Hey Grindael,
I was so puzzled by the claim that Smith volunteered to pay for the damage to the Expositor press that I cracked open the old Documentary History and took a look. (Actually, I used the on line version). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like there are two versions of the meeting with Ford in the Carthage Jail. The first is described as follows: "The Following Account of this Interview is from the Manuscript History of the Church in the Historian's Office, and not Hitherto Published." Do we know anything about this version, such as who actually wrote it and when was it written? Does the original exist and do we have access to it?
Here's the relevant parts of the entry:
Joseph Smith stated to them [Governor Ford and Col. Geddes] the origin of the difficulty, the facts relating to the Expositor press, the course pursued by the City Council; the legality, as they thought, of their legislation; the pledges that he had made by letter and sent by expresses to his Excellency, that he was willing to satisfy all legal claims in case it should be shown that the City Council had transcended their legal bounds, etc.,
Joseph said we were willing to pay for the press, as he did not want the owners to suffer any loss by it, [i. e. its suppression] neither did he wish such a libelous paper to be published in Nauvoo.
These express two pretty different notions. The first is just a statement that, if a jury found the City liable for damages, they would be paid. The second makes it sound as if Smith were willing to pay because he didn't want to hurt the owners. The second one is so contradictory to Smith's statements about his enemies that it seems likely to have been stated or added after the fact to make Smith look reasonable. The first, however, seems much more plausible as part of the argument to Ford. (More on that below.)
The second is Taylor's account of the meeting, which was written some years after the meeting. Do we have access to the original? Is there any evidence that what was printed in the History is not what Taylor actually wrote?
The relevant parts are:
Joseph Smith—Furthermore, in relation to the press, you say that you differ with me in opinion; be it so, the thing after all is a legal difficulty, and the courts I should judge competent to decide on that matter.
If our act was illegal, we are willing to meet it; and although I cannot see the distinction that you draw about the acts of the City Council, and what difference it could have made in point of fact, law, or justice, between the City Council's acting together or separate, or how much more legal it would have been for the Municipal Court, who were a part of the City Council, to act separate, instead of with the councilors.
[Page 585]
Yet, if it is deemed that we did a wrong in destroying that press, we refuse not to pay for it. We are desirous to fulfill the law in every particular, and are responsible for our acts.
This follows an argument by Smith that destruction of the press was legal, and Ford's argument that it was not.
The quoted passage is consistent with the first quote from the second but not with the second. There nothing in Taylor's account implying that Smith would volunteer to compensate the owner's of the press because he didn't want them to be hurt by the loss.
It also makes sense in terms of the plea Smith was making to the governor. Something like "Hey governor, I was right in having the press destroyed. But if I wasn't, get me a trial in a venue where I can get a fair shake and where I won't get killed by a mob. If I lose, we'll pay." Smith seemed convinced that the Council had the legal right to order the press destroyed, so I doubt he thought he'd lose in a fair trial.
Now, I understand Taylor's bias and the passage of time. But this account doesn't read to me like a biased account of the meeting. It presents Ford's argument in a straightforward manner and without editorial comment. And just based on these two accounts, I think it strains credulity to believe that Smith offered to pay for the press out of concern for its owners. But do you think it's within the range of reasonableness to conclude that Smith said he would pay for the press if he was tried and found liable?
Thanks.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
so you feel it too?! He's starting to replace Scully as being the one I would take most seriously when they say, "im gonna kick their asses..."