We're very excited to bring  you 'Are we Friends or Enemies?', episode 7 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War.

Episode 7 Leonid_Brezhnev_and_Richard_Nixon_talks_in_1973_cropped.JPG

We look at the ever-evolving Cold War relationships between the Great Powers during the 1960s and 1970s, the detente period. We shall see how relations changed between the USSR and the USA after the Cuban missile crisis. Then we’ll discuss the events that led to the USSR and China fighting each other. And we’ll also look at change in the Eastern bloc and a historic meeting between the US and China.

Let us know what you think of the podcast below!

Enjoy!

George Levrier-Jones

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

European revolutions, episode 6 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War.

Episode 6 - Berlin Wall 1.png

We’re going to pick up on the story of many countries in a Continent that had become divided by an Iron Curtain. The Continent had the USA’s most important and strongest allies, and was the area of many of the USSR’s key allies. It was of course Europe. We left the story of Europe with one of the most dramatic events of the Cold War - the Berlin blockade. This time, we will be back in Berlin for another shocking event.

And previously we also saw another very topical event for this episode – how the Soviets were invited to East Germany to end an internal uprising against the government. Something more brutal was to happen very soon..

Happy listening from the team at itshistorypodcasts.com!

George Levrier-Jones

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Catherine the Great is one of the more famous Russian rulers. She was Empress for over 30 years in the late eighteenth century. But during and after a disastrous marriage, Catherine had many lovers – and there were even rumors that these lovers included animals. But did the human lovers help to make her a visionary who was ahead of her time? Rebecca Fachner explains.

Catherine the Great, circa 1745. By George Christoph Grooth,

Catherine the Great, circa 1745. By George Christoph Grooth,

Throughout history we hear about royals having affairs outside of their royal marriages, absolute power seeming to coincide with adding notches to regal bedposts.  Almost without exception, however, royal adultery is the prerogative of men, not women.  Which is probably why that is the main thing, although certainly not the only thing, that is fascinating about Catherine the Great, the lady who ruled Russia from 1762 to 1796.  Perhaps adultery is not strictly the correct word for her though, as several of her affairs were committed after her marriage had ended.

Before we get too deep into Catherine’s tortured marital history and her impressive list of ‘favorites’, to use the historically appropriate euphemism, this would be a good time to get the horse out of the way.  There is a persistent rumor that Catherine the Great was intimate with animals, specifically horses.  What is interesting about these rumors is that they date from her own lifetime, and were used as a rather blatant attempt to discredit her.  The rumors about a horse, or anything else, are nothing more than that - rumors.  There isn’t a scintilla of truth to any of it, and most of the people alive at the time knew it. Catherine’s political enemies gave credence to the rumors for several reasons: they already disliked her and wanted to see her reduced by ridicule, they were already predisposed to enjoying rumors that highlighted her unfitness to rule, and they didn’t like being politically bested by a woman.

 

The path to power

Catherine the Great was not born particularly great, nor was she born Catherine.  Her birth name was Sophie, and she was the daughter of a relatively minor German prince, from a small and impoverished principality not far from Berlin. Her parents were well connected, however, and Sophie was proposed as a consort for the heir to the Russian throne, Peter, nephew to the reigning Empress Elizabeth. As was usual for these matches, actual compatibility between the proposed couple was not a significant factor in the machinations of their elders, and Sophie moved to Russia, converted to Orthodoxy and became Catherine. 

Even by the poor standards of royal arranged marriages, Catherine and her new husband were a supreme mismatch almost from the very beginning.  Peter has been described as petty and small minded, mean and entitled.  It is fair to note that much of what we know about his character has come from his wife or those loyal to her, and thus may be exaggerated for effect.  Whatever the cause and whoever was at fault, the end result was that the two could barely stand to be in the same room together.  They had one child together, future Emperor Paul, born nine long years into their marriage.  Catherine hinted in her memoirs that Peter was impotent, hence the long delay in having a child.  It has even been suggested that Paul was not Peter’s son, that he was actually the son of Catherine’s lover, Sergei Saltykov.  Catherine herself encouraged these rumors, although it appears more out of malice towards her son than anything else.  Paul actually strongly resembled Peter, rather than the handsome Saltykov. 

