DID RIGDON LIE?
PART 2--COWDREY, DAVIS, AND VANICK'S CHALLENGE
WHICH PATTERSON?
Cowdrey et al. charge that Rigdon deliberately mislead readers when he said he barely knew Robert Patterson, when in fact his early dealings was with Joseph Patterson. According to these authors, Rigdon's naming "Robert Patterson" was a "deftly" placed, "slyly" laid "trap" meant to divert attention like a smelly "red herring" diverts blood hounds off the right track. Rigdon's "brilliant maneuver ... was successful in misleading virtually every effort to investigate the Spalding Enigma since." To point researchers down the right path, our authors argue, not so brilliantly:--
The truth is, however, that it was not Robert Patterson who had been the principal partner concerned with Solomon Spalding's manuscript--it was the "J" of the firm, Robert's younger brother Joseph. Rigdon knew there were only three people in Pittsburgh who possessed any significant information concerning Solomon Spalding and his "Manuscript Found," and he knew that of these three, the two who had the greatest potential to expose his designs had already conveniently passaged away and that the third, Joseph Patterson, was, at the time in question, no longer living in the Pittsburgh area. The two who had died were, of course, Jonathan Harrison Lambdin (d. 1 Aug 1825) and Silas Engles (d. 17 July 1827), both of whom had been associated with the Pattersons' establishment during the years 1812-1816, and both of whom, as we shall see, would likely have known far more about Rigdon's involvement in the affair than either Joseph or Robert Patterson. (pp. 158-59)
Our authors are honest enough to raise the obvious question of why Joseph Patterson never made a public statement, since he lived until 1868. This would be a serious laps if he indeed had the most damaging evidence against Rigdon and Mormonism. As a minister, Joseph would have been highly motivated to provide the information his older brother could not. Yet for the 27 between Robert's statement and his death there was nothing but silence. More importantly, his nephew Robert Patterson jr. researched the Spalding theory extensively for many years, but still not a peep about Joseph's alleged devastating information.
Our authors offer several weak excuses to get out of a problem that they themselves created, which they admit are "strictly conjectural" (p. 159). So, it doesn't mater what they are. Roper asks:--
Where, however, is the evidence that Joseph Patterson, had he been located, would have supported this theory? Since there is no way of proving that Joseph Patterson knew Rigdon or that he would have confirmed the claims connecting him with Spalding, this is merely a convenient and unproven supposition. (p. 112)
In my view, Cowdrey et al. are guilty of special pleading--if one is going to argue that Rigdon knew that Lambdin and Engles were dead and therefore didn't fear being contradicted by them, then Rigdon's not fearing exposure by either Joseph or Robert Patterson must be taken as evidence for his credibility. Rigdon wasn't misleading anyone since the Patterson he named was the one he knew during his residence in Pittsburgh, which was Robert. I'm inclined to agree with Roper that this issue is itself a "red herring". It's up to our authors to prove Rigdon had dealings with J & R Patterson during 1812-16, which if they could would make this speculation irrelevant.
ROBERT PATTERSON'S 1841 STATEMENT
It would seem one purpose of the Joseph Patterson speculation would be to overcome Robert Patterson's 1841 denial. But, surprisingly, Cowdrey et al. denounce Patterson's 1841 denial as a fabrication by a loyal follower of Rigdon. They are right to question it, but then how have generations of Spalding advocates been led astray by Rigdon's red herring? In 1876, William Small gave the following statement about his 1841 interview with Robert Patterson:--
While I was living in Pittsburgh in 1841, at the time so much was said of the Book of Mormon, and in connection with the Solomon Spaulding Story. It was stated that the Spaulding manuscript was placed in Mr. Patterson's hands for publication, and that Sidney Rigdon was connected with him at the time. In connection with John E. Page I called upon General Patterson, the publisher, and asked him the following questions, and received his replies as given:
Q. -- Did Sidney Rigdon have any connection with your office at the time you had the Solomon Spaulding manuscript?
A. -- No.
Q. -- Did Sidney Rigdon obtain the Spaulding story at that office?
A. -- No.
He also stated to us that the Solomon Spaulding manuscript was brought to him by the widow of Solomon Spaulding to be published, and that she offered to give him half the profits for his pay, if he would publish it; but after it had laid there for some time, and after he had due time to consider it, he determined not to publish it. She then came and received the manuscript from his hands, and took it away. He also stated that Sidney Rigdon was not connected with the office for several years afterwards. Gen. Patterson also made affidavit to the above statement.
Your brother in Christ, WILLIAM SMALL.
Philadelphia, Sept. 13th, 1876.
--"Spaulding Story Refuted" Saints' Herald 23 (15 Oct. 1876).
Dale seems less suspicious of Small's report:--
Note 1: Elder Small's testimony in regard to John E. Page's 1841 interview with Robert Patterson of Pittsburgh is an important document. Assuming that his testimony is fully accurate, it shows that "Sidney Rigdon was not connected with" Patterson's book and stationery business, until "several years" after the death of Solomon Spalding. And even that "connection" was probably much less direct and substantial than Rigdon's having actually served in Patterson's employment in the book and stationery selling business. Whatever "connection" Rigdon may have ever had with Patterson was most likely through the printing shop of Silas Engles or that of Butler and Lambdin. These shops were associated with Patterson's occasional book publishing ventures, but were apparently not under his full ownership or direct supervision.
