An Open Letter to Wm. S.
Godbe.
SIR: I write you over a nom de plume, but pledge you my open name
whenever you demand it, in confidence, after you have fully and finally
withdrawn yourself from the Utah institution miscalled polygamy. I beg you to
overlook my blunt and uncouth manner of writing -- it is my style. Permit me to
assure you that what I have to say shall be said in all brotherly kindness,
without malice, and with a sincere desire to further the understanding of the
truth. In your address of July 30th, in speaking of the comparative virtue of
the Mormon people, you fall into the same error that Brigham Young has fallen,
and from which he deduces his pet argument in favor of his peculiar institution,
namely, the comparing of Mormon harems with the brothels of the world, which you
substantially do. In this you are certainly wrong; because, first, those
brothels are not institutions of any church. Prostitution has existed in all
ages, and, probably, always will. It is common to all countries; but finds its
natural home in great commercial centers where there is a great preponderance of
men, and among polygamous nations where it assumes a form not fit to be
mentioned. Second, they are liable to contain, and do contain Mormon girls
as well as others. Ot is, however, but just to remark that of the whole mass of
these poor cast-a-ways, but very few indeed were brought up under a careful
Christian guardianship. Third, there is no Christian church that recognizes
whoredoms as an institution of that church, nor in any other sense, except as
the most abominable and most to be abhorred of all the dark ways of sin. From
this you can see at once the unfairness of comparing polygamy with the lowest
and most degraded type of fallen humanity, represented only by outcasts from
virtuous society, holding the same to be a part of Christian monagamy. Fairplay
suggests that the comparison to be made, should be between the marriage system
of the Mormon church and that of some other church. To illustrate, I would say
like this: Is there a higher standard of morality and virtue in the polygamy of
the church of Brigham Young, than in the monogamy of the Presbyterian church?
Does the polygamy of Mormonism endure to peace, quiet, contentment, and
affection in the family circle in a greater degree than the monogamy of
Catholicism? Does the polygamy of Mormonism tend to a holiness of heart and a
genuine, practical Christian life, in a greater degree than the monogamy of
Methodism? These are the just comparisons to [be] made, and, when made, polygamy
goes to the wall.
Among the reasons you gave why a man should not put away his polygamous (not
polygamic) wives, was one which greatly surprised me; namely, on account of his
children. Now, sir, to my mind, the greatest and most fatal objection that can
be raised to the "twin relic" is, the bringing up of children in polygamous
households, and, in my opinion, any man in Utah living with more than one
"wife," who has "outgrown" his faith in Brigham Young and his doctrines, should
not hesitate a day to put away his concubines for his childrens' sake, if for no
other reason. I use the term concubine, not as implying an impure woman, but
because it is, after all, the proper one to be used in this connection, for the
reason that in a full and proper sense, no woman can be a wife that is not
lawfully so, and the common law, as well as the statute, restricts the marriage
relation to one wife. The idea of bringing up children under the influence of
polygamy, in which they see so many things they should not see, and hear so much
they should not hear, is the most immoralizing feature of the institution. Here
is matter for "serious thought."
Your long and elaborate discourse was clearly an apology for polygamy. But it
was an ideal polygamy; and not the institution as it exists to-day in Utah. You
treat it with faultless respect. You speak of love and affection as existing
between a Mormon and his wives. Have you not heard the high expounders of
Mormonism, time and again, publicly instruct the women not to love their
husbands, because love was jealous and could not bear a rival? Polygamy is fatal
to woman's love. To the concubine it is hell; to the lawful wife, despair! And
your fine words -- "full force of religious influence," -- "lofty enthusiasm,"
-- "true affection," -- "free from sensuality," -- lived in amity together," --
"feelings of confidence and love," -- "the tendrils of her feminine heart
entwined around his," are the veriest twaddle, and unworthy of one who has so
far "out-grown" polygamy, as, at least theoretically, to have discovered its
failure as an institution worthy of being perpetuated. Look at the old
polygamist families of Utah. Not one of them -- no sir, however much they may
seek to keep their troubles to themselves, and however pleasant and good-natured
they may appear in public and before strangers, not one that has not a little
hell of its own sufficient to burn and destroy the last particle of conjugal
love, had any existed. Scarcely one that has not a feud of greater or less
malignancy existing between the woman, and also the children, who naturally
sympathize and take sides with their mothers. These feuds stir up and keep alive
angry passions, and render a truly pious frame of mind impossible. There is
neither love nor prayer in Brigham Young's religion. Yet you, with a
disingenuousness unexpected in Wm. S. Godbe, leave these plain facts in the
back-ground, introduce your ideal "Celestial marriage," make it to represent the
real, then give to it an undisguised sympathy, and treat it with the gravest and
most respectful consideration!