Peter inherited the throne in January 1762, but was a strong Germanophile. Even worse, he hated all things Russian, and allied himself with several pro-German groups in the Russian court.  This, combined with his acerbic personality, quickly caused a conspiracy to form against him and he was deposed in July 1762.  Catherine was certainly the beneficiary and probably the architect of the coup that overthrew him, and was quickly crowned Empress in her own right. 

 

Empress

She never married again, but took a succession of lovers.  Saltykov was the first, followed by Stanislaus Poniatowski and Grigory Orlov, both while she was still married to Peter.  In fact, she was heavily pregnant with Orlov’s child when Peter ascended the throne.  She bore both Poniatowski and Orlov children; Poniatoski’s little girl, Anna, did not live long, but Orlov’s son Alexis became Count Bobrinsky under his half brother Paul’s reign.  Gregory Orlov was a key ally in the coup to overthrow her husband and they remained close for many years after she became Empress.  After her affair with Orlov ended she began an affair with Grigory Potemkin, to whom she remained closely connected for the rest of his life, even though her affair with Potemkin did not last as long as her affair with Orlov.  They remained so close, in fact, that he personally chose many of her lovers after their affair had ended.

If you were going to have an affair with a monarch, you could do a lot worse than Catherine.  She was extremely generous to her former (and current) lovers, showering them with gifts, jewels and offices.  She made one of her lovers a king, which is a fairly decent parting gift by any standards. It wasn’t a king of Russia, but of Poland, and technically Poniatowski was elected, but he was strongly supported by Catherine at a time when Russian support meant a great deal in Poland.  Potemkin was made the head of all Russian military forces, later becoming Governor of several new southern provinces that he had conquered for Russia.  Orlov was given the title of Count, a palace in St. Petersburg, and several impressive positions in her government.  Later lovers were given pensions, jewels, lands, and occasionally titles, although they did not enjoy anywhere near the political influence that her early lovers had wielded.

 

Ahead of her time…

She had lovers right up until the end of her life, and although she aged, her lovers tended to remain in their 20s.  She spent her closing years in a similar fashion to many male monarchs, even many non-royal men: using her power and money to purchase the affections of ever-younger partners.  Her last lover, Count Zubov, was more than 40 years younger than Catherine, and it was about this time that the rumors of the horse started to circulate as a way to ridicule her obvious interest in men.  It is probable that her last favorites were more companions than lovers, but it is evident that she enjoyed the company of men throughout her life, something that was in no way an accepted practice for women of her time, either in Russia or anywhere else. Catherine was ahead of her time as a ruler and as a woman, but she would not have identified herself as a feminist.  She was certainly pre-feminist in her attitudes toward men, if nothing else.  And that is probably why we remain interested in her.  She is the eighteenth century’s equivalent of celebrity gossip, with the added bonus of bending some gender roles into the bargain.

 

Did you enjoy this article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

The Vietnam War, episode 5 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War is out now.

Episode 5 - Vietnam War 2.jpg

It’s on that generation-defining war, a war that spanned the central years of the Cold War. We are going to be looking at a war in which US involvement lasted more than double the whole length of World War II, and one that spans over a quarter of a century. It also involves many key trends in the Cold War – decolonization, the ever-changing role of China, and the US policy of containment. The podcast is on the Vietnam War.

And remember - you can connect with us on facebook by clicking here.

Happy listening!

George Levrier-Jones

 

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
4 CommentsPost a comment

The Cuban Missile Crisis, episode 4 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War is available now for your listening pleasure.

