CHAPTER XXII.

This prophecy was first published in Utah, in the Deseret News of September 24th, 1856; it was afterwards published in England, in the Millennial Star, February, 1859.^[1] In both instances it is found in the History of Joseph Smith, then being published in sections in those periodicals. Stephen A. Douglas did aspire to the Presidency of the United States, and was nominated for that office by the Democratic Convention, held in Charleston, on the 23rd of June, 1860. When in the convention he was declared the regular nominee of the Democratic Party, "The whole body rose to its feet, hats were waved in the air, and many tossed aloft; shouts, screams, and yells, and every boisterous mode of expressing approbation and unanimity, were resorted to."^[2]

When Mr. Douglas aspired to the Presidency, no man in the history of American politics had more reason to hope for success. The political party of which he was the recognized leader, in the preceding Presidential election had polled 174 electoral votes as against 122 cast by the other two parties which opposed it; and a popular vote of 1,838,169 as against 1,215,798 votes for the two parties opposing. It is a matter of history, however, that the Democratic party in the election of 1860 was badly divided; and factions of it put candidates into the field with the following result: Mr. Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the Republican party, was triumphantly elected. He received 180 electoral votes; Mr. Breckinridge received 72 electoral votes; Mr. Bell 39; and Mr. Douglas 12. "By a plurality count of the popular vote, Mr. Lincoln carried 18 states; Mr. Breckinridge 11; Mr. Bell 3; and Mr. Douglas but I!"^[3] Twenty days less than one year after his nomination by the Charleston convention, while yet in the prime of manhood—forty-eight years of age—Mr. Douglas died, at his home in Chicago, a disappointed, not to say heartbroken, man.

Let us now search out the cause of his failure. Fourteen years after the interview containing the prophecy with which this chapter opens, and about one year after the prophecy had been published in the Deseret News, Mr. Douglas was called upon to deliver a speech in Springfield, the capital of Illinois. His speech was delivered on the 12th of June, 1857, and published in the Missouri Republican of June 18th, 1857. It was a time of much excitement throughout the country concerning the Mormon Church in Utah. Falsehoods upon the posting winds seemed to have filled the air with the most outrageous calumny. Crimes the most repulsive—murders, robberies, rebellion, and high treason—were falsely charged against its leaders. It was well known that Mr. Douglas had been on terms of intimate friendship with the Prophet Joseph Smith; and was well acquainted with the other church leaders. He was therefore looked upon as one competent to speak upon the "Mormon Question," and was invited to do so in the speech to which reference is here made. Mr. Douglas responded to the request. He grouped the charges against the Mormons which were then passing current, in the following manner:

"First, that nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth who have refused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or do any other act recognizing the Government of the United States as the paramount authority in that territory [Utah];

"Second, that the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mormons (and they constitute the whole people of the territory) are bound by horrible oaths, and terrible penalties, to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Young, and the government of which he is head, as paramount to that of the United States, in civil as well as in religious affairs; and they will in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all the means in their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its authority.

"Third, that the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now forming alliances with Indian tribes in Utah and adjoining territories—stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility—and organizing bands of his own followers under the name of Danites or destroying angels, to prosecute a system of robbery and murders upon American citizens who support the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and disgusting practices and institution of the Mormon government."

Mr. Douglas based his remarks upon these rumors against the Saints, in the course of which he said: "Let us have these facts in an official shape before the President and Congress, and the country will soon learn that, in the performance of the high and solemn duty devolving upon the executive and Congress, there will be no vacillating or hesitating policy. It will be as prompt as the peal that follows the flash—as stern and unyielding as death. Should such a state of things actually exist as we are led to infer from the reports—and such information comes in an official shape—the knife must be applied to this pestiferous, disgusting cancer which is gnawing into the very vitals of the body politic. It must be cut out by the roots, and seared over by the red hot iron of stern and unflinching law. * * * Should all efforts fail to bring them [the Mormons] to a sense of their duty, there is but one remedy left. Repeal the organic law of the territory, on the ground that they are alien enemies and outlaws, unfit to be citizens of a territory, much less ever to become citizens of one of the free and independent states of this confederacy. To protect them further in their treasonable, disgusting and bestial practices would be a disgrace to the country—a disgrace to humanity—a disgrace to civilization, and a disgrace to the spirit of the age. Blot it out of the organized territories of the United States. What then? It will be regulated by the law of 1790, which has exclusive and sole jurisdiction over all the territory not incorporated under any organic or special law. By the provisions of this law, all crimes and misdemeanors, committed on its soil, can be tried before the legal authorities of any state or territory to which the offenders shall be first brought to trial, and punished. Under that law persons have been arrested in Kansas, Nebraska and other territories, prior to their organization as territories, and hanged for their crimes. The law of 1790 has sole and exclusive jurisdiction where no other law of a local character exists, and by repealing the organic law of Utah, you give to the general government of the United States the whole and sole jurisdiction over the territory."

