WI: Alt US-Mormon Relations

wolf_brother · Sep 16, 2012

It's almost become cliché in 19th century alternate history for the Mormons to be persecuted into fighting some sort of rag-tag ethnic-religious guerrilla war against the US government until a great power patron defeats the Americans, allowing the Mormons to form their own breakaway state, or until the US finally crushes the revolt and heavily persecutes the Mormons as a result. Though there were a few IOTL examples of violence between the US government and Mormons, they certainly were never persecuted to the same extent that of comparable minority groups in other industrialized countries of the period.

So what if relations were even better between the US and Mormons?

The build-up to the Utah War, the first clash between Mormons and the federal government, was largely built upon anti-Mormon prejudice, but was also due to the national politics of the period;

In 1849, the Mormons proposed that a large part of the territory which they inhabited be incorporated into the United States as the State of Deseret. Their primary concern was to be governed by men of their own choosing rather than "unsympathetic carpetbag appointees" whom they believed would be sent from Washington, D.C. if their region were given territorial status, as was customary. They believed that only through a state run by church leadership could they maintain their religious freedom. The U.S. Congress created the Utah Territory as part of the Compromise of 1850. President Millard Fillmore selected Brigham Young, President of the LDS Church, as the first governor of the Territory. The Mormons were pleased by the appointment, but gradually the amicable relationship between Mormons and the federal government broke down.

During the Presidential Election of 1856 a key plank of the newly formed Republican Party's platform was a pledge "to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery." The Republicans linked the Democratic principle of popular sovereignty to the acceptance of polygamy in Utah, and turned this accusation into a formidable political weapon. Popular sovereignty was the theoretical basis of the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This concept was meant to remove the divisive issue of slavery in the Territories from national debate, forestalling armed conflict between the North and South. But during the campaign, the Republican Party denounced the theory as protecting polygamy. Leading Democrats such as Stephen A. Douglas, formerly an ally of the Latter-day Saints, began to denounce Mormonism to save the concept of popular sovereignty. The Democrats believed that American attitudes toward polygamy had the potential of derailing the compromise on slavery. For the Democrats, attacks on Mormonism therefore had the dual purpose of disentangling polygamy from popular sovereignty, and distracting the nation from the ongoing battles over slavery.

In addition to popular election, many early LDS Church leaders received quasi-political administrative appointments at both the territorial and federal level, that coincided with their ecclesiastical roles; in particular were the powerful probate judges. As the U.S. Constitution outlines, these executive and judicial appointments were confirmed by the Territorial Legislature, which largely consisted of popularly elected Latter-day Saints. Additionally, LDS Church leaders counseled Latter-day Saints to use ecclesiastical arbitration to resolve disputes amongst church members before resorting to the more explicit legal system. Both Pres. Buchanan and the U.S. Congress saw these acts as obstructing, if not subverting, the operation of legitimate institutions of the United States.

These circumstances were not helped by the relationship between "Gentile"(non-Mormon) federal appointees and the Mormon territorial leadership. The territory's Organic Act held that the governor, federal judges, and other important territorial positions were to be filled by appointees chosen by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but without any reference to the will of Utah's population—as was standard for all territorial administration. Some federal officials sent by the President maintained essentially harmonious relationships with the Latter-day Saints. For instance, from 1853–1855, the territorial supreme court was composed of two non-Mormons and one Mormon. However, both of these non-Mormons were well respected in the Latter-day Saint community, and were genuinely mourned upon their deaths. Others had severe difficulties adjusting to the Mormon-dominated territorial government and the unique Mormon culture. Historian Norman Furniss relates that although some of these appointees were basically honest and well-meaning, many were highly prejudiced against the Mormons even before they arrived in the territory, were woefully unqualified for their positions, and some were down-right reprobate.

Beginning in 1851, a number of federal officers, some claiming that they feared for their physical safety, left their Utah appointments for the east. The stories of these "Runaway Officials" convinced the new President that the Mormons were nearing a state of rebellion against the authority of the United States. According to LDS historians James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, the most influential information came from William W. Drummond, an associate justice of the Utah territorial supreme court who began serving in 1854. Drummond's letter of resignation of March 30, 1857 contained charges that Young's power set aside the rule of law in the territory, that the Mormons had ignored the laws of Congress and the Constitution, and that male Mormons acknowledged no law but the priesthood. This account was further supported by Territorial Chief Justice Kinney in reports to Washington, where he recited examples of what he believed to be Brigham Young's perversion of Utah's judicial system and further urged his removal from office and the establishment of a U.S. Army garrison in the territory. There were further charges of treason, battery, theft, and fraud made by other officials including Federal Surveyors,[28] and Federal Indian Agents. Furniss states that most federal reports from Utah to Washington "left unclear whether the [Mormons] habitually kicked their dogs; otherwise their calendar of infamy in Utah was complete."

