Chapter 4: Dissenters, Danites, and the Resurgence of Militant Mormonism

During the latter part of 1837 the Mormon Church was fractured by internal dissension. Oliver B. Huntington remembered “the devil kicked up a great row in the hearts of many who turned away and denied the faith, and became the most bitter enemies of the Church, and used to try every means to make a disturbance among the brethren, every day of the week, Sundays not excepted.”¹ At the heart of the agitation was not so much Mormonism per se, but dissatisfaction with Joseph Smith and the temporal policies he incorporated into the Church. The nationwide economic panic of 1837, inflated land prices, and the failure of the Church-backed Kirtland Anti-Banking Safety Society caused a large number of Saints to question the Church president’s leadership and inspiration. Warren Parrish, the Prophet’s one-time secretary; John F. Boynton and Luke S. Johnson, two apostles; and Martin Harris, a Book of Mormon witness were the leading and most influential detractors.² During the latter part of 1837 and the first half of 1838, these men spearheaded a movement of anti-Mormon agitation culminating in the eventual apostasy of an estimated 200–300 Latter-day Saints from the fledgling church. Once outside the circle of ^[68] Church leaders, ex-Mormon dissidents sought legal recourse to reclaim their economic losses. “It was the life and glory of the apostates to hatch up vexatious lawsuits and strip the brethren of their property,” wrote Huntington. “It seemed as though all power was given them to torment the saints.”³ In the midst of the financial reversals and internal opposition plaguing the Church, some seventeen lawsuits, most of them involving cases of debt, were filed against the Mormon leader. With Mormon dissenters in Kirtland gaining the upper hand, and with what appeared to be countless legal battles ahead, as well as personal threats made against his life, Joseph Smith saw no other recourse than to leave Kirtland in January 1838.⁴ Fortunately for the Church, the main detractors who made up the anti-leadership clique in Ohio remained behind, but the Mormon Prophet would find a new set of agitators in Missouri.

Far West Dissenters

The Mormon leader probably expected Missouri would bring a respite from the internal opposition he experienced in the Kirtland community. However, at the time of his arrival at Far West on March 14, the Missouri Church was in the middle of a crisis of its own. In July 1834, David Whitmer, William W. Phelps, and John Whitmer were sustained as the presidency of the ^[69] Church in Missouri. This presidency remained in place for over three year; however, David Whitmer rarely functioned, being in Ohio most of the time, leaving his brother and Phelps to oversee Church operations. In 1836, the two presidents began making land purchases in newly created Caldwell County using Church funds. However, it was later discovered the two leaders bought and sold property in their own names and retained some of the profits from the sales. Perhaps more incriminating was the fact that the presidency also sold Church property in Jackson County, an act interpreted by their brethren as totally disregarding the commandments given in the revelations.⁵ In early February 1838, the high council met to discuss the actions of the Missouri presidency and a vote was taken wherein they were rejected as a presidency but retained their Church membership. Thomas B. Marsh and David W. Patten, the two senior members of the Twelve, were then sustained as presidents pro tempora. A month later, on March 10, the three former presidents still had not made adequate reconciliation concerning the situation, so the council voted unanimously to excommunicate the two counselors—Phelps and John Whitmer. Marcellus Cowdery, nephew of Oliver, objected to the action taken by the council and was disfellowshipped as a result of his protest. The Mormon Prophet arrived at Far West four days later and in a meeting on March 15 gave his approval to the action taken by the high council.⁶

The council waited for the Prophet’s arrival at Far West before taking any action in the cases of the Associate President, Oliver Cowdery, and the Missouri President, David Whitmer. Cowdery moved to Missouri during the late summer or fall of 1837 after being accused of adultery as well as mismanagement in connection with the Kirtland bank and its collapse. Joseph, aware that Oliver was teetering, issued a formal announcement concerning his status in the Church. ^[70] “Oliver Cowdery has been in transgression,” he reported, “I trust [however] that he will yet humble himself and magnify his calling, but if he should not, the Church will be under the necessity of raising their hands against him.”⁷ After arriving in Missouri, Oliver’s dissatisfaction only continued to deepen and he began stirring up trouble and making his own accusations, particularly against Joseph. Being accused of infidelity himself and, knowing the Mormon leader had entered into a polygamous relationship, Cowdery violated the personal trust he shared with Joseph and spread information concerning the Prophet’s plural marriage to Fanny Alger and accused him of adultery.⁸ The second elder also became partner with the Missouri presidency in selling property in Jackson County contrary to the revelations and informed others that he did not believe the Church had any authority to dictate in temporal matters. One month after the Prophet’s arrival in Far West the Missouri high council met to discuss Oliver’s attitude and conduct. Cowdery received notice of the hearing and the allegations made against him but chose not to appear before the body. Instead, he wrote a formal letter wherein he preferred discussing only two of the accusations. After lengthy discussion, six of the charges were sustained by the council and the body severed his membership on 12 April 1838.^9 [71]

