Joe Geisner wrote:There are five, maybe six historians who I trust when it comes to Nauvoo. Many try to either white wash or cover for Joseph Smith, or both.
I asked one of these friends if he had thoughts on this post and he was kind enough to do a write-up that I think is an excellent addition to this thread:
Yeah, I do have a few thoughts on this. I'm sorry it has taken so long to get to them, but it's been really busy around here. You are more than welcome to repost this if you would like to.
First off, the perspective of who these statements were written/said to is needed.
The 1841 letter was written to Horace Hotchkiss, a man to whom Joseph Smith owed what would correctly be termed a boatload (or other adjectives) of money to. The purpose of the letter was to plead for an extension on land payments which were constantly coming due. With the current fiasco with banks going on, how are modern homeowners speaking with their lenders? Aren't they using somewhat similar language in trying to renegotiate loans? Joseph Smith was writing of the purchase the same way someone would write to their creditor today, "the value has plummeted, and there are more than a dozen homes on the block that are now vacant," while when they put it up for sale they would write "it's in a quiet neighborhood"! He is attempting to put the property in the worst possible light to the creditor as an excuse for not being able to make the interest payment, hoping that it will get him off the hook. "I've had some medical bills, can't we add another month onto the end of the loan instead?" It's the same thing.
But best of all, and this is one that I have seen used recently, "you come and take the premises, and make the best you can of it, or stand off and give us an opportunity that we may manage the concern". I don't think I even need to make a modern parallel here.
The 1843 statement is under completely different circumstances. The audience is potential purchasers. When anyone goes to sell a car, are they going to say "I haven't changed the oil in 5,000 miles, and the left rear tire is bald," or are they going to say, "the interior is in great shape, and I just put new wipers on"?
What is being picked at is the hyperbole of two different sales jobs. Nauvoo was neither as good nor as bad as what both statements (or any of the other sales jobs) make it out to be. I know that there are a lot of accounts of how Commerce was nothing but a mosquito-filled swamp that was only made inhabitable through the sacrifice of the Latter-day Saints, and that there were only six buildings in the entire area. However, that's misleading. Ever hear Bill Cosby talk about walking to school in the snow, uphill both ways? When it comes time to tell the tale, people always try to make themselves out to be the hero. It was no different with the founding of Nauvoo. Were there only six buildings? Well, a close look at the statement about that shows that it was between Commerce and the White cabin (now known as the Homestead) that there were six buildings, and that Commerce itself had a couple dozen. The southern half of the peninsula was "with difficulty that a footman could get through," but you could easily take a heavily loaded wagon to Commerce up at the north end.
Was there a lot of death and sickness during the Nauvoo years? You betcha. Was it as bad as we are taught in Sunday school? Nope. A fairly recent study has shown that in 1840 Nauvoo had a mortality rate of approximately 23 per 1,000, and in 1845 it decreased slightly to 22 per 1,000. (See Evan L. Ivie and Douglas C. Heiner, "Deaths in Early Nauvoo, 1839-46, and Winter Quarters, 1846-48" The Religious Educator 10.3 (2009): 171.
https://rsc.BYU.edu/sites/default/files ... 20Body.pdf ) When compared with New York, that was pretty darned good. NYC proper had 25/1,000 in 1840 and 27/1,000 in 1845. ("Death-rate. (City and County of New York, 1810 to 1865.)" in Annual report of the Metropolitan Board of Health. 1866. [New York: C. S. Westcott & Co.'s Union Printing-House, 1867], 9.) Chicago was even worse, having a rate of 28/1,000 in 1845. (James Langland, comp., "Chicago mortality statistics." Chicago Daily News Almanac and Year-Book for 1908 [Chicago: Chicago Daily News Company, 1907], 476. Chicago didn't start keeping statistics until 1844.) So, even though there were huge numbers of early deaths in Nauvoo, they were quite comparable with other cities in the United States.
Since the discussion has carried that direction, I think it would be good to mention that in the 3 February 1841 meeting of the Nauvoo City Council, discussions were held for a board of health, similar to cities on the east coast. On 30 January 1843, a couple of months before the second statement to a group of new arrivals from England, the city council had enacted two different ordinances that had direct bearing on public health. The first was "An ordinance in relation to internments", which declared that burials must be "fully six feed deep from the surface," and that the city sexton "shall record the names and ages of all persons deceased, coming to his knowledge, and the nature of the diseases of which they died". The second was "Laws and ordinances of the City of Nauvoo". This one had quite a few particulars in divisions 2 and 3 regarding where waste could be thrown, the disposal of carcasses, the draining stagnant water, and nuisances from tanners, skinners, and dyers. The fourth division was all about fire prevention.
Regarding the health of the Flats, it should be noted that when the Mormons first came the southern half of the peninsula was swamp, but with the drainage ditch along Durphy St, most of the issues surrounding it were gone by 1842. A great article on this topic was published by Kyle M. Rollins, Richard D. Smith, M. Brett Borup, and E. James Nelson, "Transforming Swampland into Nauvoo, the City Beautiful: A Civil Engineering Perspective" BYU Studies 45.3 (2006): 125-157,
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7197 . Even though it's in BYU Studies, it is excellent work.
Additionally, records show that while the Flats were originally the more unhealthy section of town, by the time of the 1843 statement by Smith it is arguable. Of Nauvoo's six tanneries, only one was on the Flats; both slaughterhouses were either on or at the base of the Bluff; all five of the horse breeders and all four potteries were on the Bluff; and the majority of the hatters were also up there. So, even though the Flats were closer to the bugs, the Bluff was where the majority of the industrial polluters were. One more thing that isn't thought of all that much anymore was the constant smoke that came out of the chimneys burning either wood or coal. Guess which location would have been breathing more of it in! Best of all, when the wind blows in Nauvoo, it usually blows from the west, meaning that all the smoke and foul smells of the city were blown uptown. I don't know about you, but I believe I would rather deal with bugs than the constant stench and smog of a 19th century town.
Financially, Joseph Smith was in a very precarious situation with the purchases of land. I know that Flanders and others have said that the terms were very generous, but in actuality, they were exorbitant prices and a constant source of stress and occasional panic for Smith. It wasn't just Hotchkiss that he owed. There were purchases from William White, Hugh White and Isaac Galland that had to be paid, too, so that about every six months, Smith had to come up with a couple thousand dollars to give one or each of them. Unless he was constantly selling property, he couldn't make the payments, and if he didn't make the payments, he and the church could be foreclosed on. It doesn't hurt to likewise remember that he had huge personal debts as well, and was unsuccessful in his bankruptcy attempt, unlike 99% of the rest of the applicants. There would have been no escaping either the stigma, and unless the person being foreclosed upon surrendered literally his entire estate to his creditors, he could be imprisoned! (See Illinois State Constitution, 1818, Article 8, Section 15, Revised Laws of Illinois [1833], 46.) With this constant stress, who could blame Smith for a hard sell?
I think I've probably bored you enough now.