In another note, Dale discusses the conflict between Howe's 1834 reporting of Patterson and Small's report of his 1841 interview:--
Note 2: Small's account of the Widow Spalding making one last attempt to get her late husband's writings published by Patterson is elsewhere unattested and may not be relied upon as being totally accurate. For example, it is possible that Mrs. Spalding merely served as a courier between her husband and Patterson during the last months of Solomon Spalding's life at Amity, Pennsylvania. Whatever the details of their interaction may have been, according to Small, at least, the widow Spalding "received the manuscript from his hands, and took it away." This most likely happened in late 1816 or early 1817. Small's account of course conflicts with the one printed by E. D. Howe in 1834, and attributed to the widow as its source: "While they lived in Pittsburgh, she thinks it [i. e. Spalding's manuscript] was once taken to the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin; but whether it was ever brought back to the house again, she is quite uncertain," (Mormonism Unvailed, pp. 287-288. If Howe's account accurately reproduces the widow's statements in 1833, she either held back information or did not remember dealing with Patterson directly. The fact that "the printing office of Patterson & Lambdin" did not exist during her 1812-16 stay in the Pittsburgh region may indicate that the Howe report is flawed. Patterson & Lambdin's publishing venture began operations months after the widow had departed the area, and was never a "printing office," since the partnership's printing was done by Butler & Lambdin, a separate business in Pittsburgh.
In a previous post, I rejected Howe's version based on Davison's clear statement that Patterson had returned the MS, which led to the assumption or speculation that Rigdon had copied it (sometime before 1814) rather than stole it. Howe represented the widow as being uncertain, which allowed him to speculate that Rigdon had taken the MS from Patterson's office some time during his residence in Pittsburgh (1822-25).
Cowdrey et al. question Small's account because he confused Robert Patterson the printer with the more famous General Robert Patterson who lived in Philadelphia. Small claimed John E. Page was with him, but Page didn't mention his visit with Patterson when he published his book against the Spalding theory in 1843. Page had died in 1867, and therefore could not corroborate Small's account. So, I can't blame Cowdrey et al. for raising questions about it. However, the same thing can be established without Small by Rigdon's 1839 statement. It was given boldly and provokingly while both Joseph and Robert Patterson were still alive. He challenged his accusers to prove him wrong. So, when Rigdon claimed he had no connection with any Patterson before his residence in Pittsburgh, he knew that neither Joseph nor Robert would contradict him. Therefore, any source that claims Rigdon hung around Patterson's office before 1821, particularly prior to Spalding's death, is to be regarded with extreme skepticism.
RIGDON IN PITTSBURGH BEFORE MOVING THERE IN 1822
Cowdery et al. assume any evidence of Rigdon visiting Pittsburgh before his residence there in 1822--which began in December 1821 and ended in December 1825--is evidence that he lied about not knowing a Patterson in the printing business before 1821. They also think that Rigdon's visits to Pittsburgh are evidence that he COULD HAVE had access to Spalding's MS at Patterson's office, as some witnesses seemed to assert. However, Cowdrey et al. have been too accepting and uncritical of their sources. I will outline their arguments and respond to them.
1. Compelling evidence that widow Spalding told Hurlbut in 1833 that her husband had suspected Rigdon had taken the MS and copied it (159-60).Cowdery et al. argue:--
Indeed, the very fact that the Spaldings knew who Rigdon was and connected him not only with the Pattersons but with Lambdin as well, all prior to the time Hurlbut appeared on the scene, is more than sufficient reason to call Rigdon's entire denial into question. (160)
With regard to widow Spalding--this was actually the question-begging assumptions of our authors, which was contradicted by Howe's reporting that nothing more could be learned from her concerning the MS than what he reported--and that did not include Solomon's accusation against Rigdon. It's not likely that either Hurlbut or Howe would have left out such important information.
2. Testimonies of Josiah Spalding, Solomon's brother, Ann Treadwell Redfield, that widow Spalding suspected Rigdon had copied the MS (160).Josiah SpaldingJosiah Spalding's 1855 statement is muddled, but includes a clue that leads to a possible solution:--
Likewise she informed me that soon after they arrived at Pittsburg a man followed them, I do not recollect his name, but he was afterwards known to be a leading Mormon. He got into the employment of a printer, and he told the printer about my brother's composition. The printer called and requested the privilege of taking it home to read. He, my brother, let him take it; he kept it some time, and then he urged him, my brother, to let him print it. He, my brother, would not consent, but took it back, and she said that she brought it to New York and put it into a chest where she lived. And at a time when she was from home a stranger called upon her and requested her to let him see the novel that her husband composed. He said that he lived at the West, and it was reported there that it gave rise to Mormonism; if not true he wished to counteract the report. She told him that he might go to the house; it was in a chest, he might take it and examine it.
He went to the chest, and I think she told me that he said that he could not find it, but it has never been found since ...
--Statement of 6 January 1855, in The Spalding Memorial, pp. 255-56.