Episode 4 - October_23,_1962-_President_Kennedy_signs_Proclamation_3504,_authorizing_the_naval_quarantine_of_Cuba.jpg

With hindsight, many historians see this crisis as the time that the world flirted most closely with nuclear destruction. By the time of the crisis, 1962, we shall see how both the USA’s and USSR’s nuclear weapons had become terribly powerful, but this was in a world where the rules of the game for nuclear war were still being made..

We're glad that you've decided to come and join the past.. Happy listening!

George Levrier-Jones

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The Korean War, episode 3 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War is out now.

Episode 3 - Korean War 2.jpg

The main focus of the episode is on the first major international war since World War II, and one that saw the Cold War battle lines grow stronger – the Korean War. This was not just a war among Koreans though - as with many major international events in the Cold War years, it ended up becoming caught up in the battle between Communism and capitalism..

Happy listening!

George Levrier-Jones

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Episode 2 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War is out now. It looks at Cold War events in post-war Europe..

Episode 2 - Iron Curtain.png

The period saw World War II coming to a close. Europe and many parts of the world were coming out of the most devastating war in their histories. Only two countries had the power and ability to support a recovery – the USA and the USSR. The old European powers were shadows of their former selves.

We're glad that you've decided to come and join the past..

George Levrier-Jones

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

One of the most important trials of the twentieth century, the Scopes Trial, took place in 1925 and pitched religion against science. And one of the key participants was former presidential contender William Jennings Bryan. Here, we look at the amazing scenes that occurred when he took the stand and faced defense attorney Clarence Darrow.

In this article, Edward J. Vinski follows up on his pieces about how Hollywood blurred the facts of the trial (here) and what William Jennings Bryan believed (here).

Clarence Darrow, defense attorney in the Scopes Trial.

Clarence Darrow, defense attorney in the Scopes Trial.

The most intriguing moment of the Scopes trial, in which Tennessee school teacher John T. Scopes was tried for teaching evolutionary theory to his students, no doubt occurred on its seventh day. Having been denied the opportunity to question scientists about the validity of evolutionary theory, the defense called prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan as a witness. Bryan, a former three-time presidential nominee and a well-known lay religious speaker, was to be questioned on the Bible. The Tennessee statute specifically prohibited public schools from teaching an account of human evolution that contradicted the Biblical account of creation. The defense hoped, in the first place, to show that what Thomas Scopes taught in his biology classroom was not, in fact, contradictory to the Bible. In the second place, they also wanted to show that the Bible is filled with events that were not scientific and thus its creation account should not be treated as such.

Reporters and spectators alike salivated at the prospect of the country’s most famous trial lawyer, defense attorney Clarence Darrow, questioning its most famous political figure and lay preacher. As if this weren’t enough, Bryan’s agreement hinged on his being able to question Darrow and the other defense attorneys in return (see the Scopes Trial Transcript). Even the setting proved unorthodox. Anticipating that closing arguments would take place during the session, and fearing that the crowds would be too great for the courtroom floor to support, presiding judge John T. Raulston had moved the trial to the yard outside the courthouse. Thus, he guaranteed that one of the most famous events in American legal history would have the largest possible audience (Larson, 2006).

Darrow’s questioning involved “the well-worn questions of the village skeptic” (Larson, 2006, p. 187). In so doing, Darrow often pinned Bryan into a corner where he was forced to choose between Biblical literalism (a position not entirely in keeping with Bryan’s own beliefs), a scientific account of the phenomena in question (which might run counter to the prosecution’s case), and admitting his own ignorance. As a result, most contemporary accounts gave the victory to Darrow and the defense (Larson, 2006; Kazin, 2008; and Farrell, 2011). More recently, in 1999 evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested that while “Darrow may have come out slightly ahead… Bryan parried fairly well, and certainly did not embarrass himself” (Gould; p. 137). But even this latter, more generous, view still gives the Darrow the win. What had happened to Bryan on the witness stand that led to his defeat?