The speech of Mr. Douglas was of great interest and importance to the people of Utah at that juncture. Mr. Douglas had it in his power to do them great good. Because of his personal acquaintance with Joseph Smith and the great body of the Mormon people then in Utah, as well as their leaders (for he had known both leaders and people in Illinois, and those whom he had known in Illinois constituted the great bulk of the people in Utah, when he delivered that Springfield speech), he knew that the reports carried to the East by vicious and corrupt men were not true. He knew that these reports in the main were but a rehash of the old exploded charges made against Joseph Smith and his followers in Missouri; and he knew them to be false by many evidences furnished him by Joseph Smith in the interview of the 18th of May, 1843, and by the Mormon people at sundry times during his association with them at Nauvoo. He had an opportunity to befriend the innocent; to refute the calumny cast upon a virtuous community; to speak a word in behalf of the oppressed; but the demagogue triumphed over the statesman, the politician, over the humanitarian; and to avoid the popular censure which he feared befriending the Mormon people would bring to him, he turned his hand against them with the result that he did not destroy them but sealed his own doom—in fulfillment of the words of the prophet, he felt the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon him.

It was impossible for any merely human sagacity to foresee the events predicted in this prophecy. Stephen A. Douglas was a bright but comparatively an unknown man at the time of the interview, in May, 1843. There is and can be no question about the prophecy preceding the event. It was published as before stated in the Deseret News of the 24th of September, 1856, about one year before the Douglas speech at Springfield, in June, 1857; and about four years before Douglas was nominated for the Presidency by the Charleston Democratic Convention.

Moreover, a lengthy review of Mr. Douglas' speech was published in the editorial columns of the Deseret News in the issue of that paper for September 2nd, 1857, of which the following is the closing paragraph addressed directly to Mr. Douglas: "In your last paragraph [of the Springfield speech] you say, 'I have thus presented to you plainly and fairly my views of the Utah question;' with at least equal plainness and with far more fairness have your views now been commented upon. And inasmuch as you were well acquainted with Joseph Smith, and this people, also with the character of our maligners, and did know their allegations were false, but must bark with the dogs who were snapping at our heels, to let them know that you were a dog with them; and also that you may have a testimony of the truth of the assertion that you did know Joseph and his people and the character of their enemies (and neither class have changed, only as the Saints have grown better and their enemies worse); and also that you may thoroughly understand that you have voluntarily, knowingly, and of choice sealed your damnation, and by your own chosen course have closed your chance for the Presidential chair, through disobeying the counsel of Joseph which you formerly sought and prospered by following, and that you in common with us, may testify to all the world that Joseph was a true prophet, the following extract from the History of Joseph Smith is again printed for your benefit, and is kindly recommended to your careful perusal and most candid consideration." Then follows the interview between Joseph Smith and Mr. Douglas as recorded in the Journal of William Clayton, as published in the News a year before Mr. Douglas' Springfield speech, and as now quoted at the beginning of this chapter.

This was boldly accepting the challenge of Mr. Douglas. He raised his hand against the followers of Joseph Smith despite the warning of the prophet, and they, in the chief organ of the church, reproduced the prophecy and told him that he had sealed his damnation and closed his chance for the Presidential chair through disobeying the counsel of the prophet. The presidential election of 1860 and the death of Mr. Douglas in the prime of life the year following tells the rest.^[4]

It would be mere conjecture, of course, to say what the result would have been had Stephen A. Douglas been true to the Saints—the people of his friend Joseph Smith. But certainly had he been elected in 1860 the Southern States would have had no such excuse for their great movement of secession as they at least pretended to have in the election of Abraham Lincoln. And had Mr. Douglas in the event of his election followed the counsel given to the government and people of the United States by Joseph Smith in respect to the question of slavery, that evil might have been abolished without the effusion of blood, and no place found in the history of the United States for that horrible conflict known as the American civil war.

