User:NatalieEmma.BYU/sandbox2
LEAD SECTION HERE
Background
Mormon polygamy was one of the leading moral issues of the 19th Century in the United States, perhaps second only to slavery in importance. Spurred by popular indignation, the U.S. government took a number of steps against polygamy; these were of varying effectiveness.[1][2] In 1856, the Republican Party stated that it planned to do away with both slavery and polygamy.[3]: 438
Debate over consent vs no consent [3] pg 454 and 455
subjugation vs sexual vice pg 456
After multiple Congressional attempts to pass legislation, anti-polygamy laws began to pass ten years after the church publicly announced the practice of polygamy.[4]: 191 [3]: 438
Legislation
Anti-polygamy bill of 1854
The first legislative attempt to discourage polygamy in Utah was presented in the 33rd Congress. The bill was debated in May of 1854. The bill included the provision that any man who had more than one wife would not be able to own land in the Utah Territory. This bill was defeated in the House of Representatives after multiple representatives argued that the federal government did not have the authority to legislate morals in the states.[5]: 194–195
1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act
In 1862, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act became law. The Act criminalized the practice of polygamy, unincorporated the church, and limited the church's real estate holdings. According to an article in the Virginia Law Review, legislators did not actually believe that the bill would end polygamy. Speeches given during the debate did not include an explanation of how the bill would eliminate or decrease polygamy in Utah. Despite many members of Congress knowing that the bill would be ineffective, Morrill (the sponsor of the bill) encouraged his fellow legislators to pass the bill in its current state.[6]: 448
Legislators did not explain why they felt the bill would be ineffective. One of the weaknesses listed in theVirginia Law Review is that the law required prosecutors to present an "insurmountable burden of proof."[6]: 448 Legislators were also concerned that jury nullification would prevent polygamists from being convicted.[6]: 449 The Act was largely understood to be unconstitutional and was only enforced in rare cases.[7]: 422 While, the Act outlawed bigamy in the US territories, it was seen to be largely weak and infective at preventing people from practicing polygamy.[8]: 447–449 [9]: 243–244 However, due to the continuous threat of legislation targeting polygamy and he church, Brigham Young pretended to comply.[10]: 422
On January 6, 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in Reynolds v. United States.[11]: 93
Wade, Cragin, and Cullom Bills
The Wade, Cragin, and Cullom Bills were anti-bigamy legislation that failed to pass in the US Congress. The bills were all intended to enforce the Morrill Act's prohibition on polygamy with more punitive measures.[12] The Wade Bill of 1866 had the power to dismantle local government in Utah.[13] Three years after the Wade Bill failed, the Cragin Bill, which would have eliminated the right to a jury for bigamy trials, was introduced but not passed.[14] After that, the Cullom Bill was introduced.[15] Despite a Republican-dominated Congress, the Cullom Bill failed to pass in 1870.[3]: 438
One of the most concerning parts of the Cullom Bill for polygamists was that, if passed, anyone who practiced any type of non-monogamous relationship would not be able to become a citizen of the United States, vote in elections, or receive the benefits of the homestead laws. The leadership of the church publicly opposed the Cullom Bill. Op-eds in church-owned newspapers declared the bill as unjust and dangerous to Mormons.[15]
The cullom bill
The introduction of the Cullom Bill led to protests by Mormons, particularly Mormon women. Women organized indignation meetings to voice their disapproval of the bill.[16]: xii The strong reaction of Mormon women surprised many onlookers and politicians. Outside of the church, Mormon women were seen as weak and oppressed by their husbands and the men of the church. The political activism in support of polygamy of Mormon women was unexpected from a group that had been portrayed as powerless.[17][16]: xii–xvi
1874 Poland Act
Following the failure of the Wade, Cragin, and Collum Bills, the Poland Act was an anti-bigamy prosecution act that was successfully enacted by the 43rd United States Congress. The Poland Act, named after its sponsor in the US House of Representatives, attempted to prosecute Utah under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy act for refusing to stop practicing polygamy. The act stripped away some of Utah's powers and gave the federal government greater control over the territory. Among other powers, the act gave US district courts jurisdiction in the Utah Territory for all court cases[18] The Poland Act was a significant threat to Mormons practicing polygamy as it allowed for men who had multiple wives to be criminally indicted.[19]
1882 Edmunds Act
In February 1882, George Q. Cannon, a prominent leader in the church, was denied a non-voting seat in the U.S. House of Representatives due to his polygamous relations. This revived the issue of polygamy in national politics. One month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, amending the Morrill Act and made polygamy a felony punishable by a $500 fine and five years in prison. "Unlawful cohabitation," in which the prosecution did not need to prove that a marriage ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), was a misdemeanor punishable by a $300 fine and six months imprisonment.[20] It also revoked the right of polygamists to vote or hold office and allowed them to be punished without due process. Even if people did not practice polygamy, they would have their rights revoked if they confessed a belief in it. In August, Rudger Clawson was imprisoned for continuing to cohabit with wives that he married before the 1862 Morrill Act.
