The bill proposes to apply a religious test to the Mormons, in so far
as it punishes the Mormon for his opinions, it is a religious test
applied. He believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet as much as I
believe that Jeremiah was a prophet; and while I think he is in an
egregious error, I have no right to proscribe him because of his belief
as long as he does not practice immorality. And I have no right to do
more as a legislator than to prescribe rules to punish him for his
immoralities, and leave him to the full enjoyment of his religious
opinions, just as I claim the right to enjoy my own opinions. If we
commence striking down any sect, however despised or however unpopular,
on account of opinion's sake, we do not know how soon the fires of
Smithfield may be rekindled or the gallows of New England for witches
again be erected, or when another Catholic convent will be burned down.
We do not know how long it will be before the clamor would be raised
by the religious institutions of this country, that no member of a
church who holds the infallibility of the Pope or the doctrine of
transubstantiation should hold office or {330} vote in this country. We
do not know how long it would be before it would be said that no member
of a church who believed in close communion and baptism by immersion
as the only mode, should vote or hold office in this country. You are
treading on dangerous ground when you open this floodgate anew. We have
passed the period where there is for the present any clamor on this
subject, except as against the Mormons; but it seems there must be some
periodical outcry against some denomination. Popular vengeance is now
turned against the Mormons. When we are done with them, I know not who
will next be considered the proper subject of it.
To accomplish this great object the Territorial practices of half
a century are to be blotted out, local self-government is to be
destroyed, the church is to be plundered, and the prosperous region of
Utah is to be subjected to the rule of satraps whose unlimited power
will enable them to rob and pillage the people at pleasure. If this
system is once inaugurated, bitter as was our experience in the South
during the late reconstruction period when our affairs were being
regulated, it was mildness itself compared with what is in store for
Utah as long as the wealth accumulated by the Mormons is not exhausted.
Mr. President, I shall be a party to no such proceedings. Other
sections of the Union have frequently run wild in keeping up with New
England ideas and New England practices on issues of this character.
I presume they will do so again, but I, for one, shall not be a party
to the enactment or enforcement of unconstitutional, tyrannical, and
oppressive legislation for the purpose of crushing the Mormons or any
other sect for the gratification of New England or any other section.
The precedents which we are making, when the persons and parties in
the States who feel it their duty to regulate the affairs of others
find themselves unemployed and the regulation of Mormonism no longer
profitable, will be used against other sects. Whether the Baptists,
or the Catholics, or the Quakers will be selected for the next victim
does not yet appear. But he who supposes that this spirit of restless
and illegal intermeddling with the affairs of other sections will be
satiated or appeased by the sacrifice of the Mormons has read modern
history to little advantage.
The Mormon sect is marked for the first victim. The Constitution and
the practices of the Government are to be disregarded and if need be
trampled down to gratify the ire of dominant intermeddling.
And such is the fanaticism now prevalent in reference to the {331}
Mormon sect, that when it is clearly shown the regulation which they
desire can not take place within the Constitution and laws, the
restless regulators will doubtless be ready to follow the example of
Mr. Stevens and regulate Mormonism outside of the Constitution. But why
should Southern men become camp-followers in this crusade?
The Mormons may, however, be consoled by the reflection that their
privileges need not be curtailed if they are obedient, nor the present
practice diminished, but they must change the name and no longer
conduct the wicked practice in what they call the "marriage relation."
The Government considers this no great hardship, as it freely permits
in the Mormons, if called by the right name, what it does not punish
in other people. For, without violating the policy of the Government
in so far as it has been proclaimed by its Utah Commission, if the
Mormons will conform to its requirements as to the mode, the practice
of prostitution in Utah need not in the slightest degree be diminished.
The clamor is not against the Mormon for having more than one woman,
but for calling more than one his wife. And the Mormons will do well to
remember that the policy of putting the whole population, men, women,
and children to the sword, and filling the whole land with wailing,
blood, and carnage will not be wanting in advocates if a portion of
them still continue, each to cohabit with more than one woman in what
they call "the marriage relation."
The Government and people of the United States have deliberately
determined that they must call it by the proper name. Let the Mormon
who has a plurality of women remember that he must conform to the
practice elsewhere and call but one of them his wife.
This, Mr. President, is the point we have reached. This is the
distinction we have drawn. This is our present policy and practice as
applied to the Territory of Utah. What consummate statesmanship!