 

The Rusty Attorney

The first and easiest explanation is that, although Bryan had practiced law for several years, he had not been in a courtroom for decades. As a politician and as a popular speaker, he was without peer when giving prepared speeches. He was no match, however, for an aggressive and fast-thinking trial attorney like Darrow. When he needed to think quickly and off the top of his head, Bryan was generally ill equipped to do so.

 

Bryan Was Not A Theologian

A second explanation emerges with a close reading of the transcript. Bryan had truly studied the Bible, but he did so as a member of the faithful. His reading was designed to bring him closer to God and as such, his Christian metaphysics runs through his testimony. This metaphysics allows him to account for miraculous events in ways that Darrow, with his agnostic and skeptical point of view, would dismiss as nonsense. This is clearly evident in Bryan’s explanation of the Jonah story about which he said “I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both do what he pleases,” and later “it is just as easy to believe the miracle of Jonah as any other miracle” (Scopes Trial Transcript). For Bryan, God intercedes in human events, and while we should be awestruck by His power and His willingness to do so, we should not be surprised by it or question it. But this point of view created its own problems. As a religious speaker, Bryan was most interested in the greatest of miracles: the Creation (which set humanity above all other creatures) and the Resurrection of Christ (which gave humanity its hope beyond the grave). Unfortunately for him, those miracles were not part of Darrow’s questioning. Thus, when Bryan placed all biblical miracles on the same plane, “laudable simple faith became laughable crude belief” (Larson, 2006, p. 189).

While such a reading of scripture may be an admirable quality in a man of God, it is clear that Bryan never studied scripture in the manner of a theologian or Biblical scholar. He was, therefore, ill prepared to address the inconsistencies it contained. He knew large parts by heart and tried to live by its precepts, but he never considered its contradictions. For instance when asked by Darrow where Cain found his wife (if in the beginning there was only Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel), Bryan could only answer that it “never bothered me” and “I never tried to find out” (Scopes Trial Transcript).

 

He Was Not A Scientist Either

This lack of inquisitiveness led to a third explanation for his failure: If Bryan was no theologian, he was still less a scientist. He was interested in the potential science and technology held for humankind, but did not view the world through a scientific lens. In response to many of Darrow’s questions about the Bible (e.g. the age of the earth), Bryan frequently responded with statements such as “I don’t know,” “I couldn’t say,” and “I wouldn’t attempt to tell you that” (Scopes Trial Transcript). When he was willing to make a definitive statement on an issue, he typically did so in one of two self-destructive ways. First, he hand-picked research and books that supported his own views while ignoring those that contradicted them. For instance, his reference to George M. Price, a creationist geologist, caused Darrow to exclaim “he has quoted a man that every scientist in this country knows is a mountebank and a pretender and not a geologist at all” (Scopes Trial Transcript). Second, he would respond in ways that played directly into Darrow’s hands. When Bryan conceded, for instance, that the “days” mentioned in the Genesis creation account were not necessarily 24-hour days, and that “it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 600,000,000 years” (Scopes Trial Transcript), he was interpreting the Bible. This would prove fatal. For if the biblical account can be subject to interpretation, then one must question whether John Scopes’ biology lesson actually “den(ied) the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible?” (Tennessee House Bill 185).

 

All For Naught?

For Bryan the trouble didn’t stop there as insult was soon added to injury. When the trial recessed for the day, Chief Prosecutor, Tom Stewart, seeing his deftly managed case unraveling before his eyes, informed Bryan that should he insist on continuing with his testimony, the prosecution would drop the charges against Scopes (Larson, 2006). In the end, perhaps, none of it mattered. The next day, Judge Raulston struck Bryan’s testimony from the record, ruling that it could shed no light on the particulars of the Scopes case. As a result, Bryan was denied his chance to cross-examine the defense attorneys. Then the defense rested its case and asked for a guilty verdict so that they could begin the appeal process. By doing so, they robbed Bryan of the chance to make his closing statement. It is almost certain that, with a script to follow and a chance to prepare, he would have fared much better than he did on the witness stand. A few days after the trial, Bryan died in his sleep. Sometime later, the guilty verdict would be overturned due to a technicality.