At the time Josiah Spalding gave his statement in 1855, widow Spalding had been dead 9 years (d. 1846). The first thing to notice is that Josiah Spalding didn't think the MS was about Jews. And he reports that the printer had returned the MS, which Davison had stated in her 1839 statement. He is likely conflating his conversations with what he read in Davison's 1839 statement, particularly the part about the printer's employee who later became "a leading Mormon". Having Rigdon in the employ of Patterson or the printer before 1816 is an indication that something is wrong with this secondhand reminiscence. That's why I have suggested either widow Spalding or her interviewers/reporters confused Rigdon with Lambdin or perhaps Engles. Patterson himself named Engles as the person who brought Spalding's MS to him:--
R. Patterson had in his employment Silas Engles at the time a foreman printer, and general superintendent of the printing business. As he (S. E.) was an excellent scholar, as well as a good printer, to him was entrusted the entire concerns of the office. He even decided on the propriety or otherwise of publishing manuscripts when offered -- as to their morality, scholarship, &c., &c. In this character he informed R. P. that a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his hands a manuscript of a singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible, and handed the copy to R. P., who read only a few pages, and finding nothing apparently exceptionable, he (R. P.) said to Engles, he might publish it, if the author furnished the funds or good security. He (the author) failing to comply with the terms, Mr. Engles returned the manuscript, as I supposed at that time, after it had been some weeks in his possession with other manuscripts in the office.
This communication written and signed 2d April, 1842, -- ROBERT PATTERSON.
--As quoted in Samuel Williams, Mormonism Exposed (Pittsburgh, 1842), 16.
Note that both Josiah Spalding and Patterson mention the active participation of someone in the print shop. Josiah said that it was an employee who told the printer about Spalding's MS, while Patterson said it was printer Engles who told him. Whatever the case may have been, it wasn't Rigdon. More likely it was Engles or one of his employees. It is also possible that the person confused with Rigdon was J. Harrison Lambdin. Patterson's son reported in 1882:--"In 1812, Lambdin was a lad of fourteen in the book-store of Patterson & Hopkins, and afterwards was continued in the employ of R. & J. Patterson" (Robert Patterson, Jr., "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?" in
Illustrated History of Washington County [Philadelphia, 1882], 429). On 1 January 1818, the partnership of R. Patterson and Lambdin was formed. Prior to that--in 1817--Butler and Lambdin printed at least 2 books for R. Patterson.
Ann Treadwell RedfieldAnn Treadwell Redfield lived with widow Spalding's brother William Sabin in New York during the time that Mrs. Spalding and her daughter lived there. In Syracuse, NY, on 17 June 1880, she made the following statement:--
In the year 1818 I was principal of the Onondaga Valley Academy, and resided in the house of William H. Sabine, Esq. I remember Mrs. Spaulding, Mr. Sabine's sister perfectly, and hearing her and the family talk of a manuscript in her possession, which her husband, the Rev. Mr. Spaulding, had written somewhere in the West. I did not read the manuscript, but its substance was so often mentioned, and the peculiarity of the story, that years afterward, when the Mormon Bible was published, I procured a copy, and at once recognized the resemblance between it and Mrs. Spaulding's account of 'The Manuscript Found.' I remember also to have heard Mr. Sabine talk of the romance, and that he and Mrs. Spaulding said it had been written in the leisure hours of an invalid, who read it to his neighbors for their amusement. Mrs. Spaulding believed that Sidney Rigdon had copied the manuscript while it was in Patterson's printing office, in Pittsburgh. She spoke of it with regret. I never saw her after her marriage to Mr. Davison of Hartwick.
(Signed) Ann Treadwell Redfield.
--Dickinson, 241-42. Also quoted in Deseret Evening News 14 (28 Sept. 1881).
Since we know the MS in the trunk was MS Story, we also know that Redfield's memory of the contents of the MS was inaccurate. It is not altogether clear that she heard Davison accuse Rigdon in 1818, which is how Cowdrey et al. read Redfield's statement. More likely, Redfield based her statement about widow Spalding on a misreading of her 1839 statement with the Rev. Austin, who inserted a paraphrase of Howe's 1834 statement (see my previous discussion of Davison's 1839 statement). Indeed, it is not likely widow Spalding would have known Rigdon copied the MS or felt "regret" in 1818. The idea of Rigdon's copying the MS was only a surmise based on subsequent events, as the 1839 statement says:--"Here [in Patterson's office] he had ample opportunity to become acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and to copy it if he chose." Her "regret" only makes sense in the context of what she believed had become of her husband's MS, which Redfield surmised from her statement:--"I am sure that nothing would grieve my husband more, were he living, than the use which has been made of his work."
3. Testimonies of Joseph Miller and Redick McKee stating that Solomon Spalding told them that he suspected Rigdon had taken his MS from Patterson's office (Cowdrey et al., 2000 CD, 160-65).The statements of Miller and McKee are highly problematic. Both claimed to have heard Spalding read his MS in Amity between 1814-16. However, their late statements contradicted their earlier statements.
Joseph MillerMiller was about 79 when he gave his first interview in 1869, some 55 years after the events he describes, which did not mention Solomon Spalding's alleged accusation against Rigdon. Instead, he concluded his statement with uncertainty about how Joseph Smith got possession of Spalding's MS:--
From what I know of Mr. Spalding's Manuscript and The Book of Mormon, I firmly believe that Joseph Smith, by some means, got possession of Mr. Spalding's Manuscript, and possibly made some changes in it and called it The Book of Mormon.
--Statement dated 26 March 1869, in Washington, PA, Reporter, 8 April 1869.
This would imply that he didn't know anything about Rigdon taking the MS from the print shop. Yet, 10 years later, Miller reportedly made the following statement (which incidentally was printed in the same paper as the previous statement):--
Its publication seemed to be an after thought, most likely suggested by pecuniary embarrassment. My recollection is that Mr. S. had left a transcript of the manuscript with Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for publication, that its publication was delayed until Mr. S. would write a preface, and in the mean time the transcript was spirited away and could not be found. Mr. S. told me that Sidney Rigdon had taken it, or that he was suspicioned for it. Recollect distinctly that Rigdon's name was used in that connection.
