• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FairMormon

Register for the 2018 FairMormon Conference!
August 1-3 in Provo, Utah.

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Audio, Video, & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Brigham Young on Interracial Marriage

December 14, 2009 by Keller

Recently I have been gathering notes to do some rewrites on the FAIR wiki regarding Brigham Young’s views on race mixing. Then I ran across Connell O’Donovan’s 2009 Sunstone West article [1].  O’Donovan has uncovered many Mormon specific sources on attitudes and reactions to interracial unions. When I read his earlier article on Walker Lewis, I wished for more of an attempt to contextualize Brigham Young’s thoughts with those of his contemporaries. In the Sunstone article,  O’Donovan delivers. He gives an overview of anti-miscegenation laws and attempts to repeal them over a long stretch of times. He also places Brigham’s views that “mulattos are like mules” and hence could not (or should not [2]) reproduce very well was within the norm of the scientific thought of his day. Needless to say, none of these attitudes belong in today’s more enlightened society or the LDS Church.
Primarily as a result of O’Donovan’s research in his prior JWHA article on Walker Lewis [3] and some fine blogging at Juvenile Instructor, I have become convinced that Brigham’s views on interracial marriage were an important part of why the priesthood ban no longer allowed for exceptions after 1847. After examining the main primary sources I have updated a wiki entry on the origins of the priesthood ban accordingly.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have some reservation about some of O’Donovan’s treatment.  In my indirect review of the Walker Lewis article,  I disagreed with his take that if Brigham had had his way, Danites would have offed a mixed race couple. O’Donovan presents his case about blood atonement a little better this time around, but I will argue in PART II that it is still lacking. I have also been concerned when O’Donovan imputes various emotions to persons.

I noticed that, but not in writing, that O’Donovan made a lengthy aside about William Smith’s infidelities in the Lewis bio that seemed to serve no purpose other than to embarrass a general authority. I didn’t see much point in covering Brigham Young’s marriage with Augusta Cobb, which has no direct bearing on interracial marriages. That isn’t to say that  no insight can be gained by comparing one form of historically forbidden marriages to another. However, I think O’Donovan handling of the Cobb-Young marriage clouds any insight that could potentially be gained. I don’t think I am helping matters much by focusing a good chunk of this review on it.

The Cobb-Young Marriage

O’Donovan asserts that “church leaders forbade any LDS man from marrying a woman who was not single, widowed, or divorced.” That may have been the general rule but there are notable exceptions to it, some even legal.

  • Some 50 years earlier the Jackson-Robards marriage had created quite a stir.  Robards had separated from her husband in Kentucky December 1790 and, believing herself to be divorced, eloped with Andrew Jackson to Mississippi the next August. Although technically illegal, telling Andrew Jackson that he or his wife was an adulterer would likely land one in a duel (AJ had at least 13) or even killed (1 duel casualty).
  • A legal, church sanctioned remarriage occurred between Newell Knight and undivorced Lydia Bailey (believed not to be a widow) in Ohio [4]. A woman abandoned by her husband for over three years could remarry without a formal divorce according to an 1824 Ohio bigamy statute. It had been recently bumped up to five years, but the clerks and parties involved were unaware of that.
  • The 1831 Illinois bigamy law had clause that allowed remarriage without a divorce like Ohio after a five year absence of the spouse.
  • “Serial bigamy was a form of marital refashioning …. A divorce became necessary only when there was a significant amount of property to be divided. Because of its criminal connotations, a divorce sometimes offered a useful mechanism for allowing the ‘innocent’ victim of the guilty spouse to reclaim honor and an identity within an established community. … The characteristic forms of marital escape, however, were abandonment and desertion—unsullied by any public state action. A husband or, less often, a wife would leave and go elsewhere, probably to remarry” [5]
  • The Pratt-McClean marriage created quite a scandal within and without Mormonism. The ex-husband resorted in extra-legal violence rather than rely on marriage laws.