By testifying, Bryan had hoped to show the world that he was “trying to protect the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States” and that he was “not afraid to get on the stand in front of him and let him do his worst” (Scopes Trial Transcript). He was, no doubt, courageous for doing so. Courage alone, however, could not win this day. He was over confident in his knowledge and his ability. As such, he was also clearly overmatched. Like David of old, Bryan brought his sling and stones into battle. But this time, Goliath was waiting with a Kalashnikov.   

 

Did you enjoy this article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

References

  • Farrell, J. A. (2011). Clarence Darrow: Attorney for the Damned. New York: Doubleday.
  • Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. 
  • Kazin, M. (2006). A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan. New York: Anchor Books.
  • Larson, E. J. (2006). Summer for the gods: The scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York: Basic Books.
  • Scopes Trial Transcript.
  • 1925 Tennessee House Bill 185.

 

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Episode 1 of itshistorypodcasts.com's series on the Cold War is available now.

Episode 1 - Paris 1944.jpg

It provides an introduction to the Cold War and answers a range of questions, including who the major groups involved in the Cold War were and just where the Cold War got it's name from.

Happy listening!

George Levrier-Jones

rss feed

iTunes

History podcasts page

 

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon faith, a group who suffered at the hands of attackers in the years after the faith was founded. This led Joseph Smith to seek the support of President Martin Van Buren. But following meetings with the president, Smith decided to take action into his own hands – and started a tradition that continues to this day… William Bodkin explains.

A painting of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, from the early 1840s.

A painting of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, from the early 1840s.

When asked his opinion of Martin Van Buren, Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, said that his dog was better suited to be president.  Smith felt his dog would at least make an effort to protect his abused and insulted master.  Van Buren, however, could not bother to lift a finger to help the oppressed.  Smith was not alone in his dislike for Van Buren.  The eighth president of the United States is often described as the least loved national politician of his time.  This was with good reason.  Van Buren was the original Frank Underwood, or Francis Urquhart, in “House of Cards”.  Van Buren relentlessly schemed and plotted his way to the Oval Office, casting aside all in his path while ingratiating himself to Andrew Jackson.  Without Jackson’s endorsement, Van Buren’s chances of winning the White House were slim to none. 

But Jackson owed his Presidency to Van Buren’s pure political pragmatism.  Van Buren had clawed his way to the top of New York State politics as head of the “Albany Regency”, the first political machine in the United States.  Then, while representing New York State as a Senator, he masterminded Jackson’s comeback victory in the 1828 presidential election by turning Jackson’s nickname of “Old Hickory” into the first presidential brand name.

The story behind Smith’s feelings about Van Buren lies in an often overlooked part of American history.  In late 1839, these two men who had begun their distinctive American success stories from the vast expanse of Upstate New York met at the White House.  Smith, the son of a farmer from Palmyra, sought from Van Buren, the son of a tavern keeper from Kinderhook, justice for the Mormons following the war the state of Missouri had waged on them.

 

Missouri versus the Mormons

One of the Mormon faith’s founding tenants was the idea that Jesus Christ had appeared to Native Americans and that America would be the place for the Second Coming.  Jesus would return in Western Missouri, near the City of Independence.  Smith, a formidable preacher, and to some, a prophet, sent a few missionaries to Missouri.  The Mormon faithful soon followed, hoping to build their Zion.