The day after Oliver Cowdery’s hearing, the council met to consider David Whitmer. Upon learning that his brother-in-law had been excommunicated, Whitmer addressed a letter to John Murdock, stating that he had decided to “withdraw from your fellowship and communion.” The council met to consider the matter anyway and Alanson Ripley preferred charges against the Book of Mormon witness, whereupon the council voted in favor of excommunication. During the same meeting the high council also ruled against Lyman E. Johnson, one of the Twelve.¹⁰ There was one additional Whitmer casualty—Jacob. Although there are no church records extant indicating his formal separation from Mormonism, following the departure of his brothers from the faith, he likewise alienated himself from the main body of believers.¹¹

There were two other leaders whose disaffection should be noted. The first is that of apostle William E. McLellin. According to his own statements, McLellin’s disenchantment with Mormonism and its leaders began in 1836 when he left the main body of the Church for a brief time. He returned, however, and was sustained as a member of Twelve as late as November 1837. During that same month he apparently settled in Far West since the records indicate he accepted a commission in the Missouri state militia. However, by April 1838, his loyalty to the Church was again brought into question. On May 11 a trial was held for McLellin wherein he stated he had no confidence in the leaders of the Church. It is not known whether this trial constituted his excommunication, but his complete break with Mormonism occurred about this time. Unlike the other dissidents who chose to remain in the Mormon community, soon after losing his membership, he relocated in Clay County.^{12 [72]}

A final figure is that of Frederick G. Williams, counselor to Joseph Smith in the First Presidency. As early as May 1837, Williams was wavering. According to one source his problems started when he began to believe in the revelations of a unnamed sister in the Church; however, the matter was investigated but apparently no action was taken. Incidents surrounding the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society during the summer generated more discord between the Prophet and his counselor forcing Joseph to personally drop him from the presidency. In spite of the rift with the Prophet, Williams moved to Missouri where he remained a member of the Church but took up a close association with the Missouri presidency and other dissidents. At a conference of the Church held in Far West on November 7, Williams’ vacancy in the Church’s First Presidency was filled by Hyrum Smith who was officially sustained as the new second counselor. Even though Williams was not as active in his opposition, his association with the dissidents put him in their camp.¹³ The disaffection and activities of these nine men—the three Whitmer brothers, the two Cowderys, Johnson, Phelps, McLellin, and Williams—during the latter part of 1837 and the first half of 1838 generated a renewed surge of militant spirit which had not existed since the 1834 Zion’s Camp experiment and also set into motion the forces that would help to ignite the flames of civil conflict in northern Missouri.

A major reason for the Prophet’s removal from Ohio was to get away from the numerous lawsuits which were sworn out against him by Mormon ex-confederates. He considered these suits “vexatious,” and partly used by his detractors as a means of tying up his time and draining both personal and Church resources in an attempt to defer him from his more important spiritual and ecclesiastical responsibilities. Apparently, after losing their standing in the Church, the Far West dissenters employed the same tactics as their Ohio counterparts and threatened civil action against ^[73] the Mormon leadership.¹⁴ John Corrill, who in 1838 became Caldwell County’s elected representative to the State legislature, and subsequently left the Church following the Mormon surrender later, reported, “Notwithstanding the dissenters . . . left the Church, yet the old strife kept up; and Smith and Rigden [sic], with others, complained much of the ill treatment they had received from the dissenters and others . . . and they were determined to bear it no longer.” Continuing, Corrill wrote, “The dissenters kept up a kind of secret opposition to the Presidency and Church. They would occasionally speak against them, influence the minds of the members against them, and occasionally correspond with their enemies abroad.”¹⁵ To block the activities of the dissenters, John Whitmer claimed the Mormon leadership countered by filing lawsuits of their own against their former associates.^{16 [74]}

In Kirtland, Mormon ex-patriots were eventually successful in forcing the Church leadership to leave the community. However, Mormon leaders were not about to let this happen in Far West. In June 1838, with the exception of McLellin, all of the dissenters were still living in Far West where, in spite of their minority status, they continued to conduct their subversive activities in an attempt to undermine the Mormon leadership. It was at this time that the Mormon leadership perceived if they allowed their former associates to carry out their lawsuits and deviant operations unchecked, “they would destroy the Church,” so a decision was made to encourage them to leave Far West.¹⁷ The group targeted the five whom they considered to be the most threatening—Oliver Cowdery, David and John Whitmer, W. W. Phelps, and Lyman Johnson. While their tactics proved to be less than diplomatic, they nonetheless produced the necessary results and an ultimatum was issued publicly and individually to the detractors that they were no longer welcome in the Far West.

The first maneuver to coerce the dissidents to depart was a denunciation and warning delivered by Sidney Rigdon on Sunday, June 17, at a worship service of the Saints at the public square in Far West. Although no complete account of Rigdon’s remarks is in existence, it was later reported he used as the basis for his text the words of Jesus from St. Matthew, “If the salt have lost its savour, it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men” (Matthew 5:13; 3 Nephi 12:13; or possibly D&C 101:39–40; 103:8–10).¹⁸ Rigdon intended to send a clear message to the ex-Mormon detractors with the scriptural metaphor. Corrill stated the ardent counselor “did not call names in his sermon, yet it was plainly understood ^[75] that he meant that [the] dissenters, or those who had denied the faith, ought to be cast out and literally trodden under foot.”¹⁹

