I agree that the forced migration/relocation of approx. 45,000 Choctaw, Cherokee and Chickasaw was an abuse on a worse scale than the expulsion of Mormons from Missouri and then Illinios because of the horrible racist element involved. (The abuses in that episode were simply worse in the outright depravity with which the Native Americans were treated; the total numbers might well also be higher too come to think of it — and the number of those who died along the way of deprivation and exposure was very likely much higher.) The racist element and the horrible acts, such as giving the Native Americans blankets infected with smallpox, alone are sickening to read about. I would never want to deny the Native Americans involved in that episode (and other episodes) their narratives of abuse at the hands of the American citizenry of the nineteenth century and beyond. This post certainly does not intend to do so. Reflecting on the abuses suffered by my own ancestors does not detract, I would hope, from the memory of Native Americans suffering during the same period.

You might be right that the Choctaw and Cherokee numbers might be higher if you aggregate them from all the years of relocations (I think it comes to around 45,000) — perhaps one reason why the Mormon expulsion is referred to as the largest forced migration in American history also results from such an aggregation of the numbers over the “Mormon Trail” period? Not sure but I agree that the Trail of Tears numbers might very well be larger in which case I certainly cede to the Native Americans the “honor” of being the victims of the largest forced migration in U.S. history.

As you know, the expulsion of Mormons from Illinios (and from Missouri before that) is widely referred to as a forced migration or expulsion by historians. Most Mormons who experienced it, including my own direct ancestors, certainly viewed it that way, particularly given the hardships they suffered as they had to make the 1,300 mile trek in extreme conditions and with great difficulty. As a side note, the Illinios General Assembly also referred to it as a forced expulsion when expressing regret for the episode in 2004. This is all to say that I am not playing any kind of rhetorical game or misrepresenting anything when I refer to my ancestors’ experience in striking west as a forced migration or expulsion. They would have preferred to stay in Nauvoo, the city they had built up, enjoying the temple that they were then building, over having to abandon their homes and make that arduous journey in order to escape violence and persecution directed against them. They did not see themselves as having any other choice considering the severity of the persecution they were exposed to and the imminent threat that they could lose the freedom to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

I agree that it is ironic that the absence of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states weighs in favor of the argument that, although the actions of the Nauvoo Council and Joseph Smith in ordering the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper were certainly unwise, they were not illegal at the time. There is a lot of room to debate this particular argument (that the destruction of the newspaper was or was not legal at the time) but this post isn’t about the Nauvoo Expositor. Even if the destruction of the newspaper were illegal at the time, I still would not likely agree that repealing the Nauvoo city charter and constructively forcing Mormons from their homes was a justified response (or the assassination of the Smiths). I understand that there are many people who disagree with me on this though, and I am comfortable with that (at least to the extent that it does not put my own family in danger in a scenario in which someone who thinks it was a justified response then might seek to justify similar actions against us based on our choice of religion now). As you might guess, like any other American, I wish to retain the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of my conscience forever, even if that means that I worship in a way that many Americans do not like, i.e. in the Mormon fashion according to Mormon principles and doctrines, which I believe based on my own religious conviction.

For my part, I am grateful for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. On the religious level, I do not want a state government to have the freedom to deprive me or my family of the freedom to worship in the Mormon way just because policymakers in that state don’t agree with the doctrines of my religion, don’t like Mormons on a personal level or think that, in their opinion, my religion is bad for me, or any combination of the above. On many other levels (aside from the religious level) I am also very grateful for the Incorporation Doctrine and its implementation for many of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I am grateful for the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments that correct horrible injustices that should never have been the case, in the case of slavery, in a land built on these supposedly enlightened principles. My prayer in this post just refers specifically to the First Amendment because that’s where my train of thought was as I reflected on the relationship between the Fourth of July and the July 24 holiday of Pioneer Day while sitting listening to an organ concert in the Salt Lake Tabernacle.

Not exactly. “Ousted”? “largest forced migration”? Not even close to accurate. I think that “honor” goes to the Trail of Tears, an actual forced migration of the Cherokee Indians. The Mormons who went to Utah chose to go; they weren’t forced. Many Mormons stayed behind (including Emma Smith). Some eventually settled in places such as Iowa and Wisconsin. Nobody forced Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and other Mormon church members to engage in the secret and illegal practice of polygamy that raised the ire of their law-abiding non-Mormon neighbors. And nobody forced Joseph Smith to order the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor (I note the irony in your praise of the incorporation doctrine with respect to the First Amendment, since the fact that the extension of First Amendment principles to state and local government action is the linchpin in Dallin Oaks’s defense of the Nauvoo City Council’s destruction of the Expositor). The notion that the Mormons were completely innocent victims of “religious persecution” who were forced to flee the United States by evil, Satan-inspired Americans, is pure Mormon propaganda. I think you know better than that, John. Why do you insist on perpetuating such misrepresentations of the historical record? The Mormon Church opposed the incorporation doctrine, and the Utah Mormons, led by Brigham Young, supported the institution of slavery. The Utah Pioneers, under the direction of Brigham Young, did not believe in freedom of religion, but instead established a theocracy in “Deseret,” which was anything but lovely for those who failed to give absolute fealty to Young.