  Condition of Woman among various Heathen Nations.—Influence of Christianity.—Mormonism and Woman.—Brigham offers to set the Women Free.—Arguments in Favor of Polygamy.—The Argument against it.—Abraham and Sarah.—Appeal to Mormon Women.—Their Unhappy Condition.—Evil Effects of the System.—Illustrations. Woman is looked upon and treated by all heathen nations as an inferior being, created for the convenience and comfort of man. "According to the ancient Rabbis, the rib which had been taken from Adam, was laid down for a moment, and in that moment a monkey came and stole it, and ran off with it, full speed. An angel pursued, and though not in league with the monkey, he could have been no good angel; for, overtaking him, he caught him by the tail, brought it maliciously back instead of the rib, and out of that tail was woman made. What became of the rib with which the monkey got clear off 'was never to mortal known.' "The Hungarians think it infamous to be governed by a woman,—and when the crown fell to a female, they called her King Mary instead of Queen. "Aristotle calls woman a monster, and Plato makes it a question whether she ought not to be ranked among irrational creatures. "Mahomet, too, was not the only person who has supposed that women have no souls. Among the Afghans, twelve young women were given as compensation for the slaughter of one man. Six for cutting off a hand, an ear, or a nose; three for breaking a tooth, and one for a wound of the scalp. By the laws of the Venetians, and of certain other Oriental people, the testimony of two women was made equivalent to that of one man. The Jew begins his public prayer with a thanksgiving to his Maker for not having made him a woman. The Moors do not allow women to enter their mosques or places of worship. Mussulmen hold that there is a separate paradise for women, considering them unworthy to occupy the same as the men, except such beautiful women as are assigned to the male occupants as a reward for a virtuous and religious life on earth. "Sit not in the midst of women," said the son of Sirach, in his wisdom; "for from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness." "It is a bad thing," said Augustine, "to look upon a woman, a worse to speak to her, and to touch her, worst of all." John Bunyan thanked God that he had made him shy of the women. "The common salutation of women, I abhor," said he, "their company alone, I cannot away with." "Look at the very name woman," says another author, "it evidently means woe to man, because by woman was woe brought into the world." The Turk does not exclude woman from his heaven, but she is there only to minister to his passions and wants. She bears to his lips the golden goblet, filled with the nectar of the gods. The Indian hunter believes his squaw, as well as his faithful dog, will bear him company to those shadowy hunting-grounds beyond the dark river. Among all these heathen and degraded nations, polygamy has prevailed. Among them all, woman has been but the slave of the stronger sex. Her feelings have been outraged, her spirit crushed, and her heart broken; or, which is still worse, her nature has become imbruted and insensible to all the finer feelings and nobler impulses of her sex. The position of woman, and her duties in life, are well defined in the New Testament Scriptures. If married, she is to direct her household affairs, raise up children, be subject unto her husband, and use all due benevolence toward him; but his duties are equally well defined. He must love his wife, even as Christ loved his church and gave himself for it; and the fourth verse of the seventh chapter of Corinthians distinctly states that the rights and duties of the marriage relation should be reciprocal, granting no exclusive privilege to either. Is not this reciprocity necessarily and entirely destroyed, when the husband brings other wives into the family? In the face of the direct and positive teachings of Jesus and his Apostles, the "Latter-Day Saints" of Utah, or rather their leaders, have instituted the heathenish and horrible practice of polygamy. And to add to the blasphemy of the scheme, it is all done in the name of the Lord. In this nineteenth century, they have reduced women to the heathen and Jewish standard. Foremost in the ranks of their oppressors stands Brigham Young. Following in the footsteps of Mohammed, he declares that women have no souls,—that they are not responsible beings, that they cannot save themselves, nor be saved, This doctrine is openly put forth in the most disgusting form. Said Brigham, in a public discourse, Sept 20th, 1856,— "It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can; hence if my women leave, I will go and search up others who will abide the celestial law, and let all I now have go where they please." And in accordance with the same view, he publicly proclaimed that after a certain day which he named, all of his women who were dissatisfied should be free to leave him. The following is his language:— "Now for my proposition: it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say that they are unhappy. Men will say,—'My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife.' 'No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused; that they are misused, and have not the liberty that they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men, together with their own folly. "I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters,—yes, all the women of this community,—and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next (the day the semi-annual Conference was to meet) for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty, and say to them,'Now go your way,—my women with the rest,—go your way.' And my wives have got to do one of two It does not appear that these unhappy women availed themselves of this opportunity of getting rid of their misery, by being cast off upon the world, in an Indian country, nearly a thousand miles from civilization. It may seem very strange, that so many women are led into the snare of polygamy. The most specious arguments are advanced, and inducements held out, by the wicked and designing leaders of the Mormon Church, to blind and deceive unsuspecting and simple-minded women. They are told that "the laws of Christendom differ widely from those of the other three fourths of the whole family of man;" that they are the laws and practices of "a wicked and perverse generation," and differ also from the doctrines taught in the Bible. It is a noticeable fact that the Bible is only quoted on the subject of polygamy. On all other topics, the books of Mormonism are used. These being, as already shown, adverse to their favorite institution, resort is had to the Old Testament Scriptures. Abraham is constantly cited as the great exemplar and pattern. It is urged that the family order observed by him is the order established among celestial beings, in the celestial world. That God sanctioned the practice, and is himself a polygamist. That many virtuous and high-minded women should infinitely prefer to unite their fortunes to one good man, rather than to have each a wicked husband who could bring her no exaltation in another world. "Shall such virtuous and innocent females, though they may be poor, and low in the scale They are pointed to Jacob, also, who had several wives, and who was the father of the twelve patriarchs, after whom all the tribes of Israel were named. From one of these wives, Christ himself lineally descended. Various other instances are cited from the Jewish Scriptures,—especially the fact that the Lord gave unto David some of the wives of Saul. "Hereby we learn that God himself gives many wives to those who are faithful, and takes them away from transgressors." The faith of Abraham was indorsed by Christ and his Apostles, and those who have the same faith are called heirs of the promise. Hence an effort is made to bring the New Testament also to the support of polygamy, notwithstanding it is so plainly condemned in that volume. Indeed, it is unblushingly asserted that not only the Apostles but Christ himself practised polygamy! "The grand reason," said J. M. Grant, one of the First Presidency, in a discourse delivered in the Tabernacle in Great Salt Lake City, "why the gentiles and philosophers of that school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because he had so many wives. There were Elizabeth and Mary, and a host of others, who followed him." To Abraham and Sarah was the promise made—"In thee and in thy seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The sisters are called upon to follow the example of Sarah, and to give plural wives to their husbands, even as Sarah gave Hagar unto Abraham. "If you suffer with her (Sarah) By these specious arguments and falsehoods, are thousands lured on to their destruction. Oh! could this volume reach the eye of all such,—as it surely will of many,—to them I appeal to examine carefully the foundation of the system to which they are committing themselves. To them I respectfully and earnestly submit some considerations and facts worthy of their serious attention, before they enter irretrievably upon their own ruin. Polygamy, or plurality, so called, is not only contrary to the laws of our country, which we are all in duty bound to uphold and obey, but it is adverse to the genius of our free institutions, and is, moreover, contrary to the laws and instincts of our nature, and to the suggestions of a sound reason. In the first place, is polygamy reasonable or natural? In pursuing this inquiry, the first fact that stares us in the face is the equality in the numbers of the male and female sexes, in all countries, and in all ages of the world. If polygamy were the natural relation between the sexes, the number of females born into the world would far exceed the number of males. So far from that being the case, there is a larger number of males, and the excess about equal to the greater loss of life, among males, by wars and accidents; thus leaving a substantial equality in the numbers of those living. The following figures will show the number of males and females in the United States, at the close of each of the last five decades:—
Let us pursue this subject a little farther. In 1851, the population of Great Britain and Ireland was,—males, 13,537,052; females, 14,082,814. Excess of females, 3 per cent. But emigration, and the heavy wars in which that country had been engaged, had been draining off the male population for many years previous. In Prussia, in 1849, there were then living,—males, 8,162,805; females, 8,162,382. The mortality of males is greater than that of females. To compensate for this, more males are born. In England, the excess of male births is 5 per cent.; in France and Russia, 6 per cent.; in the United States, from 5 to 12 per cent., according to the locality. If, now, we turn our attention to the Territory of Utah, we shall find a similar state of facts. By reference to the United States Census of 1850, it will appear that there was, at that time, an excess of males in every county in the Territory, amounting, in the aggregate, to 712; the total number of males being 6,046, and of females, 5,334. The national census of 1860 shows the following result: males, 20,255,—females, 20,018. There has always been, in this Territory, as there is in every new country, a scarcity of females. No person, therefore, could take more than one wife, without, as a necessary consequence, compelling some other person to live without any. This subject is placed in a still stronger light, by reference to the report of the Territorial Superintendent of Common Schools, dated January 14, 1863, and published in the "Deseret News," Vol. XII. No. 31. By that report it appears that the number of boys between
The thanks of the public are due to Mr. Campbell, for bringing to light facts having so important a bearing on this subject. Thus it will be seen that in this Territory, as well as in all other parts of the country, has nature failed to make any provision for the practice of polygamy. On the contrary, ever true to herself, even now, after polygamy has been practised over ten years, during which time it has been openly encouraged, nature is reËstablishing her own laws, and maintaining the substantial equality in the numbers of the sexes; thus placing the seal of condemnation on this practice, and saying, in the plainest language, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." In considering whether polygamy is reasonable or natural, other arguments present themselves. This practice tends necessarily to the degradation of woman. Instead of being a companion of man, socially his equal, sympathizing with his moral and intellectual nature, and sharing in all his pursuits and enjoyments, she becomes, under this system, merely the minister to his passions and physical comfort, or the servant to assist in the increase of his worldly store. It is impossible that several women should live on terms of such intimacy with the same man, all at the same time on a social equality with him and with each other. The idea of plurality necessitates that of subordination and inferiority. Rules must be established and observed, to insure even the It need scarcely be asked whether this is an evil. Both reason and history answer the question plainly in the affirmative. In all ages of the world, the most enlightened and prosperous nations have been those who sought to refine and elevate woman by the practice of monogamy, or the one-wife system. Witness Egypt, Greece, and Rome, among the ancient nations; and among the moderns, the United States, Great Britain, France, and other European countries. A reference to those nations will also illustrate and prove the remark already made, that the practice of polygamy is adverse to free institutions. In all countries where the most freedom has prevailed, has monogamy existed,—a coincidence so remarkable as to authorize the deduction that the relation of cause and effect exists between these facts. The love of home is intimately associated with the love of country and of liberty, and whatever tends to refine and purify the former will inevitably exalt and strengthen the latter. Again: polygamy tends to destroy the unity and sanctity of home, by permitting a man to have families in different places at the same time. "The supposition," says an eminent jurist, "that a man can have two domicils, would lead to the absurdest consequences." Hence such an idea has always been rejected in courts of justice. And yet this very thing is attempted in Utah, where it is not uncommon to Polygamy requires a law of descent peculiar to itself, and this law, differing, as it necessarily must, from that in force in all the surrounding States and Territories, leads to endless difficulty and confusion in the titles to property. The evils of polygamy are aggravated by the fact that the consent of the first wife is not made necessary to the union of the husband with subsequent ones. The prevailing doctrine on this subject is authoritatively stated in the following words:— "When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, as revealed to the ancient patriarchs, and as manifested by new revelation, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then it becomes necessary for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent; if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable, and the husband is found in the fault, or in transgression, then he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the Prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband Jacob." In the case last supposed, in the foregoing extract, if the marriage ceremony is performed in the usual manner, the first wife is obliged to stand between her husband and the hated bride, and falsely admit that she gives her consent, when asked if she "is willing to give this woman to her husband to be his lawful and wedded wife, for time and for all eternity." The result of such a state of things is what might be It is useless to deny these results. The facts are too patent to admit of any dispute. The alarming frequency, and I may say recklessness, with which divorces are applied for and granted, is a fact familiar to all, and can only be traced to the causes just stated, unless, indeed, we should—as I am unwilling to do—impute it to the promptings of caprice and passion. Having resided in the Territory nearly two years, it would be impossible for me, unless I had, in the mean time, shut my eyes to what was going on around me, to be ignorant of the state of things to which I have briefly alluded. It has been urged as an argument in favor of polygamy, that it tends to lessen the evils of prostitution. Even if this were true, the argument would have no validity, if at the same time that this evil is abated or suppressed, others are introduced, more serious, lasting, and wide-spread in their influence upon society, our country, and the world. But it never has been clearly shown that polygamy has such an effect. The argument is made by comparing the most favorable localities where polygamy prevails with the most unfavorable monogamic districts; for instance, with the large cities of the United States. But it remains to be seen what condition any one of those cities would be in, with polygamy in full blast; and until it be shown that its condition would be improved, the argument remains of but little force. Another argument in favor of polygamy, perhaps worthy of notice, is, that it tends to a more rapid increase of population. Admitting the object is a desirable one, it has not been shown that it can be attained in that way. As has been remarked by an able writer, the question is, not whether ten men would not have more children by forty women than by ten; but whether the forty women would not have more children, each woman having "her own husband." In a former chapter, the so-called Revelation on Celestial Marriage has been given, and it was there shown that polygamy was an innovation upon the Mormon religion. I desire now to call the attention of the women of Utah to a few observations on the nature of this pretended revelation, and the circumstances under which it was given to the world. 1. It was, even if given as assumed, kept secret for nine years. Polygamy was privately practised by the leaders of the church for several years, during which time, according to Brigham's admission, it was not "preached by the Elders," and was therefore studiously concealed from new converts. Indeed, not only was it "not preached," but it was strongly denounced during the same period. On the first of February, 1844, the following notice appeared in the "Times and Seasons," the church organ, published at Nauvoo. "NOTICE. "As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the County of Lapeer, and State of Michigan: "This is to notify him and the church in general, that he has been cut off from the church for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges. "Presidents of the Church." This was seven months after the time when, according to Brigham Young and his associates, the Revelation concerning Celestial Marriage had been given to Smith. But here both Again, six weeks later, Hyrum Smith wrote as follows:— "Nauvoo, March 15, 1844. "To the Brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting: "Whereas, Brother Richard Hewett has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your Elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here; I say unto you, that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here, neither is there any such thing practised here; and any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also; therefore he had better beware what he is about." Polygamy was condemned at the General Conferences of the European churches, in England, during the year 1846, and subsequently. In July, 1845, Parley P. Pratt, in the "Millennial Star," published at Liverpool, had denounced the "Spiritual-Wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett,"—which was one of the earliest manifestations of polygamy in the church,—as a "doctrine of devils" and of "seducing spirits," using this language: "It is but another name for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection, and every kind of confusion, corruption, and abomination." In May, 1848, Orson Spencer, then editor of the "Star," used the following language:— "In all ages of the church truth has been turned into a lie, and In July, 1850, at a discussion held at Boulogne, France, John Taylor, a well-known Mormon Apostle, when charged with the belief and practice of this doctrine, said:—"We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief. Therefore, leaving the sisters of the 'White Veil,' the 'Black Veil,' and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our faith." Here we have the following facts:— In 1830 the Mormon Church organized, and the Book of Mormon was published, in which polygamy is strongly condemned. In 1831, the same doctrine condemned, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, which was afterward published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. In July, 1843, the revelation in favor of polygamy, said to have been given to Joseph Smith. In February, 1844, polygamy publicly denounced by Joseph and Hyrum Smith. In June, 1844, the death of Smith. In 1845, the publication of the article on Marriage, in the Appendix to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in which polygamy is called a "crime," and is again strongly condemned and repudiated. The same year the Spiritual-Wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett, denounced by P. P. Pratt, in England. In 1846, polygamy condemned at the Conferences of the European Mormon churches in England. In 1848, "polygism" and "sexual resurrectionism" severely denounced in the "Millennial Star," published in Liverpool. In 1850, polygamy denounced and repudiated by Apostle John Taylor, in France. And yet, in the face of all these facts, in 1852, we have the same doctrine publicly given to the church, accompanied by the announcement, that it had been believed and practised by the church for many years. Now, it will not be pretended by any one, that polygamy was any part of the Mormon religion previous to 1843. Take, then, the period from 1843 to 1852. How was it during those nine years? Which shall be taken as evidence of what was the teaching of the Mormon religion, on that subject, during that time? The Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the Notices published by Joseph and Hyrum Smith, the declarations of Pratt and Spencer, the action of the churches in England, and the assertions of Taylor in France, or the announcement made in Great Salt Lake City in 1852? Are we not, at least, as much authorized to take the former as the latter? If the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, the writings of Joseph and Hyrum, the continued and persistent declarations of the Mormon leaders, and the action of the Mormon churches be taken, then polygamy was no part of Mormonism 2. A singular feature of this revelation is, that in it God is made expressly to contradict what he is represented as having said in the Book of Mormon. According to the Book of Mormon, as already quoted, God said the polygamy and concubinage of David and Solomon were abominable before him. The following is the language: "Behold David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." This was the testimony of the Almighty, as to the manner in which he viewed the conduct of David and Solomon, up to July, 1843, when he is represented in this revelation as indorsing those very acts which, in the Book of Mormon, he had so strongly condemned. 3. Again: This revelation classes Isaac and Moses with Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, as polygamists; when in fact neither Isaac nor Moses ever practised polygamy. How could the All-wise Being make such a mistake? 4. The most remarkable circumstance connected with this revelation remains to be considered,—It was in direct contradiction to the laws of the land. At that time, July 12, 1843, Smith resided at Nauvoo, Illinois, and was, of course, together with all the other inhabitants of that city, amenable to the laws of Illinois. The following statute was then in force in that State, the same having been passed February 12, 1833:— "Sec. 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be "Sec. 122. If any man or woman, being unmarried, shall knowingly marry the husband or wife of another, such man or woman shall, on conviction, be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year." In the face of this law, which was then in full force, the revelation to Smith declares: "If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent; and if he espouse the second and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified." Here, again, God is made to contradict himself; for not only in the Christian but in the Mormon Bible, He is represented as enjoining upon His disciples to obey the laws and civil authorities. The Book of Mormon abounds in such teachings. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:— "We believe that every man should be honored in his station; rulers and magistrates as such being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror." Here, again, I may quote from Mr. Orson Pratt, whose writings have been freely used, as of high authority in "the church." "Would it be right for the Latter Day Saints to marry a Since, then, it was not right to violate the laws of the land, then in force in Illinois on this subject, how came God to give a revelation sanctioning such a violation of the State law? And that too, without making, in the revelation, the least allusion to the law which was to be so grossly violated? Again: Who was authorized to keep this revelation secret, no secrecy being enjoined in the revelation itself? But enough concerning this extraordinary document. It seems strange, indeed, that any reasonable man or woman can look upon this so-called revelation, announced under such suspicious circumstances, and involved in so many contradictions, as a sufficient authority or excuse for the establishment of a custom which would overturn our most cherished social institutions, and throw us at once back thousands of years in civilization. The conclusion would not be changed if it were admitted that the doctrine of celestial marriage is a part of the Mormon religion; for that has nothing to do with polygamy. On the contrary, this doctrine is expressly founded upon the relation between Adam and Eve before the fall. The following is the language:— "The first marriage we have on record is that of our first parents.... Here was a marriage in which the Lord in person officiated,—a marriage between two immortal beings.... He joined them in one, as one flesh, to be indissolubly united, while eternal ages should roll on, or God himself endure.... Did death tear asunder husband and wife, divorce that which God had joined together as 'one flesh,' immortal and eternal in its nature? The atonement of Christ will repair the breach, will restore the immortal Eve to the immortal Adam, will join them again as one flesh, never more to be separated, and will again let the lawful husband enjoy the society of his lawful wife.... The foregoing extracts convey a very intelligible idea of this doctrine; and from them it will be seen it is founded entirely upon the relation between Adam and Eve. Those who would enjoy the blessings of celestial marriage, must, "in this life, enter into the eternal covenant of marriage, after the pattern set by the first immortal pair." What was that pattern? Adam and Eve were monogamists. Adam lived with the wife of his youth, and had no other, for nine hundred and thirty years, and according to Pratt, he is to live with the same woman, in the same capacity, throughout all the ages of eternity. Surely he must be very astute who can discover in this "pattern" any sanction for polygamy. I might enlarge, indefinitely, upon the arguments against polygamy. I might go into the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and show that it had been, in many ways, condemned by the Almighty. That not only had Adam been limited to one wife at the creation, but when the world was destroyed by a flood, one wife only to each man was taken into the ark;—that God blessed Abraham's posterity through the issue of his first and lawful wife, and in order to do that, worked a miracle upon Sarah; thus sanctioning monogamy in the strongest manner possible. I might refer to the warning of Malachi: "Take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth." I might refer to the fact that Lamech, the first polygamist, was a murderer; and that the most prominent polygamists of old were men guilty of the most heinous crimes. And turning from the Old Testament to the New, I might quote the But I choose to pass over all these things, and for my present purpose rest the moral character of this practice upon the assertion, already quoted from the Book of Mormon, that the polygamy and concubinage of David and Solomon were abominable before God. No Mormon can gainsay this testimony. In conclusion, to review what has been said. I have endeavored to show that polygamy is unreasonable, and contrary to the plain provisions and teachings of Nature; that it tends to degrade woman, and to confuse and break up the family relation, thus weakening the attachment to home and country. Other evils consequent upon this system have been pointed out. The arguments by which it is supported have been examined, and have been shown to be weak or invalid. A word further as to the case of Abraham and Sarah. Did God sanction the polygamy of Abraham? "Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bare him no children; and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, 'Behold now the Lord hath restrained me from bearing; I pray thee go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.'" From this it appears that Sarah, and not God, was the author of Abraham's polygamy. She had lost all hope of having children herself, and was willing to adopt those of her handmaid. Hagar being her slave, she intended to own her children. She soon, however, perceived her fatal error. Hagar wished to assume the rights and privileges of a wife. This Sarah would not listen to for a moment. Hagar despised her mistress, and Sarah appealed to Abraham. Abraham said, "Behold thy maid is in thy hand, do Again: "God tempted Abraham, saying, 'Take now thy son, thine only son, Isaac,'" &c. And again: "Thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son." For this reason God blessed Abraham, and said, "In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, or the sands on the sea-shore;" but, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." God thus plainly and unequivocally condemned Abrahamic polygamy, refused to recognize Ishmael as a legitimate son, and disinherited him. He thence went forth, as a cast-out bastard, whose "hand was against every man, and every man's hand against him." Sisters in Israel! You are told that Sarah is the mother and pattern for all women. She is held up as a bright example of conjugal loyalty and faith for females—wives and mothers—of all ages. Follow, then, her example. If through a mistaken faith and false doctrines, you have been induced to give mistresses to your husbands, turn them from you; purify your homes, as Sarah did, and the same God who blessed her will bless you, and multiply your children. Sisters in Israel! If you have been led astray by wicked and designing men, and have been caught in their snares, arise, and by the help of the Lord your God, break the bonds of wickedness, and go forth and purify yourselves by fasting and prayer; and the God who blessed Hagar in the wilderness will bless you, and show you a fountain, even the blood of Christ, which will cleanse you from all sin. The practical working of polygamy is what might be expected from a system the fundamental principles of which are in direct opposition to the laws of God and man. A few instances and illustrations will be given, from among a thousand which might be adduced to show the unhappiness and misery it entails upon all parties concerned, and especially upon those females who are so unfortunate as to be drawn into it. A Mr. Cushion was engaged to be married to Miss Susan McBride, when he was taken sick and died. He had been a great favorite of Heber C. Kimball, Second President of the Church, who desired he should be saved and glorified in another world. But to that end, he must have a family. Accordingly Heber visited Miss McBride, and urged her to marry the man whom she had loved, by proxy; explaining to her that it was a religious duty which she owed to her affianced husband. The poor girl, puzzled and troubled, and desirous of being in the society of the loved one, and contributing to his happiness in the next world, consented. Heber then applied to Robert T. Burton, and induced him to marry the girl. Burton is the Sheriff of Salt Lake County, and Collector of Internal Revenue for the United States Government! He is a fit instrument to carry out any scheme of the heads of the church, and required but little inducement to undertake this one. The poor girl was thus disposed of, by being sealed to Cushion for eternity, and to Burton, as his third wife, for time. She was taken home, and domiciled with the other two. These worthy matrons were not pleased with the appearance of a new wife, and claiming their rights as the only real wives, who had been sealed to their husband both for time and eternity, resolved at once to make it exceedingly uncomfortable for the new-comer. This they did effectually, and Susan's life was a very unhappy one. But time passed on, and she became the mother of several children. The first wife takes control of Susan's children, in contradiction to the entire theory of this complex and unnatural relationship, and the mother is frequently obliged to see them severely punished, and suffer in silence. One day the first wife's boys and one of Susan's were in the barn, doing some mischief. The first wife went out and commanded the boys to come away. Her own boys ran past unharmed, but when Susan's boy, the youngest of the three, came out, she caught him, beat him, threw him on the ground, and kicked him. This is but one of many instances, where women are living in this way, being married to one man for time, and sealed to another for eternity. This narrative was given me by one who had lived in the family for several months, and saw and heard what is herein stated. A coarseness of feeling and sentiment, scarcely credible, is another result of this state of society. Kimball one day met a Mr. Taussig, a Prussian brother. "Brother Taussig," he said, "are you doing well?" "Yes, sir," was the reply. "Then you do well for the church too," said the Second President; "how many women have you?" "Two, sir." "That is not enough; you must take a couple more. I'll send them to you. Do you hear?" "Yes, sir." On the following evening, when the brother returned home, he found two women sitting there. His first wife said: "Brother Taussig," (all the women call their husbands "brother,") "these are the sisters Pratt." They were two widows of Parley P. Pratt. The next day, Brother Taussig visited the Bishop, and effected a compromise. By marrying Sarah he was released from the other. After he had lived awhile with the three wives, Sarah became dissatisfied, and applied to Brother Brigham for a divorce. Brother Taussig was summoned before the President, and made but feeble resistance to the application, admitting that he could not properly maintain more than two wives. The divorce was granted, and Brother Taussig was called upon by the clerk for $10. For not having the money, he received a cursing from the clerk, and Sarah was retained in the royal presence, with the assurance that it was "no divorce," until the money was brought in. Brother Taussig went on to the street, borrowed it, and brought it into the office,—and thus ended this disgusting serio-comic conjugal farce. Other incidents are more serious in their nature. One of them, which came to my knowledge, would be too horrible to relate, were not the facts well authenticated. An old man, a brewer by occupation, married a young girl, as a second wife. The husband and the first wife abused her shamefully. Finally, after a long course of ill-treatment, the husband descended to the level of the