The prophet's counsel here referred to in respect to slavery, was as follows: "Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionists from reproach and ruin, and infamy and shame. Pray congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of the public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for an hour of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage."^[5]

The document from which this counsel is quoted was published in February, 1844. Eleven years later, namely, in 1855, Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson declared that the question of slavery should be met in accordance "with the interests of the South, and with the settled conscience of the North." "It is not really a great task," said this eminent writer, "a great feat for this country to accomplish, to buy that property of the planter as the British nation bought the West Indian slaves." He also predicted that "the United States will be brought to give every inch of their public lands for a purpose like this." This plan suggested by Mr. Emerson in 1855, brought to him no end of praise as a sage philosopher and wise humanitarian. But what of Joseph Smith, whose suggestion preceded that of Mr. Emerson by eleven years? Let another—Josiah Quincy—answer:

"We who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar [referring to Emerson] was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader [referring to Joseph Smith] who had committed himself in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844? If the atmosphere of men's opinions was stirred by such a proposition when war clouds were discernable in the sky, was it not a statesman-like word eleven years earlier when the heavens looked tranquil and beneficent?"^[6]

By indulging in these reflections based upon the supposition of the success of Stephen A. Douglas in the election of 1860, I have wandered from the line of direct argument. I have nothing further to do with the career of Mr. Douglas than to point out in it the remarkable fulfillment of a prophecy which demonstrates the divine inspiration of the man who uttered it.

Footnotes

1. Mill. Star, Vol. xxi, No. 9.

2. See Cooper's American Politics, Bk. I, p. 86.

3. See tables in "American Politics," Bk. vii, pp. 22, 26; also, History U. S. (by Alexander H. Stephens), p. 559.

4. Shortly after the result of the election of 1860 was known in Utah, Elder Orson Hyde, one of the Twelve Apostles, then residing in Sanpete County, Utah, wrote to the Deseret News the following letter:

"Ephraim, Utah Ter., Nov. 27, 1860.

"Will the Judge now acknowledge that Joseph Smith was a true prophet? If he will not, does he recollect a certain conversation had with Mr. Smith at the house of Sheriff Backenstos, in Carthage, Illinois, in the year 1843, in which Mr. Smith said to him: 'You will yet aspire to the Presidency of the United States. But if you ever raise your hand or your voice against the Latter-day Saints, you shall never be President of the United States.'

"Does Judge Douglas recollect that in a public speech delivered by him in the year 1857, at Springfield, Illinois, of comparing the Mormon community, then constituting the inhabitants of Utah Territory, to a 'loathsome ulcer on the body politic,' and of recommending the knife to be applied to cut it out?

"Among other things, the Judge will doubtless recollect that I was present and heard the conversation between him and Joseph Smith at Mr. Backenstos' residence in Carthage, before alluded to.

"Now, Judge, what do you think about Joseph Smith and Mormonism?

"ORSON HYDE."

5. Joseph Smith's "Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States," Mill. Star, Vol. XXII, p. 743.

6. "Figures of the Past—Joseph Smith at Nauvoo," p. 398.

CHAPTER XXIII.

As stated this revelation and prophecy was given in December, 1832; the elders carried manuscript copies of it with them in their missionary journeys, and frequently read it to their congregations in various parts of the United States. In Vol. XIII of the Millennial Star, published in 1851, pp. 216 and 217, is an advertisement of a new church publication to be called the Pearl of Great Price. In the announced contents is named this revelation of December, 1832, with a statement, that it had "never before appeared in print." Subsequently, but in the same year, the Pearl of Great Price with this prophecy in it, was published by Franklin D. Richards, in Liverpool, England. There are copies of the first edition still extant.^[1]

I am careful to make these statements that the reader may have ample assurance that the revelation and prophecy preceded the event of the great Civil War. The revelation containing the prophecy was given on the 25th of December, 1832. The first shot fired in the great American Civil War was fired early on the morning of April 12th, 1861. Hence the prediction preceded the commencement of its fulfillment by twenty-eight years, three months and seventeen days. Ten years before the war began, the prophecy was published in England and circulated both in that country and in the United States. There can be no question, therefore, as to the prophecy preceding the event.

Let us inquire if the events predicted were of a nature that they could not be foreseen and hence foretold by human judgment, unaided by divine inspiration. The prophecy predicts,

First, that the war would begin with the rebellion of South Carolina.

Second, that it would terminate in the death and misery of many souls.

Third, that the Southern States would be divided against the Northern States.

Fourth, that the Southern States would call upon other nations for assistance, even upon the nation of Great Britain.

Fifth, that Great Britain would call upon other nations for assistance, and thus war would eventually be poured out upon all nations.

I submit that this is an enumeration of events twenty-eight years in the future altogether too definite for human wisdom, unassisted by divine inspiration, to give. Profane history has nothing like it. To find a parallel to it, recourse must be had to the history of the Jewish prophets. It is true there was considerable agitation about the time of the prophecy on the question known in American politics as "States' rights." In 1830 had occurred the great Senate debate on that subject between Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, and Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts. On that occasion the champion from South Carolina advocated the doctrine known as "nullification." The discussion had its origin in an effort to repeal the protective tariff laws of 1828, which South Carolina, with several other States, regarded as unconstitutional because the laws were based upon the principle of federal protection to local interests in the several States, to the injury of the general interests of the country. But South Carolina also held, which the other states did not, "that it was within the reserved rights of the states to have the question of constitutionality on this subject rightfully determined by the judiciary of the states severally, each for itself, instead of exclusively by the federal judiciary."^[2]