It is a fact which can not be unknown to you, the polygamous wives in Utah are
the hardest worked set of women in America. Even in polygamous Turkey, a man can
not marry a second wife until he has endowed the first with property, in her own
right, sufficient to support herself and her children. But here women have been
sealed to men without regard to their ability to support either them or the
lawful wife; and, what is more, the women have been both publicly and privately
taught to labor for their own support, the support of their children, and for
the support of their husband! There are men now loving in Salt Lake City and
county who commenced life here by domiciling two or perhaps three women in a
single room, who, by the united labors of the family, by the most pinching
economy, and by the rise in the value of real estate are now in comfortable
circumstances. If there be a hardship in breaking up olygamous households, it
would be in such cases. Yet, as the romance (!) of "celestial marriage" has,
with them, long since passed away, as they have never seen a day without strifes,
discords or heart-burnings of some kind, as there is no prospect of domestic
happiness in their present relations, where is the hardship in an honest man
saying to those "spirituals;" Our family arrangements are unlawful; are not
right anyway; I will support you and the children until you marry, which latter
you are free to do; and if you marry, you can, if you choose, send my children
to me, and I will support and educate them, or I will now deed you a certain
property and give you the children, but for our mutual good the apparent
relation of husband and wife can no longer exist between us. Thus by his
voluntary effort he can do an act of justice to those women and their offspring
which under other circumstances he may not be permitted to do. As an
illustration, let us suppose that Mrs. Godbe should prefer, before the court, a
charge of adultery against you, her husband, and pursue it to conviction and
imprisonment. It would be a short way to a divorce with the estate and the
children all hers. Then poor Hagar and Ishmael would be at the mercy of
Sarah, with a bottle of water for an inherotance.
Grave duties sometimes require sacrifices. Yet a sacrifice to a requirement of
right, and especially to a clear appreciation of duty gives pleasure rather than
pain, because it propitiates and satisfies the conscience. In this connection I
make bold to say that there is not a polygamist in Salt Lake City, who can think
at all, but what realizes upon his conscience and within his heart that
"celestial marriage" has been in principle a wrong unto himself, and in practice
an unmitigated outrage upon his "wives." Then, as for the woman, by such
voluntary act put away, do you think they would break their hearts about it? Not
at all. Why, sir, if polygamy in Utah were put an end to to-day, and without any
preparation, by the submission of the Mormons to the laws of Congress, while it
would perhaps create an indifferent sort of pain in some instances, would give
any amount of satisfaction to the deceived, enslaved, over-worked "spirituals,"
and would be, O what a triumph to a multitude of lawful wives (including your
own) who have for years borne a burden of wretchedness impossible to describe!
It is a waste of time to speculate upon how these extra women are to geta long
without Abraham. The great majority of them have more than paid their way thus
far, and, if need be, can still sustain themselves. I am aware that there are
women in Utah who, in the presence of others, will deny my propositions, while
in secret communion with their conscience will weep bitter tears in
acknowledgement of their orrefragable truth. I know a most excellent lady, a
"spiritual wife" of one of the high dignitaries of Brigham's church, who, on a
certain occasion, manifested great zeal in defense of her position. I afterward
asked her why she was so earnest in her remarks to that Gentile. (She knew my
sentiments.) She replied: "How could I do otherwise when my honor was called in
question?" Then added, as the tears started, "Yet something tells me all the
time that I am not living right!" If you have any sympathy for those wretched
women, so unfeelingly placed in a false position, express it for them as they
now are, and waste no time in speculating as to what their future condition will
be, because when freed from their present enslavement they will stand in little
need of your sympathy.
I congratulate you that you have taken a position against the continued practice
of polygamous sealings. I do so the more earnestly because it is the first
practical step as yet taken against that abomination, and will prove to be the
entering wedge that will burst the rotten log wide open. Yet, allow me to
inquire, is it any more of a crime against woman, against morality, against the
law for a man to take a concubine to-day than it was when the law against
polygamy was first published? You certainly know that immediately after the
promulgation of that law, Brigham Young took another concubine, and paraded her
through the streets, took her to the parties, to the theater, through the
Territory, and boasted of this open defiance of the law, and by his example
created quite a revival in the sealing business. It became a common thing to see
the lechers hasten with new victims to the sealing altar expressly (of they were
to be believed) to show their contempt of the act of Congress. Now, why should
not all such parties be held to the same account as those violating the law at
the present time? There is more matter for "serious thought." Upon the whole,
Mr. Godbe, it will be well to understand that in this entire matter, we are
dealing not with questionable sentiments, but with an ugly fact, and that in
this as well as in other matters, honesty os the best policy. It is clearly...
[best]... to at once and forever do away with his unlawful manner of living,
making such provisions as may be ample or within his power for the support of
those who must be put away.
Respectfully,
ARGUS.