The longer I live the more firmly I am convinced that Spaulding's MS. was appropriated and largely used in getting up the Book of Mormon. I believe, that leaving out of the book the portion that may be easily recognised as the work of Joe Smith and his accomplices that Solomon Spaulding may be truly said to be its author. I have not a doubt of it.
--As reported by W. W. Sharpe for James T. Cobb, The Daily Evening Reporter (Washington, PA) 3 (5 Feb. 1979).
One wonders how Miller managed to "distinctly" remember Rigdon's name, when 10 years previously he had no clue about how Joseph Smith got Spalding's MS. Possibly in the interim, Miller had caught up on his Spalding lore, or his interviewer W. W. Sharpe, who recorded the interview 2 days later, informed him about what was needed by way of evidence (or simply asked if he could confirm Davison's story about Rigdon), and he formulated a theory that was consistent with a vague memory. As previously suggested, perhaps the claim about Rigdon is based on a similar incident of losing track of the MS, but involving Lambdin or Engles instead of Rigdon.
Redick McKeeWhen Redick McKee (8 or 9 years younger than Miller) saw Miller's published statement in 1869, he wrote one of his own and had it published in the same paper. Strangely, he also had nothing to say about Spalding's accusation against Rigdon. Instead, he offered the following speculation:--
After my removal to Wheeling, in 1818, I understood that Mr. Spalding had died and his widow had returned to her friends in northern Ohio or western New York. She would naturally take the manuscript with her. Now, it was in northern Ohio, probably in Lake or Ashtabula County, that the first Mormon prophet, or impostor, Jo Smith, lived and published what he called The Book of Mormon, or the "Mormon Bible." It is quite probable therefore, that, with some alterations, The Book of Mormon was, in fact, The Lost Book, or Lost History Found, of my old landlord, Solomon Spalding, of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania.
I have also a recollection of reading, in some newspaper, about the time of my removal to California, in 1850, an article on this subject, charging Jo Smith, directly, with purloining or, in some improper way, getting possession of a certain manuscript which an aged clergyman had written for his own amusement, as a novel, and out of it making, up his pretended Mormon Bible. Smith's converts or followers were challenged to deny the statement. Both the date and the name of the paper I have forgotten. Possibly, in your own file of the Reporter, some notice of the matter may be found to verify my recollection.
--The Daily Evening Reporter, (Washington, PA) 21 April 1869.
As of 1869, McKee also had no firsthand knowledge of how Joseph Smith might have gotten possession of Spalding's MS. Most importantly, he made no mention of Rigdon. If the 1850s newspaper had mentioned the Spalding theory, it likely also mentioned Rigdon. Yet, it apparently triggered no memory about Spalding accusing Rigdon of taking his MS. Yet, 10 years later, he also reported the same accusation that Miller had:--
"Mr. Spaulding told me that he had submitted the work to Mr. Patterson for publication, but for some reason it was not printed, and afterwards returned to him. I also understood he was then occasionally re-writing, correcting, and he thought improving some passages descriptive of his supposed battles. In this connection he spoke of the man Rigdon as an employee in the printing or book-binding establishment of Patterson & Lambdin, in Pittsburgh; but about him I made no special inquiries."
--Redick McKee Statement, 15April 1879, in Robert Patterson, Jr., "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon," in Boyd Crumrine, History of Washington Co., Pa. (1882), 432.
Had he gotten his cue from reading Miller's account earlier the same year or in discussions with him? Perhaps Miller and/or McKee were influenced by Josiah Spalding's 1855 statement? However, Josiah had not named the printer, McKee names "Patterson & Lambdin", which had not been formed until 1818, after McKee said he moved to Wheeling. So, it is quite possible his memory was being supplemented by other sources like, perhaps, Howe's 1834 book, and conflated with a vaguely remembered story about Spalding's worries about a misplaced MS, which he improved upon with Joseph Miller's reminiscence and other sources. In 1886, Redick McKee wrote Deming:--
Mr. Spaulding told me that while at Pittsburg he frequently met a young man named Sidney Rigdon at Mr. Patterson's bookstore and printing-office, and concluded that he was at least an occasional employee. He was said to be a good English and Latin scholar and was studying Hebrew and Greek with a view to a professorship in some college. He had read parts of the manuscript and expressed the opinion that it would sell [readily].
While the question of printing was in abeyance Mr. S. wrote to Mr. P. that if the document was not already in the hands of the printer he wished it to be sent [out] to him in order that he might amend it by the addition of a chapter on the discovery of valuable relics in a mound recently opened near Conneaut. In reply Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but that further search would be made for it. This excited Mr. Spaulding's suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home. In a week or two it was found in the place where it had originally been deposited, and sent out to him. The circumstance of this finding increased Mr. S's suspicions that Rigdon had taken the manuscript and made a copy of it with a view [to] ultimately publishing the story as the product of his own brain. Whether the manuscript was amended and returned to Mr. P. he did not tell me, but it probably was.
--As quoted in Naked Truths About Mormonism (Berkeley CA) 2 (Dec. 1988). The original of Redick McKee's letter is preserved in the A. B. Deming papers at the Chicago Historical Society Library.
