JS, History, 1838–1856, vol. F-1, created 9 Apr.–7 June 1856 and 20 Aug. 1856–6 Nov. 1856; handwriting of and Jonathan Grimshaw; 304 pages, plus 10 pages of addenda; CHL. This is the final volume of a six-volume manuscript history of the church. This sixth volume covers the period from 1 May to 8 Aug. 1844; the remaining five volumes, labeled A-1 through E-1, go through 30 Apr. 1844.
Historical Introduction
History, 1838-1856, volume F-1, constitutes the last of six volumes documenting the life of Joseph Smith and the early years of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The series is also known as the Manuscript History of the Church and was originally published serially from 1842 to 1846 and 1851 to 1858 as the “History of Joseph Smith” in the Times and Seasons and Deseret News. This volume contains JS’s history from 1 May 1844 to the events following his 27 June 1844 death, and it was compiled in Utah Territory in 1856.
The material recorded in volume F-1 was initially compiled under the direction of church historian , who was JS’s cousin, and also assistant church historian . Smith collaborated with in collecting material for the volume and creating a set of draft notes, which Smith dictated to Bullock and other clerks. Woodruff gathered additional material concerning the death of Joseph Smith as a supplement to George A. Smith’s work recording that event. Jonathan Grimshaw and , members of the Historian’s Office staff, transcribed the draft notes into the volume along with the text of designated documents.
According to the Historian’s Office journal, Jonathan Grimshaw initiated work on the text of volume F-1 on 9 April 1856, soon after Robert L. Campbell had completed work on volume E-1. (Historian’s Office, Journal, 5 and 9 Apr. 1856.) Grimshaw’s scribal work begins with an entry for 1 May 1844. Unlike previous volumes in which the numbering had run consecutively to page 2028, Grimshaw began anew with page 1. He transcribed 150 pages by June 1856, and his last entry was for 23 June 1844. Though more of his writing does not appear in the volume, he continued to work in the office until 2 August, before leaving for the East that same month. (Historian’s Office, Journal, 2 and 10 Aug. 1856.)
assumed the role of scribe on 20 August 1856. (Historian’s Office, Journal, 20 Aug. 1856.) He incorporated ’s draft notes for the period 24–29 June 1844 on pages 151–189, providing an account of JS’s death and its immediate aftermath. He next transcribed a related extract from ’s 1854 History of Illinois on pages 190–204. Pages 205–227 were left blank.
provided the notes for the final portion of the text. This account begins with an entry for 22 June 1844 and continues the record through 8 August 1844, ending on page 304. (The volume also included ten pages of addenda.) The last specific entry in the Historian’s Office journal that captures at work on the history is for 6 November 1856. A 2 February 1857 Wilford Woodruff letter to indicates that on 30 January 1857, the “presidency sat and heard the history read up to the organization of the church in , 8th. day of August 1844.” (Historian’s Office, Journal, 6 Nov. 1856; Wilford Woodruff, Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, to George A. Smith, 2 Feb. 1857, Historian’s Office, Letterpress Copybooks, vol. 1, p. 410; see also Wilford Woodruff, Great Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, to Amasa Lyman and Charles C. Rich, 28 Feb. 1857, Historian’s Office, Letterpress Copybooks, vol. 1, pp. 430–431.)
The pages of volume F-1 contain a record of the final weeks of JS’s life and the events of the ensuing days. The narrative commences with and arriving at , Illinois, on 1 May 1844 from their lumber-harvesting mission in the “” of Wisconsin Territory. As the late spring and summer of 1844 unfold, events intensify, especially those surrounding the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor in mid-June. Legal action over the Expositor leads to a charge of riot, and subsequently JS is charged with treason and is incarcerated at the jail in , Illinois. The narrative of volume F-1 concludes with an account of the special church conference convened on 8 August 1844 to consider who should assume the leadership of the church.
<June 26> may differ somewhat in their opinions about it; but can it be supposed that after all the indignities to which we have been subjected. outside, that this people could suffer a set of worthless vagabonds to come into our , and right under our own eyes and protection, vilify and calumniate, not only ourselves, but the character of our wives and daughters, as was impudently and unblushingly done in that infamous and filthy sheet? There is not a city in the that would have suffered such an indignity for twenty-four hours. Our whole people were indignant, and loudly called upon our city authorities for a redress of their grievances which if not attended to, they themselves would have taken the matter into their own hands and have summarily punished the audacious wretches, as they deserved. The principles of equal rights that have been instilled into our bosoms, from our cradles, as American citizens, forbid us submitting to every foul indignity and succumbing and pandering to wretches so infamous as these. But independent of this, the course that we pursued, we considered to be strictly legal; for notwithstand<ing> the insult, we were anxious to be governed strictly by law and therefore convened the City Council; and being desirous in our deliberations to abide law, summoned legal counsel to be present on the occasion. Upon investigating the matter, we found that our City Charter gave us power to remove all nuisances; and furthermore upon consulting Blackstone upon what might be considered a nuisance, that distinguished lawyer, who is considered authority, I believe, in all our courts, states among other things that ‘a libellous and filthy press may be considered a nuisance and abated as such.’ Here then one of the most eminent English barristers whose works are considered standard with us, declares, that a libellous and filthy press may be considered a nuisance, and our own charter, given us by the Legislature of this , gives us the power to remove nuisances, and by ordering that press abated as a nuisance, we conceived that we were acting strictly in accordance with the law. We made that order in our corporate capacity and the carried it out. It is possible there may have been some better way, but I must confess that I could not see it.
“In relation to the writ served upon us, we were willing to abide the consequences of our own acts; but were unwilling, in answering a writ of that kind, to submit to illegal exactions sought to be imposed upon us under the pretence of law, when we know they were in open violation if it. When that document was presented to me by , I offered in the presence of more than twenty persons, to go to any other magistrate, either in our or Appanoose, or any other place, where we should be safe, but we all refused to put ourselves into the power of a mob. What right had that to refuse our request? He had none according to law; for you know, , that the statute law in is, that the parties served with the writ, ‘shall go before him who issued it, or some other Justice of the Peace.’ Why then should we be dragged to [p. 5 [addenda]]