Mormons were greeted with suspicion and derision by Missourians.  They thought Mormonism could not be compatible with democracy since, to them, Mormons seemed obedient only to Smith.  Armed bands of Missourians began roaming the countryside, terrorizing Mormons.  In 1836, the Missouri Legislature created a new county, Caldwell, in the northwest corner of the state for the Mormons.  The solution proved short-lived.  Mormon immigrants and converts arrived daily, causing the population to spill over Caldwell’s borders into adjoining Daviess County.

The 1838 War began over the Mormon right to vote.  William Peniston, a Whig politician and a colonel in the Daviess County militia, had sought Mormon support in his campaign for the state legislature.  When the Mormons supported his Democratic opponent instead, Peniston gave a fiery speech denouncing them.  Peniston’s supporters tried to stop Mormons from voting on Election Day, with one man stating that Mormons had no more right to vote than “Negroes”.  A melee ensued, ending only when the Mormons withdrew.

The violence continued.  Mormons were murdered and assaulted. Mormon houses were burned to the ground.  Mormon livestock was set free.  Finally, the Mormons resolved to fight back.  On October 24, 1838, at Crooked River, a band of Mormon men encountered what they thought was an armed mob out for blood. Unfortunately, they were the local militia.  In the resulting exchange of gunfire, three Mormons were killed.

When word of Crooked River reached Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs, he declared the Mormons to be in “defiance of the laws of the state.”  On October 27, 1838, Boggs issued an order directing that the Mormons must be “exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace.”  Shortly after Boggs issued this order, a militia unit from Livingston County descended on a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill in Caldwell County.  The militia killed, in cold blood, eighteen Mormon boys and men despite their efforts to surrender.  One militiaman who dragged a wounded ten-year-old boy from his hiding place to shoot him justified it by saying that “nits make lice, and if he had lived, he would have become another Mormon.”

 

Surrender and Petitioning for Justice

After the Haun’s Mill massacre, the Mormons surrendered.  Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were arrested for treason against the State of Missouri based on the Crooked River skirmish, even though Smith was not there.  The Mormon leadership languished in jail for months, however, before being formally charged.  Smith began to suspect that his imprisonment was an embarrassment to the state.  After six months in prison, in the spring of 1839, Smith and the others were permitted to escape by a friendly sheriff who graciously agreed to get drunk and look the other way.  The leaders fled, and joined the Mormons in Nauvoo, Illinois where they had taken refuge.

After his escape, Smith considered petitioning the federal government for compensation for the lives and land lost in the Missouri war.  Smith, in truth, had great faith in the Constitution and in democratic government.  He decided to go to Washington, D.C. himself so that he might make the case to Van Buren and to Congress.  Smith arrived in the nation’s capital on November 28, 1839.  The next day, Smith and two other Mormon leaders, accompanied by Congressman John Reynolds of Illinois, went to the White House.  Smith carried with him petitions outlining the Mormon’s grievances.

Van Buren smiled as Reynolds introduced Smith as a Latter Day Saint, but his visage quickly turned to stern business as Smith presented the Mormons’ grievances.  Reportedly, Van Buren looked at the party and exclaimed, “What can I do?  I can do nothing for you! If I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole state of Missouri.” 

Reports of what happened next vary.  Some say Van Buren agreed to reconsider.  Smith and his party then left to present their case to Congress.  They received help from Illinois’ congressional delegation, who were all too aware of the presence of this growing block of voters in their state.  The Mormons presented to the United States Senate 678 petitions seeking compensation for losses in Missouri ranging from 63 cents to $505,000.  The petitions were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where they met stiff opposition from Missouri’s Congressional delegation. The Committee, not wishing to offend Missouri’s delegation, decided that the petitions were not for the federal government to consider, but were a matter for the Missouri courts.

During this time, Smith apparently met a second time with Van Buren, who was more diplomatic but still unmoved.  Approximately a week or so following the first meeting, the Whigs, for the 1840 election, re-nominated the surprisingly popular William Henry Harrison, who had narrowly lost to Van Buren in 1836.  With an election on his mind, Van Buren allegedly told Smith words that would reverberate throughout Mormon history: “Your cause is just, but I cannot help you.  If I help you, I will lose the vote of the state of Missouri.”