In 1815, Rigdon was 22, but not in the employ of Patterson. Engles (ca. 1781-1827) was 34, and Lambdin (1798-1825) was 17--all of whom would be considered "young men" from the 54-year-old Solomon Spalding's (1761-1816) perspective. McKee (1800-1886) at the time would have been 15. However, the part about being "a good English and Latin scholar and was studying Hebrew and Greek with a view to a professorship in some college" could be a supplemented version (remember by this time he has studied Rigdon's life thoroughly) of Patterson's description of Engles as "an excellent scholar". Engles was given the responsibility of deciding which MSS got published based on his scholarly opinion "as to their morality, scholarship, &c." McKee's remembering Solomon's accusation about Rigdon had a lot to do with his reading Miller's reminiscence, which he mistakenly dated to 1886 instead of 1879. As McKee told Deming in 1886:--
It was during my residence in Virginia and on the Pacific Coast, (many years after I left Amity) that Mormonism was invented and had its growth, but until my return to the East in 1867, I paid little or no attention to the subject, and for some time considered it a harmless delusion, like other heresies which have sprung up, had their day, and passed away. Seeing in the newspapers frequent reference to the names of Solomon Spaulding, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Miller revived my recollections of early life at Amity, my intimate acquaintance with Mr. Spaulding and Mr. Miller, and what the former told me about his having written in Ohio a romance or historical novel called "The Manuscript Found," his suspicions about Rigdon &c., I was thus led to examine the publications made at that time, particularly, a work written by Prof. Turner, letters of Mrs. Davidson -- formerly Mrs. Spaulding -- and by Mrs. McKinstry -- her daughter -- the testimony of John Spaulding, Henry Lake and others, all tending to prove that the Mormon Bible was a fraud and imposture, not a second revelation of the Will of God, as claimed, but taken from or founded upon a romance or novel written by Solomon Spaulding. This was public sentiment at the time and I believed it to be correct.
About this time also my attention was called to a letter or statement of Joseph Miller published in the Washington Reporter, and in 1869 I wrote to the editor [of that paper] that Mr. Miller was an old friend of mine at Amity in 1815-16, and corroborated his statement in relation to what Mr. Spaulding told him about his book, his suspicions of Sidney Rigdon &c.; for, I had heard from Mr. S. myself, many of the same things. I wrote also to Mr. Patterson at Pittsburg to the same effect. ...
--As quoted in Naked Truths About Mormonism (Berkeley CA) 2 (Dec. 1988). The original of Redick McKee's letter is preserved in the A. B. Deming papers at the Chicago Historical Society Library.
Here he admits that reading about the Spalding-Rigdon theory in newspapers, particularly Joseph Miller's account, "revived [his] recollections". However, he seems to compress Miller's 1869 and 1879 accounts in the same paper, making it appear that his memory of Spalding suspecting Rigdon came in 1869. Instead, it came after reading Miller's account in 1879, which he mixed with incorrect details obtained during his 10 years of studying Spalding sources.
Joseph Miller's and Redick McKee's testimonies are not reliable reconstructions of history, but instead are good examples of how memory can be reconstructed to conform with new information. As Miller said in 1879:--"The longer I live the more firmly I am convinced that Spaulding's MS. was appropriated and largely used in getting up the Book of Mormon. ... I have not a doubt of it."
4. The opinion of Cephus Dodd, a resident of Amity, PA, that Rigdon had transformed Spalding's MS into the Book of Mormon (p. 166-67)It's not clear why Cowdrey et al. believe this extremely weak source helps their case. Dodd expresses it as his opinion, but no firsthand testimony is given. Concerning what he knew about Spalding's MS, Dodd said, "I have understood that Mr. S[palding]. had submitted his manuscript to Revd. R. Patterson ... that must have been before he came to Amity as he still had it [the MS] here. ... You will thus perceive that I have no personal knowledge ..." (Letter of 2 March 1857, to T. Ringland, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, quoted in Cowdrey et al., 656-58).
5. Rigdon had several cousins living in the Amity area for 20 years before Spalding arrived there in 1814. (p. 169-70)By late 1814, when the Spaldings showed up in Amity, apparently only two cousins--George Jr. and Henry J. Rigdon--were farming a few miles east of Amity. While it is certainly possible for the 22-23 year-old Rigdon and his family to have passed through Amity during 1815-16 on their way to visit family, more likely the cousins visited the Rigdons on their way to markets in Pittsburgh. Regardless, no one has accused Rigdon of stealing Spalding's MS from his home or tavern in Amity, but from Patterson's office in Pittsburgh. So, again, it is unclear how such evidence helps our authors' case. Yet, without any evidence, Cowdrey et al. propose the Spaldings not only knew Rigdon, but that Rigdon himself told Mrs. Spalding that "at this time [he was] connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson ...
as Rigdon himself has frequently stated", as she herself claimed in her 1839 statement. That certainly is a unique twist on Davison's statement, the wording of which was heavily influenced by Howe's 1834 book. Again, I quote Dale's comments on Davison's 1839 statement:--
Another of Pratt's points of rebuttal was that the Boston Recorder report said that "Sidney Rigdon... [was] connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson... as Rigdon himself has frequently stated." Here D. R. Austin was almost certainly relying upon information published in E. D. Howe's 1834 book, where Howe states that Rigdon "was... seen frequently in his shop. Rigdon resided in Pittsburgh... as he has since frequently asserted." Whether or not Spalding's widow ever made such an allegation, the wording, as published in her article, is obviously an erroneous conflation derived from a misreading of Howe.