O’Donovan’s contention that Brigham Young’s Nov. 1843 marriage with Augusta Cobb was considered adulterous by Mormon standards falls flat. I will grant that a two month separation from her ex-husband is well short of Illinois’ five year separation period for allowing remarriage without a divorce. It is also short of meeting residency requirements and two years of marital separation[6] for filing for divorce in Illinois, had Augusta Cobb desired to do so on that basis. Divorce laws in the frontier Midwest were the most liberal in the country [7] and even were designed to attract migrating married women separating from their husbands. The frontier had imbalanced male-female ratios and employed competitive strategies to increase the marriage pool.

Only Mormons who were unaware or unreceptive of Joseph Smith’s 1843 plural marriage revelation (esp. D&C 132:61-63) would think that Brigham Young had entered into an adulterous relationship after leaving her legal husband.  Polyandrous marriages could be authorized under certain conditions provided that wife wasn’t “with” or “vowed to” (“under this law”) both husbands at once. Brigham Young’s marriage “for eternity” would seem to fit right in with Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriage (especially the subset of wives who had non-Mormon husbands).  Gregory L. Smith [8] and Brian C. Hales [9] have recent treatments on the subject which should be cited and engaged with from now on. Augusta Cobbs’ obituary [10] indicates a high degree of Mormon respect for a woman that gave up everything (including wealth and family) for the Gospel’s sake.

O’Donovan calls the judges handling Mr. Cobbs’ divorce hearings in Massachusetts as the activist judges of their day. However, they do not appear to be doing anything ground-breaking beyond their own state with Cobb v. Cobb, despite the publicity it received.  It appears to be an open and shut case as adultery was accepted grounds for divorce there. I am not familiar with the particulars of testimony in the case as O’Donovan is, but there is reason to be skeptical that Brigham consummated the plural marriage before the divorce.  A non-Mormon descendant takes the position that was the case even after the divorce [11]. Outside of Massachusetts’s jurisdiction, Brigham Young and Augusta Cobb were minimally affected by the eventual ruling. Thus Brigham had no reason to take out his marital frustration on so-called “inferiors” as O’Donovan imagines.

[1] Connell O’Donovan, “‘I would confine them to their own species’: LDS Historical Rhetoric & Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks”, Sunstone Symposium West (2009).

[2] There was somewhat of a parallel debate on whether the offspring of plural unions were inferior to that of monogamous couplings. Dean Jessee in “Brigham Young’s Family: the Wilderness Years,” BYU Studies 19:4 (Summer 1979)  gives an  anecdote of one of Young’s wives being told her child was smarter because of plurality, much to that wife’s annoyance.

[3] Connell O’Donovan, “The Mormon Priesthood Ban & Elder Q. Walker Lewis: ‘An example for his more whiter brethren to follow,’” John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (2006).

[4] M. Scott Bradshaw, “Joseph Smith’s Performance of Marriages in Ohio,” Brigham Young University Studies 39:4 (2000): 7–22. PDF link.

[5] US Historical Encyclopedia, “Divorce and Marital Separation”

[6] Neal R. Feigenson, “Extraterritorial Recognition of Divorce Decrees in the Nineteenth Century” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 119-167

[7] Timothy Crumrin, “Women and the Law in Early 19th-century Indiana,” (Publication Forthcoming).

[8] Gregory L. Smith, “Joseph Smith and Polyandry” (Publication Forthcoming).

[9] Brian C. Hales,  “The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.

[10] Obituary,  Deseret Evening News (Feb. 4, 1886)

[11] Mary Caple, “She Who Shall be Nameless,” American Heritage Magazine, 16/2 (Feb. 1965)

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. rcrocket says

    December 15, 2009 at 9:59 am

    I’ve always believed that there is something more to early 19th century concepts of divorce than meets the eye today. My favorite example is the Jackson marriage, which you point out. Jackson was later pilloried in the press by his marital relationship when he was campaigning for President but he was so wildly popular that it didn’t matter.