Others who feel it their duty upon such hollow pretexts to destroy a
prosperous Territory by such unconstitutional and illegal means as are
proposed will doubtless proceed with this unnatural warfare until they
have seen the result of their folly.
Let those whose ambition prompts them to such deeds of daring take part
in this tyrannical and illegal conquest over a helpless people, who, to
gratify an insatiate fanaticism, are to be crushed without the morals
of this country being in the slightest degree improved or illegal
sexual intercourse in the {332} least degree diminished, and let them
enjoy the fruits of their triumph.
But as I have sworn to support the Constitution of the United States,
and can not therefore belong to the army of the conquerors, I shall
have no right to claim any of the trophies of the victory. Nor when
the slaughter comes shall I have upon my hands the stain of the blood
of any of the victims. Nor shall I share in the responsibility when
in future our present unconstitutional and unjustifiable legislation
against the Mormons shall be used as a precedent for like legislation
to crush some other sect or denomination, who may have chance, as
the Mormons now do, to fall under the ban of popular fanaticism
and indignation which will afford another pretext for New England
interference and regulation.
There are over fifty millions of people in the United States; and there
are probably twenty times as many persons practicing prostitution, or
illegal sexual intercourse, in the other parts of the Union as the
whole number who practice it in Utah. Many of the features of its
practice in the other States and Territories, including foeticide,
illegal divorce, etc., are quite as revolting, or more so, than in
Utah. It is assumed in the other parts of the Union, where a greatly
larger number of persons practice sexual impurity than the whole number
of Mormon polygamists, that polygamy must be put down at any cost. It
is certainly a matter of great importance that polygamy, prostitution,
foeticide and illegal divorce, whether practiced in Utah or in any
other part of the United States, should be put down. And if we have
it in our power by constitutional means to accomplish that end no
one would be more rejoiced than I. But having taken a solemn oath to
support the Constitution of the United States, I cannot as a Senator
vote for a measure which I am satisfied is a plain violation of the
Constitution to crush out polygamy, or to accomplish any other object.
And we would do well to bear in mind that if the Congress of the United
States disregards and violates the Constitution of the United States in
its eager haste to crush a sect but little over one hundred thousand
strong, the result of the precedent may be the crushing out of one sect
after another, until it ends in the complete overthrow of the liberties
of fifty millions of people, who are expected to applaud our efforts
to crush the Mormons without regard to constitutional difficulties or
constitutional obligations.
No matter what the popular applause may be on the one hand or the
popular condemnation on the other, I will join in {333} no hue and
cry against any sect that requires me to vote for measures in open
violation of the fundamental law of the land. And we would do well to
bear in mind that an illegal persecution of any sect always excites
sympathy for the persecuted and greatly increases its number. The late
Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, when asked what would be the effect
of the Edmunds bill on Mormonism, replied, "The effect will be to make
more Mormons."
But I may be asked, "What means can we adopt to destroy this great evil
in Utah?" I reply we can not do it by passing unconstitutional laws,
or adopting illegal or unconstitutional means, or by striking down
republican government in the Territory.
The Christian churches of this country spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars every year sending missionaries to foreign lands where polygamy
is practiced. In India and in China alone more than 500,000,000 of
people practice or acquiesce in the practice of polygamy. And yet the
Christian churches are not discouraged, but they send missionaries
there, hoping finally to convert the whole mass of the people. Why,
then, should we not send missionaries to Utah, where only about 12,000
people practice and a little over 100,000 people believe in polygamy?
If the Christian churches are willing to make the effort to convert
500,000,000 of polygamists in the East, why should they not with less
effort convert 100,000 within the limits of our own land? If the first
task is within the range of possibility, what is there to discourage
us from the smaller undertaking? There are a great many people in Utah
who might be converted by the proper effort. They are our neighbors,
our fellow-citizens. Shall we give them up as reprobates, and make no
effort to save them, and join in a crusade to crush them? They speak
our language, they are within easy reach. Why give them up and turn to
the heathen of other lands, who neither understand our language nor
have anything of race or sympathy in common with us? Have the Christian
churches done their duty to the Mormon people? If you can not convince
their leaders you can convert thousands of the people. It may be easier
to cry "Crucify them" than it is to try to help convert them. But can
the churches reconcile it to conscience that duty is as well performed
in the one case as in the other?