Near the same time Rigdon delivered his “salt sermon,” a lengthy petition was prepared and signed by eighty-three Latter-day Saint men. It was addressed to the five most prominent dissenters, outlining the petitioners grievances and detailing essentially three areas of misconduct by each of the individuals named, including: (1) specific allegations of violations of the law, (2) conspiring with citizens from other counties to mob the Latter-day Saints, and (3) vilifying and slandering the character and name of Joseph Smith. Significantly, the petition did not mention any charges supposedly entered by Mormon officials against the dissenters, nor was there indication any additional charges would be brought against the individuals concerning their alleged crimes. However, it was made explicitly clear the men would be expected to move from the county. “You shall have three days after receiving this communication . . . for you to depart with your families peaceably; which you may do undisturbed by any person; but in that time, if you do not depart, we will use the means in our power to cause you to depart; for go you shall.”²⁰ Rigdon believed the Church had every right to expel the dissenters from the community. Reed Peck reported the ^[76] Prophet’s spokesman as saying, “When a county, or a body of people have individuals among them with whom they do not wish to associate[,] and a public expression is taken against their remaining among them and such individuals do not remove[,] it is the principle of republicanism . . . that gives that community a right to expel them forcibly and no law will prevent it.”²¹ Ironically, Rigdon’s reasoning is precisely the same as that used by Jackson, Clay, and Carroll citizens to justify expelling the Mormons from their counties, as well as the same rational used to rationalize expelling the entire Mormon population from the state in 1838–39.

Rigdon’s remarks, the removal petition, and other rhetorical threats made out against the dissenters were, as Reed Peck wrote, “undoubtedly a farce acted to frighten these men from the county.”²² Nonetheless, these actions produced the desired results, and “in three or four days, several of the dissenters became much alarmed and fled from the place in great fright, and their families soon followed, but their property was attached for debt.”²³ Oliver Cowdery, David and John Whitmer, and Lyman Johnson fled Far West under duress on Tuesday, June 19.²⁴ They first went to Clay County where they found refuge at the home of William E. McLellin and remained for several days while awaiting the arrival of their families. They then took up a permanent ^[77] residence in Richmond in Ray County.²⁵ Jacob Whitmer and Marcellus Cowdery probably left Far West about this same time.²⁶

Corrill wrote that the intimidation “compelled others of the dissenters to confess and give satisfaction to the Church.”²⁷ He was likely referring to W. W. Phelps who immediately made restitution with the Mormon leaders and was not forced to leave the Mormon city. About this same time Frederick G. Williams also came back in favor with the Mormon hierarchy, as evidenced by the fact that his name does not appear on the signed petition. Furthermore, on July 8, Joseph Smith received a revelation in behalf of these two men. “Verily, thus saith the Lord, in consequence of their transgressions their former standing has been taken away from them,” the revelation read, “and now, if they will be saved, let them be ordained as Elders in my Church to preach my Gospel and travel abroad.”²⁸ Williams’ repentance appears to have been somewhat short-lived. During the height of the Mormon conflict he apparently did something to once again lose the confidence of the leading Church officials and following the Missouri expulsion was excommunicated. Phelps remained in Far West following his reconciliation and was one of the ^[78] peace negotiators at the time of the Mormon surrender. However, during the Richmond hearings held in the latter part of November, he became a witness for the state by testifying against Church leader and was therefore subsequently excommunicated by the Twelve. Both men rejoined the Church following the relocation of the Church Illinois.²⁹

The episode involving the dissenters’ expulsion produced several consequences. From the Church’s standpoint, their removal assured the hierarchy that the general membership of the Church would no longer be influenced or corrupted by their actions, attitudes, and opinions. Furthermore, the First Presidency felt confident that they would no longer be threatened with vexatious lawsuits, at least in Mormon-­dominated Caldwell County. On the negative side, the dissenters’ disaffection from Mormonism and forced departure from Far West opened the door for further troubles between Mormons and non-Mormons. Following their flight, these former insiders were quick to spread the news of their alleged mistreatment. Their reports of abuse at the hands of the Mormon hierarchy and their pawns were evidence to non-Mormons that Joseph Smith and his associates were full of corruption. Furthermore, it reconfirmed in the minds of the Missourians that the Latter-day Saints posed a genuine threat to the peace and security of the region.

The Danites—A Paramilitary Organization

In early June 1838, a number of men under the leadership of Sampson Avard, Jared Carter, and George W. Robinson, began meeting in Far West to discuss the problems being generated by the dissenters and how best to deal with them. Those assembled subsequently ^[79] organized, declared their allegiance to Joseph Smith, and vowed to uphold the voice and actions of the First Presidency. Furthermore, these ultra-loyalists determined that any members of the society who demonstrated any manner of disloyalty would be threatened with severe repercussions and punishment. In addition, it was decided that those Church members exhibiting dissident behavior, or who engaged in “tattling, lying, and backbiting, must be put down, and he that would not submit willingly should be forced to it, or leave the county.”³⁰ Ebenezer Robinson stated that the eighty-three men who signed the petition calling for the removal of the Far West dissenters were the original members of this new Mormon society and were responsible for their expulsion.³¹