As discussed above, anyone claiming Rigdon was employed or knew either Patterson before 1821 is on very shaky ground--hardly sufficient reason to accuse Rigdon of lying. If Davison had known Rigdon and spoken with him in person, she would have certainly made explicit mention of it. Incredibly, no other residents of Amity mention seeing Rigdon there either, not even Miller and McKee. I think it is quite obvious that the part in Davison's 1839 statement that mentions Rigdon was added by Austin, or at the very least represents widow Spalding's after the fact surmising under the influence of Howe's 1834 book, which had mentioned the firm of Patterson & Lambdin, which had not existed until 1818. Cowdrey et al. would do well to drop this line of argumentation
6. Rebecca J. Eichbaum, daughter of the postmaster at Pittsburgh remembered seeing Rigdon getting his mail before 1822. (pp. 170-75)A 90-year-old Eichbaum told Robert Patterson jr.:--
My father, John Johnston, was postmaster of Pittsburgh for about eighteen years, from 1804 to 1822. My husband, William Eichbaum, succeeded him, and was postmaster for about eleven years, from 1822 to 1833. I was born Aug. 23, 1792, and when I became old enough I assisted my father in attending to the post-office, and became familiar with its duties. From 1811 to 1816 I was the regular clerk in the office, assorting, making up, dispatching, opening, and distributing the mails. Pittsburgh was then a small town, and I was well acquainted with all the stated visitors at the office who called regularly for their mails. So meagre at that time were the mails that I could generally tell without looking whether or not there was anything for such persons, though I would usually look in order to satisfy them. I was married in 1815, and the next year my connection with the office ceased, except during the absences of my husband I knew and distinctly remember Robert and Joseph Patterson, J. Harrison Lambdin, Silas Engles, and Sidney Rigdon. I remember Rev. Mr. Spaulding, but simply as one who occasionally called [p. 11] to inquire for letters. I remember that there was an evident intimacy between Lambdin and Rigdon. They very often came to the office together. I particularly remember that they would thus come during the hour on Sabbath afternoon when the office was required to be open, and I remember feeling sure that Rev. Mr. Patterson knew nothing of this, or he would have put a stop to it. I do not know what position, if any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or printing-office, but am well assured he was frequently, if not constantly, there for a large part of the time when I was clerk in the post-office. I recall Mr. Engles saying that 'Rigdon was always hanging around the printing-office.' He was connected with the tannery before he became a preacher, though he may have continued the business whilst preaching.
--Statement of 18 Sept. 1879, in Robert Patterson, "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon?" in Crumrine, History of Washington County, Pa. (1882), 433. Original in A. Theodore Schroeder Papers in the Special Collections of the Library of the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Eichbaum is a major witness for Cowdrey et al. because she
seems to place Rigdon at the Pittsburgh post office before 1816, while at the same time establishes his friendship with Lambdin and frequent presence in Engles' print shop. Our authors believe "proof" that Rigdon received mail at the Pittsburgh post office in 1816 establishes the accuracy of Eichbaum's memory, which it doesn't (see below). There are several things to consider about the above statement before uncritically accepting it at face value as Cowdrey et al. have done.
Before examining the particulars of Eichbaum's statement, we should consider the circumstances under which she gave her statement, which was at the request of Robert Patterson jr. Dale noted what I think could be a major problem:--
Generally speaking, the 1879 Eichbaum statement appears to be just what it represents itself to be, (i.e. the memories of a lady who knew Sidney Rigdon and others in Pittsburgh during the first two decades of the 19th century). Mrs. Eichbaum died on May 4 1882, so she was unavailable to respond to any questions later raised by investigators who happened to read Robert Patterson, Jr.'s publication of her recollections. For example, Patterson's own friend and research associate, Iassc Craig, in Oct. 1882 expressed his surprise at some of the contents of the statement, but was unable to conduct another interview with the lady, as she had by then passed away.
Shortly after publication in 1882, Isaac Craig wrote the following to Patterson:--
Mrs. Eichbaum's statement to you is a surprise to me for two reasons.
I. Because I called on her to learn if she could throw any light on the matter and she could give me none. This was a year or two before the date you assign for her statement -- Sept. 18, 1879. II. The intimacy she says existed between Lambdin and Rigdon. In all my investigation I never found any one who knew of this. All impressed me with the belief that it was Silas Engles with whom Rigdon was intimate. That Rigdon had a small tannery on Penn street, near Hand, for the manufacture of book- binders sheep-skins, and supplying these to the office brought him in con- tact with Engles. This impression I obtained from John Sandersen, an old time butcher, who sold sheep pelts to Rigdon.
--Letter to Robert Patterson jr., 14 Oct. 1882, currently in the possession of Dale R. Broadhurst of Hilo, Hawaii.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/Eich1879.htm#1882a
Dale downplays the significance of Craig's statement, suggesting that Craig asked the wrong questions but Patterson the right one's:--
... there is a likely solution to this seeming problem. If Rigdon's main connection with the Patterson booksales and publishing business centered on the Patterson's relative and printer, Silas Engles, then his friendship with Lambdin may have been a transitory one. Rigdon may have indeed come into Pittsburgh from his parents nearby farm on weekends, but his main reason for making those visits to the city probably was not to simply spend time with young Lambdin. In response to Patterson's direct questioning about any relationship between Rigdon and Lambdin, she may have recalled a couple of summers, before 1817, when she saw the two together. When Craig conducted his interview with the elderly lady his questions may have led the discussion in some other direction, whereby Lambdin was not much spoken of.
Dale's reasoning doesn't ring true to me. We don't know what Craig asked Eichbaum, we only know his reaction, and going on his reaction, he believed his interview would have brought out the same information Patterson got. Could the different results be indication of the different interview styles? Perhaps Patterson got a different result because he asked leading questions, whereas Craig asked more general questions expecting witnesses to supply the details? The possibility therefore exists that her memory was assisted by prompting from Patterson.
From 1811 to 1816 I was the regular clerk in the office, ... I was married in 1815, and the next year my connection with the office ceased, except during the absences of my husband -- Although Eichbaum clearly places Rigdon in her Pittsburgh post office between 1811 and 1816, her occasional work thereafter allows for the possibility that her memory includes Rigdon's residence, 1822-25. Indeed, the demarcation line may not have been as clear as she implies since, according to her nephew, she continued to live in her father's house even after her marriage.
During the entire official career of Mr. Johnston the post-office was at his residence on Front Street, corner of Chancery Lane, and throughout the greater part of this period his only daughter Rebecca, who in 1815 [became] the wife of William Eichbaum,
performed the main duties of the office for even after the marriage (not having changed her place of residence until about the time of her father's death) she continued at this occupation as [pg. 11] formerly, and the postmistress was known to her towns people in general.
--Johnston, William G.
Life . . . of Walmart. G. Johnston PA (1901), 10-11.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/Eich1879.htm
The post office was not moved until 1824, when it was announced in the Pittsburgh
Mercury, 20 Jan. 1824:--"REMOVAL OF THE Post Office ON TUESDAY MORNING, the 9th inst. the POST OFFICE will be opened in my Dwelling House, in Second, a few doors east of Market street. --Wm. Eichbaum, Jr. Post Master." So, while she may not have been the official clerk, she didn't have to be to observe what was happening in the post office. Nevertheless, she became the clerk "during the absences of my husband", which was quite often, no doubt, because of his many business dealings and other obligations. Eichbaum's nephew describes some of Williams's other interests:--
Her husband, William Eichbaum, was in many respects one of the most noted men the
[pg. 12] city has produced. . .
William Eichbaum, was a member of the firm of Cramer, Spear & Eichbaum, whose printing office was on Market Street (west side, between Front and Second Streets . . .
Mr. Eichbaum purchased the interests of his partners in 1815, and the business for the next three years was carried on by him solely; when (1818), my father [Samuel R. Johnston] becoming his partner, the firm became Eichbaum & Johnston, continuing until 1824 . . .
[pg. 15] [In 1819 Eichbaum & Johnston] became proprietors of the
Pittsburgh Gazette]/i], which they continued to publish until the close of 1822 . . .
[pg. 16]The book-store of this firm was on Market Street, west side, one door south of Third.
--Johnston, William G. [i]Life . . . of Walmart. G. Johnston PA (1901), 11-16.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/Eich1879.htm
So, although she carefully tells us about her duties in the post office, those unfamiliar with the actual circumstances might incorrectly assume that her observations necessarily pertain to and are limited to her time as full-time or regular clerk between 1811-16, when actually they could span 1811-33.
The only time she seems to limit her statement to 1811-16 is when she says:--"I do not know what position, if any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or printing-office, but am well assured he was frequently, if not constantly, there for a large part of the time
when I was clerk in the post-office." But this is unclear as to who assured her and when, and the relationship of this information to her observations of Rigdon and Lambdin in the post office is likewise unclear (see below).
I remember that there was an evident intimacy between Lambdin and Rigdon. -- This claim was specifically challenged by Craig, but it originated with Howe's 1834 book:-- "We have been credibly informed that he [Rigdon] was on terms of
intimacy with Lambdin, being seen frequently in his shop" (Howe, 289). But Howe dated this "intimacy" to Rigdon's residence in Pittsburgh, which was not surprising. Eichbaum doesn't specifically date her observation to 1811-16, but even if she did, it would likely be a blending of later memories, when, as Howe reported, Rigdon's relationship with Lambdin was well known. But Eichbaum isn't clear about the date of her observation, and Spalding researchers may have only assumed they date to he work as regular clerk, when they actually date to her time as part-time clerk.
They very often came to the office together. I particularly remember that they would thus come during the hour on Sabbath afternoon when the office was required to be open, and I remember feeling sure that Rev. Mr. Patterson knew nothing of this, or he would have put a stop to it. -- Lambdin and Rigdon coming together to the post office on Sundays might point to the period after Rigdon's preaching in Pittsburgh and his going into the tanning business, 1823-25, and during the time his relationship with Lambdin was well known. Cowdrey et al. quoted the 1810 statute requiring post offices to open for an hour after reception of the Sunday mail delivery, unless it interfered with church services, then they were to "be kept open for one hour after the usual time of dissolving the meetings for that purpose" (p. 174). So, possibly, Rigdon and Lambdin visited the post office together after attending church together.
I do not know what position, if any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or printing-office, but am well assured he was frequently, if not constantly, there for a large part of the time when I was clerk in the post-office. -- This is probably the most problematic part of her statement. Dale makes the following remark about Patterson's "printing-office":--
If the Eichbaum statement contains any mistakes or misrepresentations regarding events and persons in early Pittsburgh, those errors have not yet been discerned by any critical reader. Perhaps the only questionable part of the statement is Rebecca's memory of Robert Patterson, Sr. and Jonathan Harrison Lambdin having a "printing office." The print-shop in question was located adjacent to the Patterson store and was actually owned by Patterson's cousin, printer Silas Engles. However, since the Patterson brothers and Lambdin did publish books on Engles' press between about 1813 and 1823, the "printing office" in question may have been considered by Rebecca to have been a part of the Pattersons' publishing ventures.
The implication that Rigdon was connected to Patterson's office or Engles' print shop between 1811-16 is problematic. But note that she did not claim firsthand knowledge for this information. She only said that she was "well assured" that Rigdon was a regular at the office or shop, presumably during her time as full-time clerk. By whom and when? Note that in making this statement she switched to the present tense:--"I do not know ... but am well assured ..." This would suggest that she is responding to Patterson's questions about Rigdon's employment and general presence in the printing office during the time Spalding's MS was there. So, her being "well assured" in the present tense could allude to her conversations with Patterson. Again, note how the language sounds a lot like Howe's 1834 book:-- "We have been
credibly informed that he [Rigdon] was on terms of intimacy with Lambdin, being [b]seen frequently in his shop[/b[" (Howe, 289)--which language described Rigdon's activities for a later period, 1822-25.
I recall Mr. Engles saying that 'Rigdon was always hanging around the printing-office.' He was connected with the tannery before he became a preacher, though he may have continued the business whilst preaching. -- To support the "well assured" accusations that Rigdon was connected with Patterson's office before Spalding's death in 1816, Eichbaum draws on something Engles had told her, probably in the 1820s. She apparently connected Engles's statement about Rigdon's presence at the print shop with Rigdon's occupation as a tanner, which came in 1824-25,
after he had been released as a preacher and hired by his brother-in-law Richard Brooks and/or William Brooks. In his comments about Rigdon's 1839 denial, Dale observes that "
after the break-up of the Patterson-Lambdin publishing business, in 1823, Rigdon evidently had some connection with Lambdin's portion of the remaining business ..., but Rigdon did
not have any direct connection with Patterson's portion of the remaining business (which Rigdon rightly identifies as 'an agency, in the book and stationery business')," which was probably "based upon Rigdon's work as a tanner and currier in Pittsburgh in 1824-25, and of his supplying leather book-bindings to printers and book-binders (such as Silas Engles and J. H. Lambdin)."
7. A letter for Sidney Rigdon waiting in the post office as of 30 June 1816.The advertisement of a letter waiting to be picked up by Sidney Rigdon in the pages of the
Commonwealth lead Cowdrey et al. to argue:--
... not only does it provide incontrovertible evidence of Sidney Rigdon's presence in Pittsburgh well before 1821, but it places him there during the very ttime Solomon Spalding is known to have been involved with the Patterson brothers concerning publication of his "Manuscript Found." At the same time, the question of Mrs. Eichbaum's credibility is effectively laid aside by the fact that these new revelations firmly support her 1879 statement ...(p. 172-73)
The only thing this proves is that Sidney Rigdon lived within the same postal area as Spalding, which was Pittsburgh. But we already knew that. It doesn't verify the accuracy of Eichbaum's memory, especially with regard to Rigdon and Lambdin and Rigdon's connection with the print shop ca. 1812-16, that is, if that is how Cowdrey et al. want to interpret Eichbaum's statement. I therefore concur with Roper's response to this piece of evidence:--
There are problems with this reasoning. First, although the letters show that both Spalding and Rigdon had unclaimed mail at the Pittsburgh post office (which is not really that surprising since Rigdon lived only a few miles away at the time), the letters do not show that the two ever met, nor do they provide support for Eichbaum's claim that Rigdon was intimately associated with Patterson's business before 1822. Eichbaum's important claims remain unsupported. Second, although some critics of the Spalding theory may have been wrong in claiming that Rigdon never went to Pittsburgh before 1822, Rigdon himself never denied visiting the place before 1822; he only denied that he resided there before that time. The most important question with the Eichbaum statement is not whether Rigdon visited Pittsburgh, but whether he was connected with R&J Patterson prior to 1822. That has not been demonstrated.
--FARMS Review, 109.
CONCLUSION
Rigdon's 1839 statement contains no deliberate deception--no evidence of consciousness of guilt. Rigdon never denied visiting Pittsburgh before his residence there, only that he did not know about Patterson's business dealings before 1822, which Patterson never challenged. The assertion that Rigdon intentionally drew attention away from Joseph Patterson is a red herring that has no corroboration. The idea that Rigdon could hang around J & R Patterson's business without Robert knowing is absurd. This was not likely since the major share of the duties were apparently Robert's, not Joseph's. In fact, although J & R Patterson continued until 1818, Joseph's involvement was secondary and his named was dropped from publications that appeared in 1815, during the time that Joseph Miller and Redick McKee claimed Spalding was complaining about Rigdon taking his MS. However, none of these late and extremely problematic sources--Miller, McKee, or Eichbaum--is more historically weighty than Rigdon's 1839 denial. Neither Robert nor Joseph responded to Rigdon's denial, and Robert jr., who had a long career as a minister and researcher of the Spalding theory, had nothing to report from his father and uncle about Rigdon's early presence in their business. Those who could call Rigdon a liar didn't.