    In today’s Mexico, where divorce is so difficult for many people, divorce just doesn’t occur as a matter of law but occurs all the time as a matter of fact.

    In addition, local authorities were extremely hostile to empowering Mormon elders with any sort of clerical authority. Ohio wouldn’t license Mormon elders (meaning they couldn’t perform marriages) and I’ve always suspected that Church officials thereafter decided that divorce and marriage were private, religious matters that should not involve the state, due to the state’s hostility.

    Indeed, until Justinian co-opted marriage into the state with his Justian Code, marriage and divorce were not civil matters.

  2. JStone says

    January 16, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Notthing racist about this.

    The guy simply believed that any resulting children would be disadvantaged. Says a lot more about the US than it says about this man.

  3. Gail F. Bartholomew says

    February 16, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Keller,

    Why did you entitle this “Brigham Young on Interracial Marriage”. You write very little on this topic. A more appropriate title would be “Defending Brigham Young’s Polyandrous Marriage.”

    JStone,

    Are you saying that there is nothing racist about Brigham Young’s Views. Keller seems to have left out most of Brigham Young statements. One being:
    “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
    He spoke on several actions talking about death to those involved in interracial coupling.
    Brigham Young spoke to the Utah state legislature encouraging them to make interracial marriage illegal.
    In fact church leaders continued to peach against interracial Marriage even till Elder Mark E. Peterson in 1980.

    Keller,

    It sounds like you used the Cobb-Young marriage to divert attention away from the facts that clearly illustrate that the policy against blacks holding the priesthood were based on bigotry not revelation.

  4. Keller says

    February 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Gail,

    I agree with you that this post could be more appropriately titled. The Cobb-Young marriage being a distraction to addressing the more interesting issue of interracial marriage is probably the main point of this installment of a larger series on interracial marriage, so I can not fault you for agreeing with me :). My views on the ban’s origin are covered in http://en.fairmormon.org/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban , although that article needs more work. So I would advise not reading too much into what I have not covered here.

  5. DONETTA says

    February 18, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Many thanks!! Yet a typical nice article, this is exactly the key reason why my partner and I returned to all your blog page quite often.

Trackbacks

  1. FAIR Blog » Blog Archive » Troy Wynn on O’Donovan’s Soapbox says:
    February 11, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    […] critique of Connell O'Donovan's seminal work on the topic. Previous discussion can be found here at FAIR and at the Juvenile Instructor […]

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


RSS-Icon RSS Feed (all posts)

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FairMormon app
Android app on Google Play

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FairMormon Latest

  • How Do the Serpent and the Shewbread Symbolize Christ? (Gospel Doctrine Lesson 15A)
  • FairMormon Conference Podcast #5 – Ugo Perego, “What does the Church believe about evolution?”
  • What Were Israel’s Most Serious Provocations of the Lord in the Wilderness? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14B)
  • What Similarities Are There Between Egyptian and Israelite Temples? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14A)
  • Is There Any Evidence in Egyptian Sources for the Exodus? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 13C)

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Levi Hilton on FairMormon Questions: Does God call those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing?
  • Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on How Should We Understand the Rich Symbolism in Jacob’s Blessings of Judah and Joseph? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 12A)
  • Paul Adams on How Should We Understand the Rich Symbolism in Jacob’s Blessings of Judah and Joseph? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Lesson 12A)
  • Jeffrey M. Bradshaw on Was Noah Drunk or in a Vision? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 6B)
  • Jodi on Was Noah Drunk or in a Vision? (Old Testament Gospel Doctrine 6B)

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice.

Quick Links

  • About FairMormon
  • Bookstore
  • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
  • Website Feedback

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • iTunes
  • YouTube

Donate to FairMormon

We are a volunteer organization. If we have helped you, we invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2018 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FairMormon™ is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)