Smith realized what he was up against.  He knew the Mormons would never receive a fair trial in Missouri. He believed strongly that Missourians who understood this had helped him escape.  But Van Buren’s callousness shook Smith at a deeper level.  Smith wrote that Van Buren was merely “an office-seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition.”

 

What the future held

It is a reflection of the magnitude and scope of presidential power that a brief meeting with a president can have a major impact on Americans, whereas to the president, it may have been of minor significance.  The mostly Mormon scholars who have attempted to research this episode have found that the meeting between Smith and Van Buren was not mentioned in Van Buren’s papers.  But for the Mormons, the meeting was a pivotal event, which can be seen from Smith’s reaction to it.

After the meeting, Smith came to the same realization that every other group new to America does, that the best way for Mormons to gain the protection of the government was to seek public office themselves.  Smith worked with the Illinois legislature to build protections for Mormons into Nauvoo’s City Charter, held office in Nauvoo himself, and, in 1844, Smith ran for president.  With patience and in time, the Mormons have followed Smith’s lead and flourished.

As of writing this, Utah’s United States Senator Orrin Hatch, a Mormon, is President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.  By law, Hatch is third in line for the presidency following the Vice-President and Speaker of the House of Representatives.  In 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney headed the Republican Party’s ticket and was the first Mormon major-party nominee for president.  Governor Romney surprised many by publicly considering a run for the presidency again in 2016.  And while Mr. Romney ultimately decided to pass on standing for the presidency again, it could not have been an easy decision in light of Mormon history and Mr. Romney's knowledge that he has represented, in his lifetime, the best hope of a Mormon becoming president and perhaps gaining an increased acceptance for a faith that remains frequently misunderstood.

Van Buren, despite not offending Missouri, lost the 1840 election to William Henry Harrison.  It cannot be said that his treatment of the Mormons played any role in his loss.  The reality is that Van Buren’s loss likely had more to do with the Panic of 1837 and the economic depression that followed, and the growing factionalism in America that pit the North against the South and both of them against the West.

Missouri, for its part, did eventually acknowledge its wrongs.  In 1976, the state finally formally rescinded Governor Boggs’ extermination order.  In his order, Governor Christopher Bond expressed deep regret on behalf of all Missourians for the injustice and undue suffering caused to Mormons in 1838.

 

Did you enjoy this article? If so, do feel free to share it! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

William's previous pieces have been on George Washington (link here), John Adams (link here), Thomas Jefferson (link here), James Madison (link here), James Monroe (link here), John Quincy Adams (link here), and Andrew Jackson (link here).

Author’s Note:  The author gratefully acknowledges the research guidance of Latter Day Saints Elizabeth Vogelmann and Dr. Steven C. Harper in preparing this article.  Any errors in summarizing Mormon belief are solely the author’s own.

 

Sources

Miller Center of the University of Virginia, American President Martin Van Buren (http://millercenter.org/president/vanburen).

 

  • Fire and Sword: A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, 1836-1839, Leland H. Gentry and Todd M. Compton (Greg Kofford Books, 2010).  See, Chapters 9 & 10.
  • Rough Stone Rolling: The Life of Joseph Smith, Richard Lyman Bushman (Random House 2007).  See, Chapters 19-22.
  • Running for President: The Candidates and Their Images: 1789-1896 (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Ed.) “1836,” Daniel Feller, author.
  • Missouri State Archives: The Missouri Mormon War (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/mormon.asp).
  • Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, Richard Neitzel Holsapfel and Kent P. Jackson, eds. “1839-1840: Joseph Smith Goes to Washington,” Ronald O. Barney, author (Deseret Book, 2010).  Taken from online source: (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-and-seer/joseph-smith-goes-washington-1839-40).

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones