With
presidential runs by both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman underway, both
of whom are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, it seems appropriate to reflect on the 1844 run for president of
Joseph Smith Jr, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. Smith’s third party/non-party campaign was underway
when he was assassinated on June 27, 1844. The opposition that Romney
and Huntsman face in the Republican Party primary process, and perhaps
among the larger electorate, about their Mormonism are deep seated in
American history and culture and are illuminated in the unsuccessful
presidential run of Joseph Smith in 1844.
My friend Adam Christing has produced an excellent documentary on
this political campaign, and information about it is available
here.
Christing has made an important connection between 1844 and the present
political season by noting: “The two things you aren’t supposed to talk
about in this country are religion and politics. But that’s the
explosive combo that makes this such a fascinating subject.” Let me
offer here a brief discussion of some of the issues connecting Joseph
Smith and both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in this blog post.
Joseph Smith, prophet/president of the Mormon church, was nominated
for president, with fellow Mormon Sidney Rigdon as vice presidential
candidate, in February 1844. They sent Mormon missionaries out to
campaign for Smith, and a pamphlet—
Gen. Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government—offered
his views on a range of issues was published and distributed. Those
positions included, in the words of historian D. Michael Quinn:
Smith’s Views revealed him as more than a
one-issue candidate. For the reform of government, he intended to reduce
the size and salary of Congress. In judicial reform, he advocated
rehabilitation of convicts through work projects and vocational training
and liberal pardoning. In economic reform, he proposed less taxation,
free trade, secure international rights on the high seas, and
establishment of a national bank in every state and territory. On the
slavery question, he advocated compensated emancipation through the sale
of public lands. To cope with resulting social stress, he advocated the
relocation of the several million freed slaves to Texas. In keeping
with the spirit of “Manifest Destiny” in the 1840s, he proposed
annexation of Oregon and Texas and whatever parts of Canada wished to
join the Union. As a reflection of the Mormon expulsion from Missouri,
Smith’s platform also advocated presidential intervention in civil
disturbances within states. As one author noted, this interventionist
impulse ‘did not exist until the Civil War and Reconstruction.’ (D.
Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1994), p. 119).
The positions stated in this pamphlet were middle-of-the-road
and rational. They might have been a little broad and theoretical rather
than detailed and specific but they certainly represented legitimate
positions.
The decision of Joseph Smith to run for president was met with range
of reactions. Faithful members of the church celebrated him for his
courage, some even suggesting that this was the beginning of the
establishment of Zion, the political kingdom of God, so long fabled in
Mormon doctrine. Many anti-Mormons denounced it as evidence either of
Smith’s egomania or his radicalism, or both, in trying to establish a
theocratic state. There were other responses in between these, most of
them negative. Of course, Smith did not live to complete his campaign
for president. He was assassinated on June 27, 1844, by a group of
conspirators while being held for trial in the Carthage Jail in
Illinois.
There are at least six plausible reasons why Joseph Smith ran for
president in 1844. Your guess is as good as mine in which of these, or a
combination of them, represents the best explanation of Smith’s 1844
candidacy. Let me enumerate them:
- Joseph Smith believed he could be elected president. After all, the
quest for Zion was very much a part of the church’s belief system and
this might be the method by which the Saints would help usher in the
Kingdom of God on Earth. And God, all powerful, could make such a long
shot candidate successful if He chose to do so.
- Joseph Smith recognized that he could not be elected but wanted to
make a statement about positions and principles. Were this the case he
would neither be the first nor the last candidate to get into a
presidential race to accomplish that goal.
- Joseph Smith recognized that he could not be elected but wanted to
remove the Mormons as a voting block from the election. There had been a
series of scandals and other difficulties associated with Mormon
involvement in politics in Illinois throughout the early 1840s, and by
declaring his candidacy he knew that the members would vote for him and
therefore remove the church from the political games that might have
been played otherwise.
- Joseph Smith was never really serious about running for president,
but did so at the behest of others. The behest of others might be senior
officials in the church, Illinois politicos, or someone else. There is
very little evidence to support this thesis.
- Joseph Smith was not serious about running for president but wanted
to use it as a platform for advancing another agenda. The agenda could
be anything from publicizing his religious cause to gaining advantage in
other arenas. Again, he would be neither the first nor the last
candidate who really was not serious but realized fame and fortune
through the process of candidacy.
- Joseph Smith was a megalomaniac who had lost touch with reality and
had delusions of grandeur who believed he was the perfect candidate for
president of the United States.
There may be other possible explanations for Smith’s decision. What do you think?
Nauvoo, Illinois, as seen across the Mississippi River from Iowa in the 1840s.
So what does this have to do with Mitt Romney and to a lesser extent
Jon Huntsman? Why is Romney so despised by the political right? By all
accounts he is a mainstream Republican politician whose track record is
just fine, his positions are generally acceptable to a majority of
Americans, and his family life is exemplary. True, some criticize him
for changing his mind on some issues, for working across the aisle, for
expressing tolerance on, if not actually
championing, social issues. Why
is that not admirable rather than despicable?
Fundamentally, this seems to go back to the Mormon church membership
of both Romney and Huntsman. We saw this in 1968 with Romney’s father,
George, who was condemned for his allegiance to what many people on the
Christian right termed a cult. It seems that little has changed since
1968, or 1844.
I’m curious what others think about the possibility of a Mormon president. Any concerns?
No comments:
Post a Comment