The Texas Republic and the Mormon Kingdom of God Book

Meh...

The book was more interesting than most history books. I found the tone of the author towards Joseph Smith and the Mormons surprisingly critical considering he begins the book by telling of his missionary service. It was odd. It wasn't an outright negativity, but instead the author would chose the least favorable phrasing possible.

For example, the author writes that Joseph Smith didn't have the stomach for violence. There are many other ways to express the same sentiment that don't sound like there's something wrong with trying to preserve the lives of his followers.

The author also loves to use the word "secret" when describing any select gathering or action of the early church. Would the author have preferred all meeting minutes to be published in a newspaper? The author has completely misunderstood the type of people that followed Joseph Smith. These were individuals who were brave enough to leave their relatives and venture into uncharted territory. They wouldn't have blindly followed instructions like sheep but looked to their heart and conscience before acting. What power could a "secret" council have held over such independent individuals?

He writes more than once that Joseph Smith called his group the "Kingdom of God" and named himself the king. Not a single of my ancestors' journals mention anything resembling that statement. If anything, the "Kingdom of God" was a spiritual idea, not a political state, one that encouraged the Saints to see themselves as brothers and sisters. Of all the titles Joseph Smith signed his name with, never once was "king" used.

In the appendix guide to Mormon terminology, the author writes "prophet" is a term Mormons affectionately call their leader. Really? Kinda missed a major point of doctrine there.

Even the cover is misleading. It shows Sam Houston in a typical portrait that shows his head and shoulders. Joseph Smith is shown wielding a sword in front of a crowd. Surely Sam Houston saw more fighting than Joseph Smith, so why is Joseph Smith portrayed in this manner?

My best guess for the unusual rhetoric is the author's love of Fawn Brodie's caustic book on Mormon history. Many academics have questioned her sources and opinions. Certainly more thorough and better sourced biographies have been written since. It's an odd choice for an academic to rely upon.

The whole book uses not-so-positive, but not-quite-negative language regarding the early church, but once you get past that, the author tells an interesting story. Settling Texas (which extended all the way to the Rocky Mountains at that time) was Joseph Smith's back-up, back-up plan, and Sam Houston was offering a disputed tract of land between the Nueces River and Rio Grande River. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith died before any action was taken.

Lyman Wight lead 150 people to settle in Texas in 1844, but they were separated from the main body of the church not only in distance. When Brigham Young sent a delegation to find the Texas Mormons in 1848, Wight expressed his dislike of Brigham Young and his determination to stay forever in Texas. Lyman Wight settled in three different places before dying on the way to Missouri.

If that's all the story was, I probably would have given the book 1 star. It's pretty much a non-story. But the good relationship that Joseph Smith's ambassadors began with Sam Houston left Houston with a favorable opinion of the church and its people. There's a light-hearted anecdote about George A. Smith and Sam Houston's friendly conversation lasting so long that they eventually tired and laid upon the floor on the backs of chairs so they could continue talking even though tired.

When the Utah War was approved by Congress in 1857, it was Houston who repeatedly spoke against it in Congress. The Mormons had never been at fault, but two poorly selected U.S. appointees of questionable character sent inflammatory reports to Washington, D.C. Sam Houston's report from an unnamed Mormon along with his jokes and speeches swayed public opinion. Sam Houston compared the war with Napoleon's failure.

The Mormons were not going to be bullied out of their homes again. They would have fought the army and burned their city before anyone else could steal their land and property again. Congress had sent an army of 5,000 to fight a determined people 30,000 strong. "Buchanan's Blunder" became the new name for the Utah War, which was ended with a full pardon to the Mormons by President Buchanan on April 6, 1858. As part of the peace negotiations, the army marched though the Great Salt Lake City. The Nauvoo Legion stuffed the buildings with hay and had torches ready to burn the city if the army didn't behave as negotiated.

I have to criticize the author once again. He fails to credit the early Mormon pioneers with blazing trails to all parts of the Western United States and establishing the early infrastructure that would allow more settlers to follow. He writes instead, "The church, perhaps unwittingly, also contributed to the rise of the modern United States...Young created a system of colonization that ensured American domination of the West and Southwest." What an understatement!

It would have been interesting if the author shared whether there were any historical sites in Texas worth seeing (or if there's nothing). He seems to indicate that any settlements were abandoned or built over until no trace remained of the Mormons. In the footnotes he indicates that Mormon Mill still exists. Wikipedia says the site burned down and nothing remains but a historical marker.