The organization was initially known by two names, “The Daughter[s] of Zion,” and “The Brother[s] of Gideon”³² but soon became known as the Danites, a name derived from the prophecy of Daniel wherein he foresaw that the Saints in the last days will take possession of the kingdom of God “and possess it forever” (Daniel 7:22).³³ There were also two separate Danite ^[80] organizations—the main group being the one organized at Far West in June, and a second, somewhat smaller unit, established around the middle of July at Adam-ondi-Ahman, the main Mormon settlement in Daviess County. William Swartzell, a Mormon convert who emigrated to Missouri in June 1838 and who settled near Diahman, indicated Lyman Wight became the acknowledge leader of the Daviess Danites.³⁴ Organizers subsequently produced a manuscript containing the society’s articles and bill of rights. In theory and principle, the league was a military body made up of various ranking officers. Provisions in the document provided that the officers would also serve as representatives in a legislative assembly which would be subject to the Church’s First Presidency.³⁵ While the band later organized along military lines having officers of various titles, with the mainline officers being captains over fifties and tens, it appears it never actually functioned in a legislative capacity.³⁶

There were essentially four areas of Danite activity conducted during the summer of 1838. As noted, their first act of business, and the force behind the actual creation of the society, was to generate a means of intimidation to coerce the apostates into leaving Far West. With the dissenters gone, ^[81] the Danite organization sought other ways to demonstrate its loyalty to the Mormon hierarchy.³⁷ A second focus was to assist the presidency in securing needed capital and resources to finance Church operations. “Shortly after the Danites became organized, they set out to enforce the Law of Consecration,” John Corrill remembered, “but this did not amount to much.” During July, Lyman Wight, the Danite leader in Daviess, preached principles of consecration to the members of the organization there. “He said that after the brethren had bought lots to suit themselves, with their own money . . . then they should consecrate all their money and property to the Church, so that the Church can purchase the lands, and locations within 12 miles from the centre of the stake, in every direction.”³⁸ Corrill recalled that the plan consisted of organizing the Saints into large firms:

Every man was to put in all his property by leasing it to the firm for a term of years; overseers or managers were to be chosen from time to time, by the members of the firm, to manage the concerns of the same, and the rest were to labor under their direction. In the division of the profits, more regard was to be paid towards the needs and wants of the members, than to the amount of stock put in. Many joined these firms, while many others were much dissatisfied with them, which caused considerable feeling and excitement in the Church. Smith said every man must act his own feelings, whether to join or not, yet great exertions were used . . . to persuade all to join.³⁹

Reed Peck stated, “many of the church . . . brought forward furniture, horses, &c, . . . but it all adde[d] little to the church fund & I conclude fell far short of satisfying the presidency for the business of consecration was immediately followed by the formation of four large firms and it was ^[82] required . . . that every member of the church should become a partner in some one of them[.]” Peck also noted the program was opposed by many.⁴⁰

A third area of Danite activity during the summer of 1838 focused on politics. It was an election year for state and county officers in Missouri and Danite members sought to influence the political outcome in favor of the Latter-day Saints and the Mormon leadership. For example, in early August a committee from the society with Avard at its head, waited upon the First Presidency and supposedly secured from them a list containing the names of the individuals whom Church members should support at the polls in Mormon-dominated Caldwell County. Tickets containing the names of the recommended candidates were printed on the Elders’ Journal press and distributed throughout the county “with the accompanying word that they were according to the will of God which was sufficient to make nearly every person vote that ticket and no other.”⁴¹ Even though he was successful in winning the August 6 election as Caldwell’s representative to the House, John Corrill remembered that the tactics used by the Danite members were not popular. “Many saw that it was taking an undue advantage of the election, and were extremely dissatisfied,” he wrote. “There was some murmuring and finding fault after the election, by those opposed to the proceedings, but this was soon put down by the Danite influence.”^{42 [83]}

In Daviess County the Mormons composed about half of the population, “but were not quite strong enough to oppose the united votes of the other citizens of the county,” wrote Thomas Kirk, a Missouri contemporary.⁴³ Being outnumbered, and with only a few Mormon candidates running for office, the political strategies employed by the Danites in Daviess focused on getting as many Mormon men out to the polls as possible. On August 6, a number of Danite members turned out early at Gallatin, the county seat, to exercise their constitutional privilege. The political candidate who seemed the most concerned about the election outcome was William Peniston of nearby Millport. Peniston, a militia colonel in the county, was the Whig contestant running for the office of state representative. Although he had courted the Mormon vote, the fact that the majority of Mormons favored Democratic candidates did not help his chances.⁴⁴