The question again approached the acute stage in 1832, when the sovereign convention of the people of South Carolina was called which adopted what was known as the "Nullification Ordinance." The leading features of this were (1) a declaration that the tariff act of 1832, being based upon the principle of protection to manufacturers, and not with the view to raising revenue, was unconstitutional and therefore null and void; (2) a provision for testing the constitutionality of this act before the courts of the state; (3) that in case the measures thus adopted for the purpose stated should be forcibly resisted by the federal authorities, then the State of South Carolina was declared to be no longer a member of the Federal Union. The last measure was to take effect on the 12th of February, 1833, if before that time the principle of levying duties upon imports, not with a view to revenue, but for the protection of domestic manufactures, should not be abandoned by the congress of the states.^[3]

But notwithstanding these hostile demonstrations on the part of South Carolina, there was really no very great danger to the Union at that time. Andrew Jackson, a man of great determination of character, and patriotically devoted to the Union, was president; and his political principles ran parallel with his devotion. He issued a proclamation in which he urged South Carolina not to persist in the enforcement of her ordinance as it would necessarily bring the federal and state authorities in conflict, and if the citizens of South Carolina took up arms against the United States they would be guilty of treason. "The ordinance," said he, "is founded not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured; but on the strange position that any one state may not only declare an act of congress void but prohibit its execution, and that they may do this consistently with the constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a state to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider constitutional."^[4]

It was in December, 1832, the same month in which the revelation and prophecy under consideration was given, that this issue between South Carolina and the Federal government about reached its climax. It is important to observe that these questions of nullification and a state's right to secede from the Union were sharply agitated in December, 1832, because it gives direct testimony of the original date of the prophecy. That is, it is clear from the facts of history that the question in 1832 was before the nation; and very naturally the prophet inquired of the Lord concerning it, with the result that he receive the revelation now under consideration.

That the prophet did make inquiry of the Lord concerning this subject is evident from a direct statement of his to that effect. Preaching at Ramus, Illinois, on the 2nd of April, 1843, the prophet in the course of his remarks said: "I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832."^[5]

No American statesman in 1832 believed that the doctrines of secession then talked of would result in a great civil war. None of them had the foresight to see that a great rebellion would occur, beginning in South Carolina; that it would terminate in the death and misery of many souls; that the Southern States would be divided against the Northern States; that the Southern States would call on Great Britain, and that war would eventually be poured out upon all nations. No one, I say, foresaw that this would be the result save only that inspired youth—then but twenty-seven years of age—Joseph Smith, and he saw it only by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. To be required to believe that the prophecy was merely the fortunate conjecture of a more than ordinarily astute mind, requires a greater amount of credulity than to concede the inspiration of the prophet; and then the question would still remain, why is it that sagacious minds in other generations have not paralleled this astuteness of Joseph Smith's? Why did not some of the brilliant minds in the Senate or House of Representatives in 1832 make such a prediction? There was no dearth of brilliant minds in either Senate or House at that time, yet none seemed equal to the task.

But was the prophecy fulfilled? Did the great Civil War begin with the rebellion of South Carolina? Let history answer.

I. South Carolina took the initiative in the great rebellion. Deeming her interests threatened, and the institution of slavery doomed if Abraham Lincoln was elected; on November 5th, 1860, her legislature met to choose presidential electors, and Governor William H. Gist in his message to that legislature recommended that in the event of Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency, a convention of the people of the state be immediately called to consider and determine for themselves the mode and measure of redress. He expressed the opinion that the only alternative left in the event of Lincoln's election was "the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union."^[6]

On the 10th of November, 1860, the United States Senators from South Carolina, James N. Hammond and James Chestnut, Jr., resigned their seats, being the first of the senators to take that step.^[7]

On the 17th of November, 1860, an ordinance of secession was unanimously adopted by the Legislature of South Carolina, the first act of the kind by any of the states.^[8]

On the 24th of November, 1860, South Carolina's Representatives in Congress withdrew; they were the first representatives to do so.^[9]

Members to a state convention for the purpose of considering the method and measure of redress in the event to Abraham Lincoln's election, were elected on the 3rd of December, 1860; the convention was assembled in Charleston.^[10]

On the 20th of December, 1860, the convention passed the ordinance of secession and Governor Pickins—just elected—announced on the same date the repeal, by the good people of South Carolina, the ordinance of May 23rd, 1788, by which South Carolina had ratified the Federal Constitution, and declared "the dissolution of the union between the state of South Carolina and the other states under the name of the United States." The governor's proclamation also announced to the world "that the state of South Carolina is, as she has a right to be, a separate, sovereign, free and independent state and, as such, has a right to levy war, conclude peace, negotiate treaties, leagues, or covenants, and to do all acts whatsoever that rightly pertain to a free and independent state. Done in the eighty-fifth year of the sovereignty and independence of South Carolina."^[11]

Following is the complete Ordinance passed by the Convention, as it appeared in the Charleston Mercury Extra for that date, the original of which the following is a copy is in the Libby Prison Museum, of Chicago:

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AT 1:15 P. M., DECEMBER 20TH, 1860.

"An ordinance to dissolve the union between the States of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.'

"We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, 'That the ordinance adopted by us on the 23rd of May, A. D. 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution are hereby repealed, and the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United States of America' is hereby dissolved."

The act of rebellion on the part of South Carolina was completed. She was the first state to take the several steps here enumerated leading up to that culmination. She was followed in the act of rebellion by ten other Southern States, as follows—I take the date on which the state conventions passed their secession ordinances to be the date on which the rebellion of the respective states was completed:

Mississippi, January 9th, 1861; Florida, January 10th; Alabama, January 11th; Georgia, January 19th; Louisiana, January 26th; Texas, February 1st; Virginia, April 17th; Arkansas, May 6th; North Carolina, May 20th; Tennessee, June 8th, all of the same year, 1861.^[12]

Having proven that the Great Rebellion began with the rebellion of South Carolina, I wish now to show that the war itself actually began there.

The states which seceded from the union in the last months of Mr. Buchanan's administration, quietly took possession of all the forts within their respective limits, except Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, and Fort Pickens, at Pensacola, Florida; and transferred them to the Confederate States. After the Southern States united into a confederacy, that government "appointed a commission consisting of Mr. John Forsyth, of Alabama, Mr. Martin J. Crawford, of Georgia, and Mr. A. B. Roman, of Louisiana, to open negotiations for the settlement of all matters of joint property, forts, arsenals, arms, or property of any other kind within the limits of the Confederate States, and all joint liabilities with their former associates, upon the principles of right, justice, equity and good faith."^[13] Separate states previous to this action of the confederate states had sent commissioners to accomplish the same purpose; but of course these gave place to the commission from the general government of the confederacy.

During an attempt of this commission to obtain official recognition from the administration at Washington, active preparations for war were going on at the New York navy yard. Early in April a squadron of seven ships, carrying two thousand four hundred men, and two hundred and eighty-five guns put to sea from New York and Norfolk navy yards, under sealed orders. The design of the enterprise was to re-provision and re-enforce Fort Sumpter, which at the time was held by Major Anderson, with a small garrison of men very ill provisioned for a siege.

On the 8th of April Washington authorities, ignoring the commission in Washington from the Confederate States, sent word to Governor Pickens of South Carolina of a change in the attitude of the general government in regard to unofficial assurances given respecting the withdrawal of Federal forces from Fort Sumter, and declaring the intention of the government to re-provision and re-enforce the garrison there, "peaceably if permitted; otherwise, by force."^[14]

At the time General Gustave T. Beauregard was at Charleston, with six thousand Confederate volunteer troops, for the purpose of defending the city. Governor Pickens informed him of the notice he had received from the authorities at Washington; and General Beauregard immediately telegraphed the information to the Confederate authorities at Montgomery. The reply received by General Beauregard was that, "if he had no doubt of the authenticity of the notice of the intention of the Washington government to supply Fort Sumter by force, to demand at once its evacuation; and if this should be refused, to proceed to reduce it."^[15]

On April the 11th the demand for its evacuation was made. Major Anderson refused to comply with the demand, and at 4:30, on the morning of the 12th of April, 1861, General Beauregard opened fire on the fort, to which the guns of the fort promptly replied. The bombardment lasted thirty-two hours; and then Major Anderson capitulated, though the fleet from the north was within view during the bombardment. "This was the beginning of a war between the states of the Federal Union, which has been truly characterized as 'one of the most tremendous conflicts on record.' The din of its clangor reached the remotest part of the earth and the people of all nations looked on, for four years and upwards, in wonder and amazement, as its gigantic proportions loomed forth, and its hideous engines of destruction of human life and everything of human structure were terribly displayed in its sanguinary progress and grievous duration."^[16] It began where the Prophet Joseph twenty-eight years before said it would commence—with the rebellion of South Carolina.

II. This war, beginning with the rebellion of South Carolina, did terminate in the death and misery of many souls. Though it is notorious that it did so, let us consider the history of it somewhat in detail. Mr. Alexander H Stephens, in concluding the chapter he devotes to the Civil War, in his history of the United States, says: "The Federal records show that they had, from first to last, 2,600,000 men in the service; while the Confederates all told, and in like manner, had but little over 600,000. * * * Of Federal prisoners during the war, the Confederates took in round numbers 270,000; while the whole number of Confederates captured and held in prisons by the Federals was in like round numbers 220,000. * * * Of the 270,000 Federal prisoners taken, 22,576 died in Confederate hands; and of the 220,000 Confederates taken by Federals, 26,436 died in their hands. * * * The entire loss on both sides, including those who were permanently disabled, as well as those killed in battle, and who died from wounds received and diseases contracted in the service, amounted, upon a reasonable estimate, to the stupendous aggregate of 1,000,000 of men."^[17]

In 1887, the Cincinnatti Commercial Gazette published the following interesting compilation of statistics in relation to the number that fell in the Civil War on the side of the Federal armies:

"Official returns show that about 2,653,000 soldiers enlisted during the war in response to the successive calls of President Lincoln, and of that number 186,097 were colored troops. Reports show that the Northern and Southern armies met in over two thousand skirmishes and battles. In 148 of these conflicts the loss on the Federal side was over 500 men, and in at least ten battles over 10,000 men were reported lost on each side. The appended table shows that the combined losses of the Federal and Confederate forces in killed, wounded, and missing in the following engagements were: Shiloh, 24,000; Antietam, 18,000; Stone River, 22,000; Chickamauga, 33,000; McClellan's Peninsula campaign, 50,000; Grant's Peninsula campaign, 140,000; and Sherman's campaign, 80,000.

"Official statistics show that of the 2,653,000 men enlisted, there were killed in battle 44,238; died of wounds, 49,205; died of disease, 186,216; died of unknown causes, 24,184; total 303,843. This includes only those whose death while in the army had been actually proved. To this number should be added first 26,000 men who are known to have died while in the hands of the enemy as prisoners of war, and many others in the same manner whose deaths are unrecorded; second, a fair percentage of the 205,794 men who are put down on the official reports as deserters and missing in action, for those who participated in the war know that men frequently disappear who, it was certain, had not deserted, yet could not be otherwise officially accounted for; third, thousands who are buried in private cemeteries all over the north, who died while at home on furlough.

"The dead are buried in 73 national cemeteries, of which only twelve are in the Northern States. Amongst the principal ones in the North are Cypress Hill, with its 3,786 dead; Finns Point, N. J., which contains the remains of 2,644 unknown dead; Gettysburg, Pa., with 1,967 known and 1,608 unknown dead; Mound City, Ill., with 2,505 known and 2,721 unknown graves; Philadelphia, with 1,909 dead; and Woodlawn, Elmira, N. Y., with its 3,900 dead. In the South, near the scenes of the terrible conflicts, are located the largest depositories of the slain: Arlington, Va., 16,264, of which 4,319 are unknown; Beaufort, S. C., 9,241, of which 4,493 are unknown; Chalmettee, La., 12,511, of which 5,674 are unknown; Chattanooga, Tenn., 12,972, of which 4,963 are unknown; Fredricksurg, Va., 15,257, of which 12,770 are unknown; Jefferson Barracks, Mo., 11,290, of which 2,900 are unknown; Little Rock, Ark., 5,602, of which 2,337 are unknown; City Point, Va., 5,122, of which 1,374 are unknown; Marietta, Ga., 10,151, of which 2,963 are unknown; Memphis, Tenn., 13,997, of which 8,817 are unknown; Nashville, Tenn., 16,526, of which 4,700 are unknown; Poplar Grove, Va., 6,190, of which 4,001 are unknown; Richmond, Va., 6,542, of which 5,700 are unknown; Salisbury, N. C., 12,126 of which 12,032 are unknown; Stone River, Tenn., 5,602 of which 288 are unknown; Vicksburg, Miss., 16,600 of which 12,704 are unknown; Antietam, Va. 4,671 of which 1,818 are unknown; Winchester, Va., 4,559 of which 2,365 are unknown. In all, the remains of 300,000 men who fought for the stars and stripes find guarded graves in our national cemeteries. Two cemeteries are mainly devoted to the men who perished in the prisons of the same name—Andersonville, Ga., which contains 13,714 graves, and Salisbury, with its 12,126 dead, among which 12,032 are unknown."