brute. On one occasion, which was but a few days after her confinement, No notice was taken of this transaction by the church authorities, and the inhuman husband went unpunished. Wife-whipping is by no means uncommon in Utah. Many names might be mentioned of men of high standing in the church, who make no scruple of using personal violence to keep their wives in due subordination. It is a common saying, that a man who is good at managing cattle, will be able to manage his women. One would suppose that it would be very difficult to induce women to go into "plurality" under such circumstances. On the contrary, so infatuated are they with the religious view of the subject, that many of them look upon it as a duty to be performed, and a cross to be borne, no matter at what sacrifice. One of the sisters, in conversation with me, expressed her views upon polygamy as follows: "Oh, it is hard," she said, "very hard; but no matter, we must bear it. It is a correct principle, and there is no salvation without it. We had one, (meaning a plural wife,) but it was so hard, both for my husband and myself, that we could not endure it, and she left us at the end of seven months. She had been with us as a servant, several months, and was a good girl; but as soon as she was made a wife, she became insolent, and told me she had as good a right to the house and things as I had, and you know," she said, "that didn't suit very well. But," continued she, "I wish we had kept her, and I had borne everything, for we have got to have one, and don't you think it would be pleasanter to have one you had known, than a That the system of polygamy is really distasteful to the women of Utah,—that they are unhappy and dissatisfied, especially the first wives, is sufficiently shown by the public admissions of the church authorities. The admission of Young to that effect, made in the strongest language, has already been given. Jedediah Grant, one of the "three," also conceded the same fact in a sermon preached at the Bowery, in September, 1856, in the following language:— "We have women here, who like anything but the Celestial Law of God; and if they could break asunder the cable of the Church of Christ, there is scarcely a mother in Israel but would do it this day. And they talk it to their husbands, to their daughters, and to their neighbors, and say they have not seen a week's happiness since they became acquainted with that law, or since their husbands took a second wife." Nothing but the strong appeals constantly made to their religious faith and moral sentiments, could hold them where they are for a single day. Many instances might be given, illustrating the workings of the system. The writer has no disposition to bring private individuals into public notice, especially those who deserve only to sink into obscurity. But as this is a subject which affects the whole country, and must eventually be disposed of upon the basis of facts, we shall give two or three other instances, citing cases of persons so well known, that the facts will not be questioned for a moment. Mr. Townsend, a hotel-keeper at Salt Lake, married a young wife. The other wife became disgusted, and refused to remain in the house. So, in another house back of the hotel, lived the first wife, leading a miserable, unhappy life, looking upon the second wife as an interloper, having Mrs. Captain Hooper, an intelligent and lady-like woman, says she does not like to think of the subject,—would rather not talk about it; admits that if her husband were to take a second wife, it would make her very unhappy, but says it is a part of her religion, and she believes it would be her duty to submit. It is known that Brigham urges Captain H. to take a second wife, and it is thought the Captain will be forced into it by the absolute power, whose behests he must obey, no matter how contrary to his own inclinations it may be. He was once seen to come out of the President's office with tears in his eyes, after having had a conversation upon the subject. T. B. H. Stenhouse, an active, intelligent man, holding the office of Postmaster at Salt Lake, under the Federal Government, has a beautiful and accomplished wife, and an interesting family of eight children. For a long time after arriving in Utah, he remained true to his wife. She lived in constant apprehension that her husband would "go into polygamy," and so much was she opposed to it, that she once said to me in his presence, that if he did, she could not and would not live with him longer. Mr. Cook, the Superintendent and Assistant Treasurer of the Overland Stage Company, who was accidentally killed in California, was, during his lifetime, on intimate terms with Stenhouse, and is supposed to have exercised considerable influence to prevent him from embracing the pernicious system. It is known that on one occasion, Cook, hearing that Stenhouse contemplated something of the kind, threatened him with a prosecution under the Anti-Polygamy Law of Congress. Cook was killed, as stated, and soon after, Stenhouse, freed from any restraint except the church and his own pliable conscience, married Celia, daughter of Parley P. Pratt, a pert little miss, fourteen years of age, and took her into his FOOTNOTES: |
|