By the time the polls opened at eleven a.m., a crowd had already gathered while candidates did some last minute campaigning. When the polls opened, the non-Mormons rushed to the polls while the Mormons waited for the locals to finish. Prior to the Mormons voting, Peniston was able to gain an audience by standing on the top of a whiskey barrel where he began haranguing and making accusations against the Mormons. Peniston was familiar with the Latter-day Saints. He claimed that some years earlier, while a resident of Clay County, he personally headed up a ^[84] committee whose aim it was to rid the Mormons from that region. When he was through his cohorts charged that the Mormons had no right to vote. Peniston’s remarks produced the desired effects, for when the Mormons started for the polls, several Missourians put up some resistance and a bloody fight broke out. Although there were in the vicinity of forty to fifty non-Mormons in the crowd, many of whom were celebrating the day with whiskey and spirits, the dozen or so Mormons more than held their own. Being unarmed, the brethren used what means were available for their defense. The entire melee lasted only about two minutes. Joseph Hedges McGee, a non-Mormon resident of Gallatin, was an eye-witness to the fracas. “I had witnessed many knock-downs in my time,” he wrote, “but none on so grand a scale. Pistols were not used. Rocks and clubs were in demand and an occasional butcher knife slipped in. Men dropped on all sides.”⁴⁵ When the fight came to an end, the Danite brawlers had defended themselves admirably, although McGee reported “the Mormons were beaten and went back to Diahmon.”⁴⁶ Fortunately no one on either side was killed, but there were plenty of cuts, bruises, and sore skulls. The Mormon men did not make a hasty departure, but it is still unclear whether or not they were able to vote. Their vote may not have mattered in the end, since Peniston was defeated by John Williams, the Democratic candidate.^{47 [85]}

The most prominent activity of the Danite band was in military operations, and, following the fray at Gallatin, this essentially became its sole enterprise during the months that followed. Initially, the Danite band could have been classified as an independent military company. Organizers were not necessarily acting illegally in attempting to establish it, since state statutes allowed for the creation and operation of these types of military units. However, the organization was not entirely legal per se since it was not established along the lines of the regular militia, nor was it ever officially recognized or sanctioned by the state authorities, nor were its members granted military commissions (although some members had received official commissions to serve as state militia officers and may have functioned under that pretense). Furthermore, the fact that the Danites held closed meetings, restricted membership, attempted to operate in secret (although Church members and later Missourians even knew of their meetings and activities), and engaged in activities known to be outside the role and jurisdiction of local militia units, clearly demonstrates their conduct was unauthorized under state statutes.⁴⁸

The first, known public display of the Danites in a military capacity occurred during a July 4th, 1838, celebration held on the public square in Far West. Owen H. McGee, a non-Mormon, escorted two young Mormon women to the all-day affair and estimated there were five thousand ^[86] Latter-day Saints in attendance.⁴⁹ The festivities began with a military parade of infantry and cavalry, comprised of both regular volunteers from the Caldwell county militia and Danite members and officers.⁵⁰ The order of the day also included music provided by Dimick B. Huntington and his military band, songs, prayers, a flag ceremony, and the dedication and the laying of the four cornerstones for the proposed temple.⁵¹ But neither the display of military prowess and pageantry, nor the religious ceremonies connected with the temple were the hallmark of the day. These events were all upstaged by an articulate and passionate oration given by the Prophet’s spokesman Sidney Rigdon. Rigdon used the occasion to eloquently recount the principles of freedom by which the founders established the government and the rights which religious societies are entitled under its provisions. Speaking in general terms he also spoke of the false reports circulated about Mormonism as well as the persecution and suffering experienced by the Church from its earliest beginnings. But in his closing statements, the speech took on a different tone. Buoyed by the relative peace which had existed in northern Missouri since 1836, and secure in the ^[87] notion that continued emigration would result in a steady increase in Mormon population, Rigdon announced the Mormons would no longer suffer abuse at the hands of their enemies. “We have proved the world with kindness, we have suffered their abuse without cause, with patience, and have endured without resentment, until this day. . . . But from this day and this hour, we will suffer it no more.” His final words, were words of warning. “That mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us; for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be destroyed.”⁵² In the end, Rigdon’s expressions proved to be partly prophetic. Looking back six years later, Jedediah M. Grant believed Rigdon’s speech reignited the fire of Missouri anti-Mormon opposition. “[The oration] was the main auxiliary that fanned into a flame the burning wrath of the mobocratic portion of the Missourians. They now had an excuse, their former threats were renewed, and soon executed, [and] we were then . . . all made accountable for the acts of one man.”⁵³ Brigham Young’s hindsight concerning the occasion was similar to that of Grant’s, “Elder Rigdon was the prime cause of our troubles in Missouri, by his fourth of July oration.”⁵⁴

Joseph Smith endorsed Rigdon’s remarks and Ebenezer Robinson, the Church printer, was directed to make preparations for its publication. The speech appeared in pamphlet form in August and was widely distributed throughout the region. The Mormon Prophet also published an editorial ^[88] in the Elders’ Journal urging every member to secure a copy of the address. “We would recommend to all the saints to get one,” the Prophet wrote, because the document embraced an “outline of the suffering and persecutions of the Church from its rise.” Then, echoing Rigdon’s declaration, Joseph Smith stated once again what would become Church policy concerning further persecutions against them. “As . . . to the persecutors, who are, and have been, continually, not only threatening us with mobs, but actually have been putting their threats into execution; with which we are absolutely determined no longer to bear, come life or come death, for to be mob[b]ed any more without taking vengeance, we will not.”⁵⁵ One month later Joseph Smith reiterated this same posture. “We will not act on the offensive, but always on the defensive; our rights and our liberties shall not be taken from us, and we peaceably submit to it, as we have done heretofore, but we will avenge ourselves or our enemies, inasmuch as they will not let us alone.”⁵⁶