If to the 303,843 given above as the total number of union troops whose death while in the army was actually proved, be added, as the Gazette suggests, first, 26,000^[18] men who are known to have died while in the hands of the enemy as prisoners of war; second, many others whose death was not recorded; third, a fair percentage of the 205,794 put down on the official reports as deserters and missing in action; and then add to this all who were killed in the Confederate army, all Confederates who died in prisons through wounds and diseases contracted in the service, it will be seen that the estimate of Mr. Stephens, namely, that one million of men perished in the Great Rebellion, would not be considered exaggerated. Indeed the same estimate is made by nearly all writers upon the subject. Thus Lossing: "The whole number of men called into service during the war (on the Union side) was 2,628,523. Of these about 1,490,000 were in actual service. Of this number, nearly 60,000 were killed on the field, and about 35,000 were mortally wounded. Disease in camps and hospitals slew 184,000. It is estimated that 300,000 Union soldiers perished during the war. Fully that number of the Confederate soldiers perished, and the aggregate number of men including both armies, who were crippled or permanently disabled by disease was estimated at 400,000. The actual loss to the country, of able-bodied men, in consequence of the rebellion was fully 1,000,000."^[19]

"Both sides, during the struggle, relied for means to support it upon the issue of paper money, and upon loans secured by bonds. An enormous public debt was thus created by each, and the aggregate of money thus expended on both sides, including the loss and sacrifice of property, could not have been less than 8,000,000,000 of dollars—a sum fully equal to three-fourths of the assessed valuation of the taxable property of all the states together when it commenced."^[20]

To the terrible loss of life and property let there be added the consideration of the suffering of the wounded and the sick who languished in loathsome prisons; the sorrow of widows and orphans who looked in vain for the return of husbands and fathers, who marched in the fullness of manly strength to the war; the anguish of parents, whose dim eyes looked in vain for sons thrown into unknown graves; and the gentler yet equally tender sorrow of sisters which in the fierce war lost the companions of their childhood. Let all this, I say, be taken into account, and the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet of the living God will be found written in characters of blood to this generation, and witnessed by the heartache and tears of millions!

III. The Southern States were divided against the Northern States. The fact is too well known to need affirming. There were eleven states in all whose legislatures passed secession ordinances. These were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina—all Southern States. In the first Confederate Congress members representing districts in Missouri and Kentucky were also admitted, though those states did not secede from the Union.^[21]

IV. The Southern States did call upon other nations, and upon the nation of Great Britain in particular, for assistance. As early as May, 1861, the Confederacy sent commissioners abroad to seek recognition and aid from foreign powers. William L. Yancy, of Alabama; P. A. Rost, of Louisiana; A. Dudley Mann, of Virginia; and T. Butler King, of Georgia. Mr. Yancy was appointed to operate in England, Mr. Rost in France, and Mr. Mann in Holland and Belgium. Mr. King had a roving commission.^[22] Subsequently, in October, 1861, the Confederacy appointed James M. Mason and John Slidell, ambassadors to England and France respectively, to solicit the assistance of the British and French governments in the Southern cause. The ambassadors took passage from Charleston to Cuba in a blockade runner. At the latter place they engaged passage to England on the British steam packet Trent. On the 8th of November, 1861, the Trent was overtaken by the Federal warship San Jacinto, Captain Wilkes commanding; and Messrs. Mason and Slidell were taken prisoners and carried to Boston Harbor where they were placed in Fort Warren. England promptly resented this violation of the rights of a neutral nation upon the high seas, and the United States as promptly disavowed the action of Captain Wilkes, made an humble apology, and as soon as might be restored Messrs. Mason and Slidell to a British deck, the Rinaldo, in which vessel the ambassadors were taken to England where they prosecuted their mission.

Though Messrs. Mason and Slidell did not succeed in securing the open assistance of Great Britain, yet it is well known that British sympathy was with the Confederate cause; and so far did this sympathy lead England to violate the law of nations that, against the protests of the United States Minister at the court of St. James, she allowed the war vessels Alabama and Florida built by Messrs. Laird & Co., shipbuilders, Liverpool, England, to put to sea. These vessels did immense damage to Northern States shipping. The Alabama alone captured sixty-five merchant vessels belonging to the United States; and destroyed some ten million dollars' worth of property. Finally the United States warship Kearsarge sunk her off the coast of France, near Cherbourg. This Alabama trouble led to ill feeling between England and the United States which was not finally settled until the 27th of June, 1872, when the Geneva Board of Arbitration decided that England should pay to the United States the sum of fifteen million five hundred thousand dollars, an amount really in excess of the demands of merchants and others claiming the loss of property through depredations of the Alabama.^[23]

The evidence is surely sufficient that the Southern States did call upon the nation of Great Britain for assistance (and that is as far as the prophecy goes on this point), and England did give at least indirect aid and comfort to the Confederate cause, to the extent that she was found violating the law of nations so far that she paid a fine of $15,500,000 for her trespass.

Thus in all these important items the remarkable prophecy has been fulfilled. It now remains to call attention to the events it predicts which are still in the future. These are:

First, Great Britain is to call upon other nations for aid, and she with her allies thus formed, is to call on other nations in order to defend themselves against other nations, until war is poured out upon all nations.