As early as 1852, Dr. John M. Bernhisel, Utah's Mormon delegate to Congress, had suggested that an impartial committee be sent to investigate the actual conditions in the territory. This call for an investigation was renewed during the crisis of 1857 by Bernhisel and even by Senator Stephen A. Douglas. However, the President would not wait. Under massive popular and political pressure, President Buchanan decided to take decisive action against the Mormons soon after his inauguration on March 4, 1857.

President Buchanan first decided to appoint a new governor in place of Brigham Young. The position was offered to several individuals who refused, and the President finally settled on Alfred Cumming during the summer. While Young became aware of the change in territorial administration through press reports and other sources, he received no official notification of his replacement until Cumming arrived in the Territory in November 1857. Buchanan also decided to send a force of 2,500 army troops to build a post in Utah and to act as a posse comitatus once the new governor had been installed.

So, what if national politics at the time are different. Suppose anyone other than Buchanan had been President in '57? Suppose Pierce was re-elected over Buchanan in the '56 Democratic Convention, or even Douglas beat out those two? The American party and Republicans in 1856 were notoriously weak at the time; the former were former pro-slavery Whigs teamed up with anti-immigrant Know-Nothings, while the latter were anti-slavery Whigs who had joined with Free Soilers. So lets' say Douglas wins out in '56 and becomes President. As an advocate of the popular sovereignty movement Douglas is going to have to take some action against the Mormons; however he's not in quite as weak of a position as, and has an entirely different character from, Buchanan, so instead of removing Young as Governor and sending in the troops he instigates an official inquiry into the status of the territory, which, though finding the Mormons separation of church and state to be rather flimsy, finds them to be just as patriotic and loyal to the US as any other American.

So what now? Young and the Church leadership likely gets a slap on the wrist; Young himself might be removed as Governor as in OTL, but ITTL it'll be with official notification, and there'll be no occupation of the territory by US troops. For the Mormons there's no Utah War, and no beginning to a bad history with the US government. Mormonism continues to spread unabated throughout the western half of the continent. On the national level the new President is seen as firm but generous, and in the 1858 elections the Republicans don't quite take control of the House, meaning the workings of government continue unabated - effectively the Civil War is put off by several years.

So, long term consequences? Comments, criticisms, questions?

SiddFinch1 · Sep 16, 2012

Perhaps it spreads faster than otl in this event. If civil war is delayed it may be even bloodier and if mormons try to lay low in wartime they could gain traction

wolf_brother · Sep 17, 2012

Bumping. No one else has anything to add?

Zioneer · Sep 17, 2012

Sounds plausible. You would probably have many groups wanting the Mormons to still be eradicated/punished anyway though.

This might butterfly Mountain Meadows, which would remove one of the darkest events in Mormon history.

wolf_brother · Sep 18, 2012

Zioneer said:
Sounds plausible. You would probably have many groups wanting the Mormons to still be eradicated/punished anyway though.

This might butterfly Mountain Meadows, which would remove one of the darkest events in Mormon history.

Granted, especially as even more people start to flow westward in search of gold & silver - especially when some of those people decide to stay and settle in the Mormon territories. However these'll be local issues, perhaps even a regional one in the territory itself and border states, but not one that'll reach the national level again. Republicans are likely to attack slavery out-right, as they did IOTL, after being defeated in '56 instead of continuing to hammer on Mormonism as a means to flank popular sovereignty.

EDIT: Which does bring up a question though; what about the rest of the US? What about the Republicans? We've already established they don't take the House in '58, though they still hold a plurality of the seats, so they're in power, but they have to balance a precarious coalition with anti-Lecompten Democrats, and Independents. Plus both the Oppositioners and the Know-Nothings are outside of both the major party's control, so they're real wild cards. That's going to make for some interesting politics, and a lot of juggling on the part of Pennington (there's no reason to assume that Sherman actually gets the Speakership ITTL, as all the pressures that kept him out of IOTL are even more powerful in this timeline). So now we have two big factions in the Republican party; the moderates, who themselves only favor slight reforms such as stronger tarriffs, homesteading, a state funding for a transcontinental railroad (they'll largely abandon Free-Soilism as they did IOTL), and, perhaps more importantly, are willing to work across the aisle, even with people with very different views and wants, will be pitted against the radicals, who will be wanting to outlaw slavery yesterday, and are pushing for Congressional oversight in the territories as opposed to popular sovereignty, and are vehemently against working with those who aren't ideologically pure. In this situation come '60 Lincoln likely doesn't get the nod at Chicago. Instead I'll bet its someone like Cameron, whose support IOTL gave Lincoln the leg up at the nomination. Cameron's in that same sweet spot of not-too-radical and not-too-moderate as Lincoln was IOTL, but with a lot more experience (and deeper pockets). Unfortunately, he's also not as enthusiastic as Lincoln, an doesn't stir the party faithful or the wider populace the way that happened IOTL. The Democrats won't implode as they did IOTL, so Douglas is likely re-elected (the Unionist's still won't have a long to stand on outside of the border states). Long-term consequences?

mowque · Sep 18, 2012

We could just butterfly less Mormons.

thekingsguard · Sep 18, 2012

OOC, why is it in Civil War Timelines, especially ones where the CSA wins the Civil War, the Mormons get cracked down on, usually after failing to rebel themselves. Is there some sort of historical precident? Would the CSA winning really worsen US-Mormon relations the way it seems to in these TLs, or is it just a trope?

wolf_brother · Sep 20, 2012

mowque said:
We could just butterfly less Mormons.

I'm not sure what you mean.

thekingsguard said:
OOC, why is it in Civil War Timelines, especially ones where the CSA wins the Civil War, the Mormons get cracked down on, usually after failing to rebel themselves. Is there some sort of historical precident? Would the CSA winning really worsen US-Mormon relations the way it seems to in these TLs, or is it just a trope?

As I said in the thread you opened on the subject, Turtledove did it. There's not really any OTL significance or precedent, its just something of an alternate history trope at this point.

---

Any one else?

Troyer IV · Sep 20, 2012

wolf_brother said:
It's almost become cliché in 19th century alternate history for the Mormons to be persecuted into fighting some sort of rag-tag ethnic-religious guerrilla war against the US government ...

So, long term consequences? Comments, criticisms, questions?

Many sources cite the Mormon's Nauvoo Legion as being the best-trained and possibly best-equipped militia organization in the United States at the time. I don't know how 'rag-tag' it might be, nor how 'ethnic' considering most Mormons were of European descent... Plus, the Mormons had prepared a clear stand-off during the short-lived, ill-named "Mormon War" in which there was no thought of guerrilla activity, but a straight show-down against US cavalry forces.

Now, if that escalated, sure... things could scatter and get interesting. Something else to consider is that Mormons typically had much better relations with the Native Americans in the region, many of whom did not care much for the rest of the United States...

Shurik · Sep 20, 2012

Perhaps unrelated, but I remember reading somewhere that: yes, Johnston did indeed establish his military garrison, and there was the so-called "Utah War", but that it was actually a pretty good proposition for the locals (Mormons) in that they sold an "enormous" amount of provisions to the army: raking in quite a sizable sum.
So, no military deployment = no fiscal windfall.

As to spreading out: spreading out to whom? There wasn't exactly a major settler population anywhere in the region to convert. Likewise, with minimal actual impact by the presence of the army, I don't see how it would have either slowed, or accelerated the spread of Mormonism in the region: no one really to butterfly conversion rates, and no real impact on the physical spreading out and establishing of settlements all over the SW.

Danbensen · Sep 20, 2012

I'm just arm-chairing here, but the lack of a decisive showdown between the US Federal Government and the Mormon settlers might lead the next generation of LDS elders to conclude that they can get away with more. A larger (both geographically and population-wise) and older Desert might evolve its own sense of nationality, and make Mormons a true ethnicity. They might hold themselves apart from the Civil War, and by the Gold Rush, they are firmly established in OTL Utah, Idaho, and western Montana. The Gold Rush will upset things because it will represent an influx of "Gentiles" into Mormon territory, and drive home the fact that Desert lacks natural resources (except maybe copper and silver in Montana?). LDS hawks might push for Desert sovereignty, and annexation of northern California, not as much for the gold as for the coastline. Of course if they do that, they'll have to expect retaliation...

Shurik · Sep 20, 2012

Danbensen said:
I'm just arm-chairing here, but the lack of a decisive showdown between the US Federal Government and the Mormon settlers might lead the next generation of LDS elders to conclude that they can get away with more. A larger (both geographically and population-wise) and older Desert might evolve its own sense of nationality, and make Mormons a true ethnicity. They might hold themselves apart from the Civil War, and by the Gold Rush, they are firmly established in OTL Utah, Idaho, and western Montana. The Gold Rush will upset things because it will represent an influx of "Gentiles" into Mormon territory, and drive home the fact that Desert lacks natural resources (except maybe copper and silver in Montana?). LDS hawks might push for Desert sovereignty, and annexation of northern California, not as much for the gold as for the coastline. Of course if they do that, they'll have to expect retaliation...

Lack's natural resources? Ever heard of Bingham? And Utah alone has plenty of coal fields...
That's just what I can ID off the top of my memory.

mrmandias · Sep 20, 2012

the Gold Rush happened before the Civil War, your chronology is off.

Danbensen said:
I'm just arm-chairing here, but the lack of a decisive showdown between the US Federal Government and the Mormon settlers might lead the next generation of LDS elders to conclude that they can get away with more. A larger (both geographically and population-wise) and older Desert might evolve its own sense of nationality, and make Mormons a true ethnicity. They might hold themselves apart from the Civil War, and by the Gold Rush, they are firmly established in OTL Utah, Idaho, and western Montana. The Gold Rush will upset things because it will represent an influx of "Gentiles" into Mormon territory, and drive home the fact that Desert lacks natural resources (except maybe copper and silver in Montana?). LDS hawks might push for Desert sovereignty, and annexation of northern California, not as much for the gold as for the coastline. Of course if they do that, they'll have to expect retaliation...

Zioneer · Sep 21, 2012

mrmandias said:
the Gold Rush happened before the Civil War, your chronology is off.

Some interesting facts about the Gold Rush; Samuel Brennan (the guy on whose property gold was found), was an ex-Mormon, and sent a letter along the lines of "hey I found gold, we could be rich, could you let me back in now" to Brigham Young. Young let him back in the church, but refused to let any Mormons (at least those he could stop) go to California to search for gold, since he knew that the "Gentiles" would overwhelm the Mormon gold-seekers, and that the Church wouldn't get much money from it anyway. Samuel Brennan never really went back into Mormonism after that; he wanted the Mormons to all come to California instead of remaining in Utah, and suggested just that during the last stretch of the Mormon Exodus to Utah.

Instead, they chose a smarter modus operandi; they sold provisions at outrageous prices to non-Mormon gold seekers passing through Utah on the way to California. An LDS historical blogger than I frequently read described the situation as "the Mormons were perfectly fine with being socialists among themselves and the greediest capitalists you'd ever meet to the Gentiles".

wolf_brother · Sep 21, 2012

Troyer IV said:
Many sources cite the Mormon's Nauvoo Legion as being the best-trained and possibly best-equipped militia organization in the United States at the time. I don't know how 'rag-tag' it might be, nor how 'ethnic' considering most Mormons were of European descent... Plus, the Mormons had prepared a clear stand-off during the short-lived, ill-named "Mormon War" in which there was no thought of guerrilla activity, but a straight show-down against US cavalry forces.

Now, if that escalated, sure... things could scatter and get interesting. Something else to consider is that Mormons typically had much better relations with the Native Americans in the region, many of whom did not care much for the rest of the United States...

1854 is quite a bit and aways from 1838.

Also I opened this thread to explore what would happen if there were better US-Mormon relations, due to no Utah War - not ones from a TL with a worse war.

Shurik said:
Perhaps unrelated, but I remember reading somewhere that: yes, Johnston did indeed establish his military garrison, and there was the so-called "Utah War", but that it was actually a pretty good proposition for the locals (Mormons) in that they sold an "enormous" amount of provisions to the army: raking in quite a sizable sum.
So, no military deployment = no fiscal windfall.

As to spreading out: spreading out to whom? There wasn't exactly a major settler population anywhere in the region to convert. Likewise, with minimal actual impact by the presence of the army, I don't see how it would have either slowed, or accelerated the spread of Mormonism in the region: no one really to butterfly conversion rates, and no real impact on the physical spreading out and establishing of settlements all over the SW.

While some local Mormons did make a quite a killing selling surplus supplies to the US Army garrison, quite a few others were none too happen about the entire situation. Young mobilized the Nauvoo Legion in anticipation of battle with the US army. Remember; the Mormons didn't know what was going on, or why, or what the American's goals were. All they knew was by word of mouth - that Young was being replaced as governor for reasons unknown, and that the US military was sending a regiment to the territory.

Also, I'm not sure why you refer to it as the 'so-called "Utah War'". It certainly was a conflict between the US federal government and the Mormons, similar in size and scope to contemporary conflicts between the Americans and various native tribes. I'm not so sure what you would call the raids the Nauvoo Legion launched against the Utah Expedition as it entered Mormon territory.

As to spreading out, there were Mormon settler colonies quite far away from Utah but which reported to Salt Lake City in the surrounding states and territories. Many of them were ordered to, and did, leave their homes in order to consolidate with the man body in order to centralize the Mormon's effort in the upcoming war. Without any real knowledge beyond that the US federal government was sending army troops into Utah and Young was being removed as Governor, the Mormons feared the worst; a repeat of what had happened in Missouri, where state militia had forced them to flee. So the Mormons fled their homes for Salt Lake, even quite of lot of those in the Utah territory but who lived in smaller communities abandoned their settlements for the city. Hell, they burned down their homes and property, stocked food, supplies, and melted down most of their metal into ammo, or cast for guns. All the Mormon missionaries serving abroad were recalled. The Mormons really thought this was going to be an all out war.

If events are different though, if the Mormon community knows from the start that there's merely an investigation spurred on by 'Gentile lies' into the Territory, then none of that happens. So Mormonism spreads out across the Western states quite rapidly ITTL.

Danbensen said:
I'm just arm-chairing here, but the lack of a decisive showdown between the US Federal Government and the Mormon settlers might lead the next generation of LDS elders to conclude that they can get away with more. A larger (both geographically and population-wise) and older Desert might evolve its own sense of nationality, and make Mormons a true ethnicity. They might hold themselves apart from the Civil War, and by the Gold Rush, they are firmly established in OTL Utah, Idaho, and western Montana. The Gold Rush will upset things because it will represent an influx of "Gentiles" into Mormon territory, and drive home the fact that Desert lacks natural resources (except maybe copper and silver in Montana?). LDS hawks might push for Desert sovereignty, and annexation of northern California, not as much for the gold as for the coastline. Of course if they do that, they'll have to expect retaliation...

Shurik said:
Lack's natural resources? Ever heard of Bingham? And Utah alone has plenty of coal fields...
That's just what I can ID off the top of my memory.

mrmandias said:
the Gold Rush happened before the Civil War, your chronology is off.

Zioneer said:
Some interesting facts about the Gold Rush; Samuel Brennan (the guy on whose property gold was found), was an ex-Mormon, and sent a letter along the lines of "hey I found gold, we could be rich, could you let me back in now" to Brigham Young. Young let him back in the church, but refused to let any Mormons (at least those he could stop) go to California to search for gold, since he knew that the "Gentiles" would overwhelm the Mormon gold-seekers, and that the Church wouldn't get much money from it anyway. Samuel Brennan never really went back into Mormonism after that; he wanted the Mormons to all come to California instead of remaining in Utah, and suggested just that during the last stretch of the Mormon Exodus to Utah.

Instead, they chose a smarter modus operandi; they sold provisions at outrageous prices to non-Mormon gold seekers passing through Utah on the way to California. An LDS historical blogger than I frequently read described the situation as "the Mormons were perfectly fine with being socialists among themselves and the greediest capitalists you'd ever meet to the Gentiles".

Danbensen, that's very roughly along the same lines as to what I was thinking long-term for Mormon-US relations ITTL, though not to the same extent as you. They're better than IOTL, but only because the clash never came. That's going to affect not only how each side views the other, but also how they view themselves, which for the Mormons is going to unleash a lot of butterflies. I sincerely doubt the Mormons ITTL will try to secede - they have no reason to. But they'll certainly hold themselves to be a world apart, and as more Gentiles enter their territory things will start to come to a head.

Shurik, how readily accessible were those resources at the time of the Utah War? Bingham Canyon doesn't seem like it became a serious mining operation until the turn of the century. The same issue seems to be with the the coal fields you show; Coalville doesn't seem to have become a mining operation until after the OTL Utah War, Lost Creek doesn't appear to have even been settled until the 1860s, etc.

mrmandias, the California Gold Rush did take place in the 1840s & 50s, but there's also the Colorado Gold Rush and the Holcomb Valley Rush, as well as the various rushes in British Colombia in the 1850s and 1860s to consider. So by the time of the OTL Utah War there were still plenty of Gentiles streaming through Utah Territory in search of precious metals; and not just gold. The Comestock Lode happened contemporary to the Utah War, so that's even more miners arriving in the Utah Territory.

Zioneer, you raise an interesting point. Utah was hardly the 'promised land' that the Mormons had wanted from the get-go, and after the assassination of Smith and the ensuing succession crisis not every, or I would say even a plurality, of Mormons followed Young in Utah. Without the Utah War, and as Mormonism spreads out across the Western states, what do you think the probability is for a) Mormonism to remain fractured, and b) for a second wave of Mormon emigrants to continue onto California?

mrmandias · Sep 21, 2012

wolf_brother said:
Zioneer, you raise an interesting point. Utah was hardly the 'promised land' that the Mormons had wanted from the get-go, and after the assassination of Smith and the ensuing succession crisis not every, or I would say even a plurality, of Mormons followed Young in Utah. Without the Utah War, and as Mormonism spreads out across the Western states, what do you think the probability is for a) Mormonism to remain fractured, and b) for a second wave of Mormon emigrants to continue onto California?

Not very likely either one. The Utah War didn't do a whole lot to cement Brigham Young's authority. It was the trek west, the associated hardships, and the need for continued organization in face of a harsh landscape that did it.

Shurik · Sep 21, 2012

wolf_brother said:
While some local Mormons did make a quite a killing selling surplus supplies to the US Army garrison, quite a few others were none too happen about the entire situation. Young mobilized the Nauvoo Legion in anticipation of battle with the US army. Remember; the Mormons didn't know what was going on, or why, or what the American's goals were. All they knew was by word of mouth - that Young was being replaced as governor for reasons unknown, and that the US military was sending a regiment to the territory.

Also, I'm not sure why you refer to it as the 'so-called "Utah War'". It certainly was a conflict between the US federal government and the Mormons, similar in size and scope to contemporary conflicts between the Americans and various native tribes. I'm not so sure what you would call the raids the Nauvoo Legion launched against the Utah Expedition as it entered Mormon territory.

As to spreading out, there were Mormon settler colonies quite far away from Utah but which reported to Salt Lake City in the surrounding states and territories. Many of them were ordered to, and did, leave their homes in order to consolidate with the man body in order to centralize the Mormon's effort in the upcoming war. Without any real knowledge beyond that the US federal government was sending army troops into Utah and Young was being removed as Governor, the Mormons feared the worst; a repeat of what had happened in Missouri, where state militia had forced them to flee. So the Mormons fled their homes for Salt Lake, even quite of lot of those in the Utah territory but who lived in smaller communities abandoned their settlements for the city. Hell, they burned down their homes and property, stocked food, supplies, and melted down most of their metal into ammo, or cast for guns. All the Mormon missionaries serving abroad were recalled. The Mormons really thought this was going to be an all out war.

If events are different though, if the Mormon community knows from the start that there's merely an investigation spurred on by 'Gentile lies' into the Territory, then none of that happens. So Mormonism spreads out across the Western states quite rapidly ITTL.

Shurik, how readily accessible were those resources at the time of the Utah War? Bingham Canyon doesn't seem like it became a serious mining operation until the turn of the century. The same issue seems to be with the the coal fields you show; Coalville doesn't seem to have become a mining operation until after the OTL Utah War, Lost Creek doesn't appear to have even been settled until the 1860s, etc.

I refer to the Utah war in quotations given that despite preparations for all out war, actaul armed engagements were very limited, and individuals killed via direct action were fewer than 50 (that is... not counting the very unfortunate incidents in southern Utah). And it isn't quite accurate to say they "...melted down most of their metal into ammo, or cast for guns...". They did manufacture some guns, produced ammo, and turned some scythes into bayonets. But it wasn't anything like WWII Japan either; melting tin pots into guns.
Likewise, there were preperations made for large scale destruction of their facilities (via burning, as indicated), however, the need never presented itself, and the valley was spared the torch.
And regarding spreading out, as you yourself mentioned, the Mormons were already very actively engaged in a colonization program of the region which, while temporarily interupted as you pointed out, very rapidly resumed post conflict. Therefore, with an agressive program both before, and after, I think it's safe to assume there would be relatively little change in the overall, long-term progress of the program.

As to minerals, if we're taking '57~`58, or during the conflict, the Bingham deposits were known about: albeit not in their entirety. A quick check up shows the desposits were first discovered in '48, although exploitation didn't begin due to lack of interest (the area was used for grazing, and hence, not too much attention was paid) until '63.
As to coal:
"...1854 territorial legislature offered a cash prize (apparently never collected) for the first usable coal deposits found within forty miles of Salt Lake City. Initial discoveries ranged farther afield, usually in conjunction with infant iron industries encouraged by the Saints' drive toward self-sufficiency. From the 1850s through the 1870s several coal prospects opened..."

So, I suppose that given your POD in '57, and assuming the Mormons are somehow aware of the more benevolent attituded of the USG in general, they might have felt more comfortable and secure where they were, and perhaps might have been more eager to invest in long term projects: jump starting the coal and copper a few years earlier. Not much, but some.

wolf_brother · Sep 22, 2012

mrmandias said:
Not very likely either one. The Utah War didn't do a whole lot to cement Brigham Young's authority. It was the trek west, the associated hardships, and the need for continued organization in face of a harsh landscape that did it.

But even at the time of the Utah War IOTL Young and the Utah Mormons weren't the sole or even majority Mormon movement. There were also the Rigdonites in Pennsylvanian, the Hedrickites that stayed in Missouri, the still-forming "New Organization" in Illinoius, and the Strangites in Wisconsin.

I'm not saying Young wasn't firmly in charge of the Utah Mormons at the time of the Utah War, that much I'll concede, but the allure of gold applies to Mormons just as much as it does to Gentiles, and with more Mormon expansionism and decentralization in general ITTL I found it hard to believe that Salt Lake City will remain the undisputed center of all Mormon thought on the east coast. Especially as the Mormons in the Utah Territory struggle to integrate the new Gentile settlers and the mostly Gentile government put in place by the US.

Shurik said:
So, I suppose that given your POD in '57, and assuming the Mormons are somehow aware of the more benevolent attituded of the USG in general, they might have felt more comfortable and secure where they were, and perhaps might have been more eager to invest in long term projects: jump starting the coal and copper a few years earlier. Not much, but some.

That alone is likely going to have a severe impact on the local sociopolitical environment. Mormons opening up lucrative coal and copper mines while Gentiles are passing through the region heading for gold and silver rushes further east - eventually some of the latter are going to decide to settle into the Utah Territory to take advantage of the easier operations presented before them, and if enough do so in a short amount of time its going to upset the previous sociopolitical order.

Shurik · Sep 22, 2012

wolf_brother said:
I'm not saying Young wasn't firmly in charge of the Utah Mormons at the time of the Utah War, that much I'll concede, but the allure of gold applies to Mormons just as much as it does to Gentiles, and with more Mormon expansionism and decentralization in general ITTL I found it hard to believe that Salt Lake City will remain the undisputed center of all Mormon thought on the east coast. Especially as the Mormons in the Utah Territory struggle to integrate the new Gentile settlers and the mostly Gentile government put in place by the US.

You mean West coast, of course.

As to their staying HQ'ed in SLC, they believed it was divinely apointed that they would. From the whole "This-is-the-place" bit by Brigham Young, to what was ID'ed as scripture stating such.

Sure, there were some who went, but with Young very much opposed to the idea of relocating out there, those who go will be relatively few. Unless you can change his mind somehow?
Maybe Sam Brannan somehow stays a Mormon, and does a better job of selling the idea?

mrmandias · Sep 26, 2012

wolf_brother said:
But even at the time of the Utah War IOTL Young and the Utah Mormons weren't the sole or even majority Mormon movement. There were also the Rigdonites in Pennsylvanian, the Hedrickites that stayed in Missouri, the still-forming "New Organization" in Illinoius, and the Strangites in Wisconsin.

the utah Mormons *were* a majority and didn't really recognize these groups as part of their movement. In any case, these groups mostly lacked staying power and dynamism.