Clearly, by summer of 1838, the Mormon ­leader’s position was that the his people were justified in taking up arms against those who perpetrated acts of violence or forced opposition against the Latter-day Saints. This essentially remained the Prophet’s position throughout the three months of conflict which followed. In describing the Mormon leader’s position, RLDS historian Graham Stott writes: “Disappointed, frustrated, tired of apostasy within the church and anti-Mormon feeling without, Smith was sure that the time to fight had come. He was not usually this belligerent and was far from believing that every persecution suffered by the Saints was a call to war. But as the Mormons learned, there were limits to his restraint.”⁵⁷ Furthermore, “When it ^[89] came to the point when persecution could be borne not longer . . . then the Saints had a choice. They could fight and be justified, or they could seek refuge in flight.”⁵⁸ In the end, they did both.

There were reverberations from Rigdon’s address, both among the Saints and their gentile neighbors. Foremost, the oration generated a newfound militancy in the Church, particularly among Danite leaders and their initiated members. Since the Zion’s Camp experiment in 1834, the military activities of the Latter-day Saints had been somewhat static, but with Church leaders essentially justifying combative operations against Mormon perpetrators, Danite leaders seized the opportunity to strike back, at the same time challenging the local regularly constituted militia as to which organization was in control. Following the July 4th sermon, non-Mormons in adjacent counties, already suspicious of Mormon activities, especially the ongoing influx of Latter-day Saints from the East which was leading to the possibility of Mormon domination in the territory, became alarmed once again with the prospects of possible civil conflict. Ebenezer Robinson accurately noted that Rigdon’s words “exerted a powerful influence in arousing the people of the whole upper Missouri country.”⁵⁹ After receiving copies of the Far West oration, the non-Mormons “were alarmed for fear [we] . . . should become so formidable as to maintain [our] rights and liberties, insomuch that they could no more drive and plunder [us],” wrote Parley P. Pratt.⁶⁰ Clearly, it was Rigdon’s address which was the catalyst behind the opposition displayed by residents at Gallatin on the day of the August 6 election. At the same time, the election scuffle provided the occasion for the Mormons to defend their position that there were be reprisals for ^[90] injustices or violations of the acted out against them. Daviess County citizens did not have to wait long for a Mormon response. It came two days later.

Historians and the Question of Joseph Smith’s Connection with the Danite Organization

While the existence of the Danites is not disputed, historians have struggled over whether or not Joseph Smith had connections with the society, or if he was directly involved with the group. Leland H. Gentry was the first Mormon historian to survey the society in depth and his examination and conclusions constituted what became the traditional interpretation concerning the movement. His analysis classified the Danites activities into three periods. The first phase was the creation of the organization in June 1838 in order to expel Far West dissenters. The second period took place between June and October and was primarily a defensive movement employed against Missouri aggressors. The third stage occurred during the last half of October when the Danites under Avard took offensive and even hostile action, principally in Daviess County. Moreover, Gentry contended Joseph Smith had knowledge of Danite activity in the first two stages, but not during the third.⁶¹

Stephen C. LeSueur took the position that the First Presidency (and more particularly Joseph Smith) not only knew of the Danites, but was also aware of the band’s teachings and goals, approved of their activities, and “used the organization as an extralegal vigilante force to protect the interests of the Church.”⁶² He essentially believed that the Mormon Prophet was also the leader of the ^[91] group, and therefore asserted Daniteism “represented mainstream Mormonism.”⁶³ In his book The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, D. Michael Quinn shared many of LeSueur’s conclusions, placing much of the responsibility for Danite activity squarely on the shoulders of Joseph Smith. “What the Danites did militarily during the summer and fall of 1838 was by the general oversight and command of Joseph Smith,” he wrote.⁶⁴ Quinn, however, was more lenient in his condemnation of the Mormons and their “Danite” military activities than LeSueur. Whereas the tenor of LeSueur’s writings tended to place equal blame and responsibility for the war on both Mormons and the non-Mormons, Quinn saw the Latter-day Saints as being more the victims than the perpetrators. “Mormon marauding against non-Mormon Missourians in 1838 was mild by comparison with the brutality of anti-Mormon militias.”⁶⁵

Dean C. Jessee and David J. Whittaker added another dimension in the interpretation of Danite activities. Citing an entry from the journal record of Mormon convert Albert Perry Rockwood, Jessee and Whittaker contend that besides their military function and roll, the organization was also involved in community building. Rockwood’s journal entry of October 22, describes how various Danite-type groups were assigned to “build houses; others were to gather food or care for the sick, while still others were to help gather the scattered Saints into the community. . . . [and represented] a covenant community that viewed itself in the same terms as ancient Israel. Working with these groups, these Danites served the interests of the whole.”^{66 [92]} However, LeSueur observed that these new responsibilities were added at the very tail-end of the conflict (a little over a week prior to the Mormon surrender) and at a time when the Latter-day Saints were preparing for all-out war.⁶⁷

