A Foreign Kingdom: Mormons and Polygamy in American Political Culture, 1852-1890

Notes

notes introduction 1.ThetechnicallycorrecttermforMormonpluralmarriageis“polygyny,”thepracticeof havingmorethanonewife.Althoughtheterm“polygamy”referstohavingpluralspouses of either sex, I use the term because it was the term most often used in the nineteenth century and has been commonly associated with Mormonism well into the present. Mormons generally used the term “plural marriage” and for historical and stylistic reasons I sometimes do the same. Also, in the nineteenth century, as today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS Church, were commonly known as “Mormons,” named after their grounding spiritual text, the Book of Mormon. Contemporary Mormons resist the term, preferring instead to be called “Latter-day Saints,” but the term did not seem to trouble nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints in the same way. I use it, here, to describe members of the nineteenth-century Church, and occasionally the twentieth-century Church, but intend no affront in either case. 2. For an analysis of marriage and family structures among Oneidans, Shakers, and Mormons, see Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality: Three American Communal ExperimentsoftheNineteenthCentury (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1981);Lawrence Foster, Women, Family, and Utopia: Communal Experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Mormons (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1991). See also Paul E. Johnson and Sean Wilentz, The Kingdom of Matthias: A Story of Sex and Salvation in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 3. See Ellen DuBois and Linda Gordon, “Seeking Ecstasy on the Battlefield: Danger and Pleasure in Nineteenth-Century Feminist Sexual Thought,” Feminist Studies 9, no. 1 (Spring 1983): 7–25. 170 Notes to Introduction 4. Howard Roberts Lamar, The Far Southwest 1846–1912: A Territorial History rev. ed., (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2000). 5. See James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978); and Catherine A. Holland, The Body Politic: Foundings, Citizenship, and Difference in the American Political Imagination (New York: Routledge, 2001), 96–162. 6. Kettner, 334–51, quoted material on 351. 7. See Richard D. Poll, “The Political Reconstruction of Utah Territory, 1866–1890,” Pacific Historical Review 27, no. 2 (May 1958): 111–26; and Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 119–20. 8. Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, “Dis-Covering the Subject of the ‘Great Constitutional Discussion,’ 1786–1789,” Journal of American History 79, no. 3 (December 1992), 843. 9. Gurpreet Mahajan, “Introduction: The Public and the Private: Two Modes of Enhancing Democratization,” in The Public and the Private: Issues of Democratic Citizenship, ed. Gurpreet Mahajan (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003), 11. See also T. N. Madan, “Of the Social Categories ‘Private’ and ‘Public’: Considerations of Cultural Context,” in Mahajan, The Public and the Private, 88–89. 10. June Howard, Publishing the Family (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001), 239. 11. Linda K. Kerber, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History,” Journal of American History 75, no. 1 (June 1988), 30. 12. Patricia Uberoi, “Feminism and the Public-Private Distinction,” in Mahajan, The Public and the Private, 206. On the public/private distinction in American republican thought, see Ruth Bloch, “The American Revolution, Wife Beating, and the Emergent ValueofPrivacy,”EarlyAmericanStudies5,no.2(Fall2007):223–51;MaryDietz,“Context Is All: Feminism and Theories of Citizenship,” Daedalus 116, no. 4 (Fall 1987): 1–24; Mahajan ,“Introduction,”9–33;andAnnePhillips,Engendering Democracy (UniversityPark: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991). On the gendering of citizenship, see Linda K. Kerber, “Can a Woman Be an Individual?: The Discourse of Self-Reliance,” in Toward an Intellectual History of Women: Essays (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997): 200–223. 13. Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 44. 14. Ibid., 82. 15. Ibid., 83. 16. Ibid., 148. 17. Jay Fliegelman, Prodigals and Pilgrims: The American Revolution against Patriarchal Authority, 1750–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 126. 18. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 149. 19. For an examination of contractual families in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, see Amy Dru Stanley, From Bondage to Contract: Wage Labor, Marriage, and the Market in the Age of Slave Emancipation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 171 Notes to Introduction 20.Gordon,TheMormonQuestion,77–78,quotedmaterialon77.SeealsoArlinM.Adams and Charles J. Emmerich, A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty: The Constitutional Heritage of the Religion Clauses (Philadelphia...