1887 Edmunds–Tucker Act
In 1887, the Edmunds–Tucker Act allowed the disincorporation of the LDS Church and the seizure of church property; it also further extended the punishments of the Edmunds Act. In July of the same year, the U.S. Attorney General filed suit to seize all church assets.[citation needed]
The church was losing control of the territorial government, and many members and leaders were being actively pursued as fugitives. Without being able to appear publicly, the leadership was left to navigate "underground."[citation needed]
Following the passage of the Edmunds–Tucker Act, the church found it difficult to operate as a viable institution. After visiting priesthood leaders in many settlements, church president Wilford Woodruff left for San Francisco on September 3, 1890, to meet with prominent businessmen and politicians. He returned to Salt Lake City on September 21, determined to obtain divine confirmation to pursue a course that seemed to be agonizingly more and more clear. As he explained to church members a year later, the choice was between, on the one hand, continuing to practice polygamy and thereby losing the temples, "stopping all the ordinances therein," and, on the other, ceasing to practice polygamy in order to continue performing the essential ordinances for the living and the dead. Woodruff hastened to add that he had acted only as the Lord directed.[citation needed]
1879 Reynolds vs. United States
In 1879, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot claim a religious obligation as a valid defense to a crime and upheld the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in Reynolds v. United States.[21]: 93 [22] The Court said that while holding a religious belief was protected under the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, practicing a religious belief that broke the law was not.[23] Reynolds vs. United States was the Supreme Court's first case in which a party used the right of freedom of religion as a defense. The ruling concluded that Mormons could be charged with committing bigamy despite their religious beliefs.[24]: 587
References
- ^ Foster, Gaines M. (2002). Moral Reconstruction: Christian Lobbyists and the Federal Legislation of Morality, 1865–1920. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 233–34. ISBN 978-0-8078-5366-5.
- ^ E.g., Donald T. Critchlow and Philip R. VanderMeer, The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History, Oxford University Press, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 47-51, 154.
- ^ a b c d Phipps, Kelly Elizabeth (2009). "Marriage and Redemption: Mormon Polygamy in the Congressional Imagination, 1862-1887". Virginia Law Review. 95 (2): 435–487. ISSN 0042-6601.
- ^ Linford, Orma (1965). The Mormons and the Law: The Polygamy Cases. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin.
- ^ Linford, Orma (1965). The Mormons and the Law: The Polygamy Cases. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin.
- ^ a b c Phipps, Kelly Elizabeth (April 2009). "Marriage and Redemption: Mormon Polygamy in the Congressional Imagination, 1862-1887" (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 95 (2).
- ^ Arrington, Leonard J. (1985). Brigham Young : American Moses (1st ed.). New York. ISBN 0-394-51022-4. OCLC 11443615.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Phipps, Kelly Elizabeth (2009). "Marriage and Redemption: Mormon Polygamy in the Congressional Imagination, 1862-1887". Virginia Law Review. 95 (2): 435–487. ISSN 0042-6601.
- ^ Hardy, B. Carmon (2007). Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise. Norman, Okla. ISBN 0-87062-344-3. OCLC 71223053.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Arrington, Leonard J. (1985). Brigham Young : American Moses (1st ed.). New York. ISBN 0-394-51022-4. OCLC 11443615.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Firmage, Edwin B. (1987). "The Judicial Campaign against Polygamy and the Enduring Legal Questions". Brigham Young University Studies. 27 (3): 91–117. ISSN 0007-0106.
- ^ Toler, Lorianne Updike (October 2019). "Western Reconstruction and Women's Suffrage". William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 28 (1): 147–170.
- ^ Poll, Richard D. (1986). "The Legislative Antipolygamy Campaign". Brigham Young University Studies. 26 (4): 107–121. ISSN 0007-0106. JSTOR 43042251.
- ^ Prior, David (2010-09-10). "Civilization, Republic, Nation: Contested Keywords, Northern Republicans, and the Forgotten Reconstruction of Mormon Utah". Civil War History. 56 (3): 283–310. doi:10.1353/cwh.2010.0003. ISSN 1533-6271.
- ^ a b Derr, Jill Mulvay; Madsen, Carol Cornwall; Holbrook, Kate; Grow, Matthew J., eds. (2016). "Minutes of 'Ladies Mass Meeting,' January 6, 1870". The First Fifty Years of Relief Society: Key Documents in Latter-day Saint Women's History. Salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press. 3.12. ISBN 978-1-62972-150-7.
- ^ a b Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher (2017). A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women's Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870 (1st ed.). New York: Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-59490-7. OCLC 955274387.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Kitterman, Katherine (2020-03-16). "How Utah Women Gained the Right to Vote in 1870 (Part 2)". Better Days 2020. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "The Poland Act". www.famous-trials.com. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ "Chapter Thirty-Three: A Decade of Persecution, 1877–87". www.churchofjesuschrist.org. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
- ^ Embry, Jessie L. (1994), "Polygamy", in Powell, Allan Kent (ed.), Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN 0874804256, OCLC 30473917, archived from the original on April 17, 2017, retrieved October 30, 2013
- ^ Firmage, Edwin B. (1987). "The Judicial Campaign against Polygamy and the Enduring Legal Questions". Brigham Young University Studies. 27 (3): 91–117. ISSN 0007-0106.
- ^ "Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-03-31.
- ^ Affairs, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World. "Reynolds v. United States". berkleycenter.georgetown.edu. Retrieved 2023-03-31.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Smith, Stephen Eliot (2009). "Barbarians within the Gates: Congressional Debates on Mormon Polygamy, 1850-1879". Journal of Church and State. 51 (4): 587–616. ISSN 0021-969X.