LeSueur and Quinn relied heavily on the testimony given by Avard during the Richmond hearings as evidence of Joseph Smith’s Danite complicity, particularly his statement wherein he considered “Joseph Smith, jr., as the prime mover and organizer of this Danite band.”⁶⁸ On the other hand, Richard Lloyd Anderson placed Sampson Avard as the “Danite founder and most influential leader.” While Anderson acknowledged that Avard’s testimony was the principal source used to reconstruct information regarding the Danite organization, he notes that the fact that he was granted legal immunity if he would testify against Mormon leaders caused Avard to essentially become “a courtroom tool instead of a reliable witness.”⁶⁹ Testimonies and reminiscences by loyalist Mormons, non-Mormons, and those who disaffected following the Mormon surrender also ^[93] tend to implicate Avard and extricate Joseph Smith. Moses Clawson, a faithful Mormon, remembered “a man by the name of Sampson Avard figured very conspicuously in it [the Danites] and becoming dissatisfied apostatized and led a number astray.”⁷⁰ In an interview conducted in 1885, Anson Call, an active member of the society, stated, “[The] Captains were under the direction of one ‘Dr Avard’—he was at the head of this organization.”⁷¹ John Cleminson, clerk of the Caldwell County court and a non-Mormon who lived among the Latter-day Saints, was willing to be a witness for the state during the Richmond hearings testified, “The teacher and active agent of the society was Dr. Avard.”⁷² John Corrill, an insider who disaffected from the Church by the end of the conflict but who used his influence as Caldwell’s representative in the state legislature to negotiate for the peaceful removal of the Saints, acknowledged that, “Arverd [sic] was the most prominent leader and instructor, and was assisted by others.” Corrill further stated that Avard “was very forward and indefatigable . . . for he devoted his whole talents to it, and spared no pains; and, I thought, was as grand a villain as his wit and ability would admit of.”⁷³ At the time of the Mormon surrender, Reed Peck, who also acted as a negotiator, indicated that Sampson Avard, “the main actor in the organization of the Danites,” immediately fled from Far West, “leaving the people to extricated themselves from the difficulties into which they had plunged by following [his] pernicious counsel.”⁷⁴ In his court testimony at the Richmond hearings, W. W. ^[94] Phelps provided details concerning several military operations of the Saints which the Mormon leader participated in. He also referred to an incident concerning the Danites but no mention was made about Joseph Smith’s connection with the society.⁷⁵ Finally, George M. Hinkle, the leader of the entire Mormon militia forces, who many of the Saints considered a turncoat following the Mormon surrender, testified that neither Joseph nor Hyrum Smith had any command of either the militia or Danite officers in the field, but each gave only general directions in their capacities as the religious leaders of the people.⁷⁶

Perhaps the question concerning the Mormon leader’s involvement is a problem of definition concerning the term “Danites” as well as what constituted membership. LeSueur and Quinn essentially came to the conclusion Joseph Smith was intimately involved in the society from beginning to end because he was present or took part in certain key events in which Danite officers or members also participated (i.e. the expedition into Daviess County two days after the election day fight, and the October Daviess expedition). Furthermore, since Danites made up part, or in some cases the majority, of Mormon troops who were engaged in a particular operation, the two historians automatically assumed that the Mormon Prophet: (1) was ultimately in charge of the campaign since he was apparently aligned with Danite leaders; or (2) he at least gave approval for the action. The overall conclusion, therefore, is that the Mormon leader was at least guilty by association.

Unquestionably, a select group made up the Danite organization. The majority of those who joined this organization were war hawks—the most militant among those in the Mormon ^[95] community—or in the words of Mosiah Hancock, men who were “of a different stripe.”⁷⁷ The most notable among the society included Avard, Lyman Wight, George W. Robinson, Ebenzer Robinson, David W. Patten, Elias Higbee, Seymour Brunson, Jared Carter, Cornelius P. Lott, Dimick B. Huntington, John D. Lee, and John L. Butler. Rigdon appears to have been the First Presidency member who had the closest ties with the organization, although he was probably not a member. According to John Corrill, at the time of the Far West surrender in November, Danite numbers were in the vicinity of three hundred.⁷⁸ Significantly, by this same time the entire number of Mormons defending Far West and Diahman was in the vicinity of nine hundred. This meant the majority of Mormon men—some six hundred, or two-thirds—were not members of the organization, but made up the regular militia or were essentially Mormon volunteers. John N. Sapp, a little-known member of the Church who apostatized in mid-August, stated that the number of Danites numbered between 800–1,000.⁷⁹ Corrill, who played an active role to the end of the conflict, would have been more aware of actual numbers, therefore his testimony should be accepted over that of Sapp. However, it is probable that Sapp may have been thinking along the lines of the total number of Latter-day Saint men who were involved in the 1838 war.⁸⁰

Sapp’s testimony illustrates another problem in interpreting Danite activity. A great number of Latter-day Saints may not have made the distinction between those who were Danites and those who were Mormon regulars or official militia. In fact, it appears that many Church members referred to the total Mormon force as Danites, even though the society constituted a ^[96] minority of total LDS troops. It appears therefore, that the title “Danite” must also be viewed and considered in broader terms. For example, Anson Call, in describing the Danite organization stated, “I belong[ed] to this organization and so did the whole of the military force.”⁸¹ Richard L. Anderson states that descriptions such as Call’s suggests that by October the “Mormon defense forces had assimilated the Danite bands and their officers.”⁸² If so, essentially every military operation conducted from August through October was performed by Mormon troops made up of a combination of authorized militia, volunteers, or Danite members. Missourians were even less able to distinguish between the regularly constituted Mormon militia forces and Danites. Statements and reminiscences by local citizens who reported on the conflict indicate that as the war progressed, and as rumors of Danite-Mormon activities spread, literally every Mormon defender or participant was thought of as a Danite.

Historical evidence suggests that the activities conducted by the Danite band during the months of June, July, and August—the expulsion of the dissenters, the enforcement of the law of consecration, and the promotion and support of political candidates—were exclusively Danite operations and received at least tacit support and approval from the First Presidency. On 27 July 1838, the one and only statement about the Danites which appears in the Prophet’s “Scriptory Book” tends to support this conclusion. “We have a company of Danites in these times, to put to right physically that which is not right, and to cleanse the Church of verry great evils with hath hitherto existed among us inasmuch as they cannot be put to right by teachings & persuasyons.”⁸³ From such evidence it is understandable how Mormon dissidents such as Reed Peck would later ^[97] claim the organization came “under the instruction of the presidency,” at least initially.⁸⁴ However, that support did not necessarily come in the form of active participation in the organization, particularly by Joseph Smith. John Corrill and Reed Peck, both of whom left the Church after the Mormon surrender, testified that to their knowledge the First Presidency attended only one of the Danite meetings at Far West (probably in June or early July), at which time they addressed the members and pronounced a general blessing upon the officers and the organization.⁸⁵ However, there is additional evidence that Joseph Smith also attended two meetings of the Adam-ondi-Ahman group on July 14 and 21.⁸⁶ Furthermore, if Danite members actually perceived patronage as coming from the First Presidency after the summer of 1838, they would have recognized that support as coming more from President Rigdon rather than President Smith since the counselor’s views were more along the lines of Danite principles.

What is more conclusive is that while Joseph Smith apparently approved of the Danite activities initially (i.e. during the summer months of 1838), and while he participated in the Daviess expedition in early August, the expedition to DeWitt and the Mormon offensive in Daviess County in October (each of which included Mormon militia and Danite members), he may not have necessarily known of their private teachings and the conduct of their leaders until sometime later. ^[98] Avard testified that he “continually informed them [the First Presidency] of my teachings; and they were well apprised of my course and teachings in the Danite society.”⁸⁷ However, Avard’s testimony must be suspect since Reed Peck witnessed otherwise. In the only meeting Joseph Smith was known to have attended in Far West, Peck stated that Avard invited Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Hyrum Smith to the meeting in order to show the presidency “what he had been doing was according to their direction or will,” without explaining “to the presidency what his teachings had been in the society.”⁸⁸ More than likely, the Mormon leader received some second-hand information concerning what Avard was teaching, but once again, he apparently lacked full knowledge. Lorenzo Dow Young attended a Danite meeting but upon hearing Sampson’s preachings, the oaths he would be required to take, and penalties for disobedience, Young refused to unite with the organization. He immediately went to his brother Brigham and told him of his experience. The apostle assured him he would apprise Joseph, whom he said was already suspicious “that some secret wickedness was being carried on by Dr. Avard.”⁸⁹ Six weeks following his arrest and while incarcerated in Liberty Jail, Smith summarized the Danite situation as he perceived it. “We have learned also since we have been in prison that many false and ^[99] pernicious things which were calculated to lead the saints far astray and to do great injury have been taught by Dr. Avard as coming from the Presidency . . . which the presidency never knew of being taught in the church by any body untill after they were made prisoners . . . the presidency were ignorant as well as innocent of these things.”⁹⁰ Note that the Mormon leader did not deny his knowledge or participation in Mormon-Danite military activities, rather, he indicated he did not know the full extent of what was being taught by Avard.

The events of August through October confirm that Joseph Smith was an active participant in the civil conflict. Evidence also confirms that he used his influence and exercised leadership in various capacities in order to secure and extend Mormon interests. However, while a Missouri citizen, the Mormon Prophet never held a civil or military office, nor was he ever a member of the regularly constituted county or state militia. Lyman Wight, a commissioned state militia officer, was aware that the Church leader claimed exemption from militia duty on account of “the amputation, from his leg, of a part of a bone, on account of a fever sore.”⁹¹ He also secured a second exemption from militia service based upon his being a religious teacher or minister. Thus, in those military engagements in which he did participate, he “acted as a private character, and as an individual.”⁹² If Joseph Smith purposely and intentionally sought to excuse himself from ^[100] militia service, it stands to reason he would also endeavor to distance himself from the more militant Danite organization.

The departure from Far West of the Mormon dissenters, Rigdon’s fiery July 4th speech, reports of Mormon military activities, and the Gallatin melee rekindled fears and suspicions among many local citizens concerning Mormon intentions. County regulators and vigilante groups organized and began adopting measures for aggressive action. Meanwhile, Mormon militiamen and Danite society members were poised to take up arms to defend the peace and security in the region. By mid-October 1838, the stage was set for a major confrontation. ^[101]