Second, A great race war in America—slaves are to rise up against their masters who shall be marshalled and disciplined for war.^[24]

Third, The aboriginal inhabitants of America—the Indians—will become exceeding angry, and marshalling themselves, will vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

Fourth, With sword and by bloodshed and finally with famine and plague, and earthquake; with the thunder of heaven and the fierce and vivid lightning—the inhabitants of the earth will mourn, and be made to feel the wrath and indignation and chastening hand of Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations.

These several items yet to be fulfilled strengthen belief in the reality of the prophecy, for the reason that if the prophecy had originated in fraud, had it been written after the events it pretended to predict had taken place, the pseudo-prophet and his associates would not have dared in any respect to have ventured into the domain of the future. They would have clung exclusively to the past. But standing as we do now midway between what has been fulfilled of the prophecy and what is yet to come, we are made to feel the reality of the prophecy; and so much of it as the wheels of time have brought due having been fulfilled, gives ample assurance that the remainder will come to pass to the very letter.

If it shall be asked of what use is this prophecy about war, earthquakes, bloodshed, famine and general distress of mankind—what makes it worthy of inspiration—knowledge worthy of God to reveal and a prophet to proclaim—let it be answered that its value consists in this, that it is a warning to mankind, it cries repentance to the wicked, and gives all who will avail themselves of it an opportunity to make God their friend, escape the calamities predicted, and have the privilege of uniting with God's Saints who, in the closing sentence in the prophecy, are admonished to stand in holy places unmoved until the day of the Lord comes; and they are assured it will come quickly.

The evidence of prophecy is, in part, before the reader, all I design to introduce in this book;^[25] and now I ask him to review it; considering first the importance attached to the peculiar power of prophecy as evidence of divine inspiration—how it is within itself a sort of miracle, as men understand miracles, and has ever been regarded as an evidence of the possession of a power peculiar to God and those whom he commissions. Second, remember how definitely proven is the fact that these prophecies preceded the events they fore ell. Third, that they so minutely describe the future events they predict that by no means can they be resolved into a fortunate conjecture of an uninspired mind. Fourth, that they treat of things that from their nature are of importance to man to know and therefore are worthy of inspiration. Fifth, that their remarkable fulfillment has been by agencies outside of the prophet himself.

Side by side with all these facts consider how fatal to Joseph Smith's claims as a divinely commissioned prophet of God would have been the failure of his prophecies! After all this is carefully considered, without prejudice and with a candid desire to know the truth, let each for himself answer these questions: Does not the fulfillment of the prophecies of Joseph Smith furnish a volume of testimony sufficient both as to quality and quantity to convince a reasonable mind that he was a divinely inspired prophet? If he was not a divinely inspired prophet, on what hypothesis shall we account for this remarkable list of predictions here set forth and their marvelous fulfillment?

Footnotes

1. The writer saw a copy in the Church Liverpool Office Library, in 1887, while acting as assistant editor of the Millennial Star. See Millennial Star, Vol. xlix: p. 396.

2. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 448.

3. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 451.

4. See Cooper's American Politics, Book I, p. 33.

5. Millennial Star, Vol. xx, p. 728.

6. Cooper's American Politics, Book I, p. 88.

7. Cooper's American Politics, Book I, p. 88.

8. Ibid.

9. Cooper's American Politics, p. 88.

10. Lossing's History of the United States, p. 546.

11. Cooper's American Politics, Book I, p. 88.

12. Lossing's History of the United States, p. 547, note 2.

13. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 604.

14. See War between the States, Vol. II, pp. 346-7, et seq.; also Appendix N. Stephens' Hist. United States. There the correspondence on the subject is given in extenso.

15. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 609.

16. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 610.

17. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 837-8. The figures of Mr. Stephens are sustained by the report of the Surgeon-General, U.S.A.; and also by Mr. Stanton's report for 1866. Mr. S. was Secretary of War.

18. It will be observed that there is a slight disagreement between Mr. Stephens and the Gazette Compilation in this item; the former putting the number of prisoners who died in Confederate hands at 22,576, the latter at 26,000.

19. Lossing's History of the United States, p. 723-4, note 3.

20. Stephens' History of the United States, p. 838.

21. Cooper's American Politics, Book I, p. 99.

22. Lossing's History of the United States, p. 559 and note I.

23. Cooper's American Politics, Bk. I, p. 197.

24. Many believe this part of the prophecy was fulfilled during the war of the Southern Rebellion, when many colored men formerly slaves were enlisted in the Union service. We have already seen that of the 2,653,000 soldiers enlisted in the Union army 186,397 were colored.

25. In a second volume in which the Book of Mormon will be the subject—the witness for God—the author will consider many prophecies contained in the Book of Mormon which will not only tend to prove the truth of that book but will also establish the inspiration and divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith.