Joseph's Swamp

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Perhaps it will help focus if we just concentrate on one point at a time. Let's start with the earlier point, that Joseph Smith admitted to Hotchkiss in his 1841 letter that he was inducing people to purchase the property when he knew it was a sickly death hole. Forget the 1843 assurance for now, we can address that after we're done with this first problem.

Here again is the letter:

“NAUVOO, August 25, 1841.

To Horace R. Hotchkiss, Esq., New Haven, Connecticut:

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 24th ultimo came to hand this day, the contents of which I duly appreciate. I presume you are well aware of the difficulties that occurred before, and at the execution of the writings in regard to the land transaction between us, touching the annual payment of interest: if you have forgotten, I will here remind you, you verbally agreed on our refusal and hesitancy to execute the notes for the payment of the land, that you would not exact the payment of the interest that would accrue on them under five years, and that you would not coerce the payment even then; to all this you pledged your honor; and upon an after arrangement you verbally agreed to take land in some one of the Atlantic States, that would yield six per cent interest (to you) both for the principal and interest, and in view of that matter, I delegated my brother Hyrum and Dr. Isaac Galland to go east and negotiate for lands with our friends, and pay you off for the whole purchase that we made of you; but upon an interview with you, they learned that you were unwilling to enter into an arrangement according to the powers that I had delegated to them; that you would not receive any of the principal at all, but the interest alone, which we never considered ourselves in honor or in justice bound to pay under the expiration of five years. I presume you are no stranger to the part of the city plat we bought of you being a deathly sickly hole, and that we have not been able in consequence to realize any valuable consideration from it, although we have been keeping up appearances, and holding out inducements to encourage immigration, that we scarcely think justifiable in consequence of the mortality that almost invariably awaits those who come from far distant parts (and that with a view to enable us to meet our engagements), and now to be goaded by you, for a breach of good faith, and neglect and dishonorable conduct, seems to me to be almost beyond endurance.

You are aware that we came from Missouri destitute of everything but physical force, had nothing but our energies and perseverance to rely upon to meet the payment of the extortionate sum that you exacted for the land we had of you. Have you no feelings of commiseration? Or is it your design to crush us with a ponderous load before we are able to walk? Or can you better dispose of the property than we are doing for your interest? If so, to the alternative.

I therefore propose, in order to avoid the perplexity and annoyance that has hitherto attended the transaction, that 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, and enable ourselves by the management thereof to meet our engagements, as was originally contemplated.

We have taken a city plat at Warsaw (at the head of navigation for vessels of heavy tonnage) on the most advantageous terms: the proprietors waiting upon us for the payment of the plat, until we can realize the money from the sales, leaving to ourselves a large and liberal net profit. We have been making every exertion, and used all the means at our command to lay a foundation that will now begin to enable us to meet our pecuniary engagements, and no doubt in our minds to the entire satisfaction of all those concerned, if they will but exercise a small degree of patience, and stay a resort to coercive measures which would kill us in the germ, even before we can (by reason of the season) begin to bud and blossom in order to bring forth a plentiful yield of fruit.

I am, with considerations of high respect, Your obedient servant, Joseph Smith.”


Now, if I understand her correctly, jersey girl agrees that Joseph Smith' description was correct. In 1841, the land was still a sickly death hole. Bob also agreed that this was an accurate description of the situation in 1841.

I later provided evidence that demonstrates what the inducement was - it was sending out representatives, like Granger or the 12, to persuade saints "abroad" to either purchase or trade land. This inducement was couched within religious terms.

Jersey Girl keeps stating that this was business. Yet this doesn't make sense as a rebuttal, given her agreement that it was a sickly death hole at the time. I don't recall Bob addressing this specific point, so I invite him to do so now.

Again, let's focus on the 1841 issue, and set aside the 1843 issue for now.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Post by _DonBradley »

It seems to me that more information is needed to make a definite judgment on whether Joseph Smith knowingly palmed off--in the name of God--lands he knew to be dangerous in 1843.

Where, exactly, were the lands Joseph Smith owned but had not yet sold? What was the condition of these lands in 1843?--how drained or wet were they? Was there a clear difference in mortality between these areas and the upper part of town in 1843?

If the lands Smith then had for sale were still poorly drained, and those areas still had a clearly higher rate of illness and/or mortality, then Joseph Smith woud indeed have been knowingly endangering others' lives, in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, he likely was not knowingly endangering lives, even if he was, perhaps, using his position as prophet to help him sell land.

Don
DISCLAIMER: Life is short. So I'm here to discuss scholarship, not apologetic-critical debate.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

It seems to me that more information is needed to make a definite judgment on whether Joseph Smith knowingly palmed off--in the name of God--lands he knew to be dangerous in 1843.

Where, exactly, were the lands Joseph Smith owned but had not yet sold? What was the condition of these lands in 1843?--how drained or wet were they? Was there a clear difference in mortality between these areas and the upper part of town in 1843?

If the lands Smith then had for sale were still poorly drained, and those areas still had a clearly higher rate of illness and/or mortality, then Joseph Smith woud indeed have been knowingly endangering others' lives, in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, he likely was not knowingly endangering lives, even if he was, perhaps, using his position as prophet to help him sell land.


I agree that more information is needed on that particular point. That's the reason I'd like to focus more on the 1841 letter for the moment, because I think the information we need is right there in the letter, along with the sources that explain the "inducements".
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

beastie wrote:
You can google it, beastie.




You said you provided the evidence, Jersey.

Between this round and the previous times I discussed this, I have spent quite a bit of time googling information on this topic. I've been providing quite a bit of source citation on this thread. I don't think it's too much to ask that you share what you said you already shared on this thread.


Holy flippin' hell in a handbasket, beastie. I didn't say I provided "evidence". This is what I said:

"I've provided that the malaria outbreaks lasted 3 summers. What evidence are you looking for? You can look it up on any number of internet sites."

And you said:

"Where did you provide the evidence of that assertion? I must have missed a post of yours somewhere. This assertion contradicts other contemporary statements, such as the one I provided on page one, which clearly stated that the deaths continued."

And then I said:

"You can google it, beastie."

And now you post this:


"You said you provided the evidence, Jersey.

Between this round and the previous times I discussed this, I have spent quite a bit of time googling information on this topic. I've been providing quite a bit of source citation on this thread. I don't think it's too much to ask that you share what you said you already shared on this thread."

No, beastie I didn't say that I provided evidence. I infact asked you what type of evidence you were looking for and twice advised that you can look it up on the internet. I really don't care how much time you invest in google searches for a topic on a message board. I certainly have no interest in doing so for a thread in this particular forum. You asked folks to shed light on the issues and that's what I responded to.

Third time. If you want to find information regarding the three summers of malaria outbreaks, you can google up the information regarding the 3 summers.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

It was confusing to me for you to assert that you "provided that it lasted three summers" in response to my post which asserted that you and Bob had only been offering assertions, without supporting evidence.

The reason I told you I've done many searches on this is because none that I could find specified it only lasted three summers. You have to google in "three summers" to find these references. When I googled the specific phrase, two sources made the claim without evidentiary support, much like you and Bob have. Yet on these same searches I find journal entries, such as the ones I've provided, that reference continuing struggles with malaria.

I would like to know how you formed the idea that the malaria problem was limited to the first three years, but if you don't want to share where or how you formed that idea, it's your prerogative.

Here's what I found making the assertion without supporting evidence:

http://www.farwesthistory.com/dcsmith.asp

http://www.rootsweb.com/~pahuntin/cunningham-john.htm

Once again, I would like to focus on the 1841 letter. I don't fully understand your position on it. You keep saying it was a business maneuver, and yet agree that the place was a sickly death hole at the time. Yet you also say no one was misled. Could you clarify this position?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

I took would like Jersey Girl to clarify her stance on the 1841 letter. Either the place was a sickly death hole or it wasn't. If it was, then he wasn't lying to Hotchkiss, but what do you call inducements that are scarcely justifiable, given to those to whom he was trying to sell the land? If it wasn't a sickly death hole anymore, then how was it not dishonest to withold that information from Hotchkiss, but keep using it's now former situation to influence Hotchkiss's opinion?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Bob complained that I ignored his sources, so I am going respond to them now.


When Joseph Smith found himself unable to pay the debt, he described the property's drawbacks to obtain relief. He did so accurately But those drawbacks were relatively quickly erased with the effects of drainage.


You agree that he described the property’s drawbacks in his 1841 letter accurately, but have never addressed the fact that – by his own admission – he was still inducing settlers to purchase (or trade for) the land. By his own admission he states they were offering inducements they could scarcely justify given the mortality that awaited.

I’d like your reaction to this specific point.


But, Leonard's Nauvoo book is a great resource on this point.

Also, a National Park Service report at

www.nps.gov/jeff/historyculture/upload/Mormons.pdf


I had already read this “Museum Gazette”. It gives no specific information about malaria. I have no idea why you thought it offered pertinent information. I’m asking for very specific information and you give me a link to a pamphlet that says, basically, the Mormons survived a malaria epidemic. I’m underwhelmed.

The First Presidency issued a warning to the Saints in a proclamation in 1841 that the "northwestern portion" of the City (which would have been the Hotchkiss portion; I've been there an run through the area; it is low-lying) was said by some to be unhealtful but that the problem "can be easily remedied by draining the sloughs." HC 4:268. The city was sparsely settled in 1841; it was that year the legislature granted the charter. Thereafter, as Glenn Lenoard's Nauvoo points out, speculators bid up the low-lying lots so that they were the most expensive . Flanders talks about the malaria and drainage issues in Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi, pp. 53 and 54. Flanders was not a member of the Church.


You said you agreed that Joseph Smith described the land accurately in 1841 as a sickly death hole. Now you claim the problem could be easily remedied by draining the sloughs (assuming you agree with the First Presidency statement). Gee. If the problem could be solved that easily, why did so many people die? And how was Joseph Smith’ description accurate if it really wasn’t a sickly death hole, but rather a minor problem easily remedied?

Bennett was a remarkable man. Although immoral, his scientific professional accomplishments were extraordinary and noteworthy. He was one of the earliest tomato plant breeders. (That is the wrong word for vegetables, but whatever.) His obtaining the charter for the City was also quite an amazing feat of lobbying. The only person in Nauvoo in 1841 of any scientific ability was Bennett; everybody else was self-taught.


I imagine you wouldn’t be so eager to trust Bennett’s willingness to be upfront and honest when he was describing Joseph Smith’ polygamy. Bennett said whatever served his purposes at the moment.

I guess if you keep repeating yourself, Trix, you'll convince the already convinced. Apostacy breeds deception.


Ah, I love it when you reveal your true nature.

Hotchkiss saw the value of the site and was a "city-building" speculator himself, mapping out a city. His site was unique, in that it was virtually the only low-level flat area adjacent to the river for many miles, making it prime for river-traffic business. (One only need look at Keokuk and Davenport and other major Iowa cities to see what this means). But, he couldn't attract settlers and sold it to the Mormons, albeit, for a high price in comparison to adjacent tracts. The Mormons paid a high price because they knew its value.


Irrelevant.

But the cure was drainage. "Gradually this land was drained, the Saints were persuaded to use water from deep wells instead of surface water, and the scourge of fever began to disappear. Advertisements for pills and powders that would surely cure "chills and fever" no longer appeared with such frequency on the last page of the Times and Seasons." Inez Smith Davis, "The Story of the Church," chapter 31.


This is indirect, weak evidence. There could be other reasons for the reduction in advertisements, and likely there was, since the people who had already been infected and still suffered with periodic symptoms wouldn’t suddenly stop looking for relief.

Obviously, drainage helps resolve the problem. I’ve never denied that. I just want to know a reasonable time frame, and I want evidence that supports the fact that, according to you and Jersey Girl, this problem was fixed after three years.

And even if you are, somehow, able to provide that evidence, which I haven’t seen yet, this doesn’t address the problem of the 1841 letter.

In terms of the claim that the river has now reclaimed large parts of the City, one only need compare Leonard's maps in his Nauvoo book to current mapping to put the lie to that canard. The Smith homestead is the same distance today as it was in 1843, to the river.


I haven’t made any claims about this particular point, and find it irrelevant.

And, no, I am not impressed with Google scholarship, nor your practice of citing sources you don't have. I will start calling you out on the practice.


Given the quality of evidence you provide when you actually do address a topic, you are hardly in the position to judge other people’s scholarship.

Now I’ve taken the time to respond to each of your points. I found most so openly lacking that I didn’t take the time to explain why they didn’t measure up, but since you found this suspicious, I now have taken the time.

If I missed any of your points, feel free to point it out.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Let's talk about freakin' malaria.

Back in the day (time frame we're addressing) they didn't know that freakin' malaria was caused by a freakin' parasite, didn't know that it was spread by freakin' mosquitoes, and probably had no freakin' quinine to treat it because they were freakin' destitute to start with and the literature that I've read names attempts at cure but doesn't mention freakin' quinine.

They knew that part of the parcel of land was wetlands/marsh/swamp but they didn't know that the malaria was coming from the freakin' mosquitoes carrying freakin' parasites in the freakin' swamp.

They couldn't have known. If they had freakin' quinine, they might have had a shot at curing the malaria. My guess is they didn't have any freakin' quinine, for as I previously freakin' stated, they were destitute and the freakin' endemic malaria apparently got the best of them for three freakin' years.

They knew the swamp needed to be drained and started draining it probably with freakin' shovels by hand. While they were trying to dig it out with freakin' shovels by hand, they got freakin' sick. They couldn't have known that the freakin' mosquitoes in the freakin' swamp were carrying freakin' parasites that gave them malaria.

It took freakin' years to drain the freakin' swamp. During this time, some of the Saints were dropping freakin' dead from freakin' malaria, some were recovering and some were experiencing recurrence of the freakin' fevers because...

they didn't know how to eradicate the freakin' parasites that were carried by freakin' mosquitoes because they didn't freakin' know how freakin' malaria was spread.

Eventually they dug out the freakin' swamp until it was no longer a breeding ground for the freakin' mosquitoes. They didn't know that by draining the swamp they were removing the breeding ground for the insects that carried the freakin' parasite that caused the freakin' malaria.

To the Saints in the mid-1800's, it was a simple case of unrelated cause and freakin' effect.

Why was there still some outbreaks of freakin' malaria?

Because there was still probably some wet land left to act as a freakin' breeding ground for the freakin' mosquitoes...and that at least REDUCED the occurences of freakin' malaria so that the occurences didn't reach freakin' endemic proportions.

I repeat...the Saints didn't know and couldn't have known that the swamp was related to the freakin' malaria endemic. They simply dug the freakin' swamp to drain it, the breeding ground was reduced, and the freakin' endemic subsided. There was still occurences of freakin' malaria because there were still freakin' mosquitoes in the area, the freakin' parasite was still in their freakin' blood and they drained the freakin' swamp, they didn't turn the place into a freakin' desert.

Jersey "yes, Daddy was a freakin' truck driver" Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Jersey,

They certainly knew that the land was related to a higher incidence of illness. My mormonstudies CD is acting up, so I can't guarantee I can get the specific quote, but they believed it had to do with the vapors from the swamp.

But you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they knew the specifics of what caused malaria, or even what malaria was. They knew people got sick more frequently living in some areas near the swamps versus others. Obviously, Joseph Smith knew that the land, itself, was related to the origin of the illness.

Why was there still some outbreaks of freakin' malaria?

Because there was still probably some wet land left to act as a freakin' breeding ground for the freakin' mosquitoes...and that at least REDUCED the occurences of freakin' malaria so that the occurences didn't reach freakin' endemic proportions.


Now we're getting somewhere. Other than the needed clarification of your stance on the 1841 letter, there remains the issue that you have just agreed to: there was still a problem with malaria. The frequency may have been reduced, but it's clear it wasn't eradicated.

Now do you admit that the risk of contracting malaria was still higher on the Hotchkiss property?

This gets to the heart of the 1843 matter. Joseph Smith didn't just tell the saints, in the name of the Lord, that the risk was reduced on the land, compared to previous years. He emphasized that it was the healthiest land in the entire area. I find that extraordinarily unlikely, given what I have always understood, and you just stated for us: the risk wasn't eradicated, just reduced.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Here's a citation from JoD, vol 19, page 40, BY discourse of June 17, 1877

But on the other hand, here comes the miasma from the swamp, bringing disease and death, and without knowing we inhale the poisonous air, we become conscious of weakness, we feel that we are taking fever, that we are getting sick—we become a prey to the enemy, and death ensues.


They understood that sickness came from the swamp. They may have believed it was poisonous air instead of mosquitoes, but they still understood the involvement of the swamp.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply