Polygamy in Utah, 1880

Related Posts: Utah Polygamy and Divorce – 1880 to 1930; Divorce in 1890 Utah: Signs of Polygamy; Marriage in 1890 Utah: Very Normal
 

In this post I estimate the number of men and women living in polygamy in Utah in 1880 using data from the 1880 census and other sources.

I have estimated that in 1880 there approximately 9,000 persons in polygamous marriages in Utah. About 6,500 wives and 2,500 husbands. This is approximately 25% of married Mormon women and about 13% of married Mormon men. However, the total number could easily be closer to 10,000.

I also conclude that the census data by itself is not sufficient for estimating the number of persons living in polygamy. Other data is required. This conclusion is based on the fact that the married female to married male ratio for Utah from the 1880 and 1900 census’ were outliers. However, in 1890 it was nearly 1.0 (Figure 4), which means that in 1890 nearly all women in polygamous relationships were concealing their marital status, probably to protect their husbands and children. I believe that in the 1880 census nearly two thirds of women in polygamous relationships concealed their marital status.

These results should be qualified with polygamy studies from Utah’s earlier history. It is appears that during the 1860’s quite possibly more than 50% of married LDS women in Utah were polygamous wives.

Continue reading

Utah Polygamy and Divorce – 1880 to 1930

Related Posts: Divorce in 1890 Utah: Signs of Polygamy; Polygamy versus Democracy; Edmunds Act (1882); Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887); Idaho Test Oath; Marriage in 1890 Utah: Very Normal

Summary: I promised another post on divorce and I finally have enough data to write about. So here it is. (This just keeps getting more and more interesting.)

I have analyzed census data from 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. I restricted the analysis to the white, 15 and older population for the states and territories of the lower 48 states.

In 1880 Utah’s female divorce rate was the third highest in the US, only New Mexico and Nevada are higher. From 1880 to about 1910 Utah’s female divorce rate steadily decreases while the rest of the US tends to increase. From 1910 to 1930 Utah’s female divorce rate rapidly increases, following the national trend. The male divorce rate from 1890 to 1930 follows the national trend.

When looking at the difference in percent male and percent female divorce rates we see that in 1880 Utah had the second highest difference in the US, only Nevada is higher. Utah’s over 15 male to female ratio in 1880 was about 1.1 while Nevada’s was almost 2.5. Utah had a population of 143,964 compared to Nevada’s 62,266. From 1890 and 1900 Utah had the highest difference in male and female divorce rates in the United States. By 1910 Utah’s male and female divorce rate difference was the second only to Colorado. By 1920 Utah had the second highest divorce rate difference, only California was higher. By 1930 the difference in Utah’s male-female divorce rate was equal to the US third quartile.

Because the male and female divorce rates for US states and territories are correlated better than 89% two factor plots provide some additional insight. When the female divorce rate is plotted against the male divorce rate Utah stands out from the national trend for 1880, 1890, and 1900. For 1910 and 1920 it stands out a little. By 1930 Utah is well within national trends.

The only explanation I can see for this is polygamy. It appears that polygamy increased Utah’s female divorce rate noticeably above national trends. And this effect lasted for 20 years after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially stopped polygamy in 1890, maybe longer.

The value of this goes beyond academic interest. It can also relate to the gay marriage debate currently going on in the US Supreme Court. If the state can ban polyamorous unions then why not same sex marriage. From this data we can see quite objectively that polygamy increases the female divorce rate. I’m not going to get into that debate now but you can hear the supreme court arguments here and here.

Continue reading...

Divorce in 1890 Utah: Signs of Polygamy

Related Posts: Utah Polygamy and Divorce – 1880 to 1930; Polygamy versus Democracy; Edmunds Act (1882); Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887); Idaho Test Oath; Marriage in 1890 Utah: Very Normal

Summary: I said this post would be interesting. And it is. The LDS Church officially abandoned polygamy in 1890 due to intense government pressure. The 1890 Census Report contains detailed information on divorce that I believe captures evidence of polygamy in Utah. My previous post analyzed the marriage data (Marriage in 1890 Utah: Very Normal).

Firstly, when talking about divorce in 1890 we are dealing with a very small percentage of the population. The median divorce rate for the US was 0.23%. And it turns out that the overall divorce rate in 1890 in Utah is ordinary, right at the third quartile for US states and territories. However, when you look at divorce by age and sex it becomes much more interesting. Above age 34 Utah has the highest or second highest female divorce rate in the US–from 45 on up only Nevada is higher. But this is interesting because Nevada’s total population was 45,761 compared to Utah’s 207,905. Nevada’s male to female ratio was 1.76 and Utah’s was 1.13. Nevada was a much more difficult place for a woman to live and you would expect a higher divorce rate. But Utah?

More can be said. The male divorce rate for Utah qualifies as ordinary (falls between the first and third quartiles) for all age categories. But if you look at the difference between male and female divorce rates by age then Utah really stands out. The national trend is, overall, downward with male divorces eventually exceeding female divorces. The Utah trend is starkly upward, increasing in nearly a straight line from age 15 to 64. Overall, the female divorce rate far exceeds the male divorce rate. Not only does the divergence between the Utah male and female divorce rates increase with age, it also diverges from the national trend. 

Continue reading →

School Attendance in Utah

Related Posts: Utah’s Teachers and Students, 1870 to 1899; Education Funding in early Utah, 1870-1899; Polygamy versus Democracy

[After a long hiatus I'm back. I've just been busy with life: finished my dissertation, graduated, got a job, got married, bought a house. I'm planning on being more active in my blogging for the near future. I have lots of interesting ideas. Hope you like them.]

Introduction
My interest in educational statistics originates from an article written by Stanley Kurtz published in the Weekly Standard titled “Polygamy Versus Democracy: you can’t have both” (June 2006). In it he draws parallels between the United States Government’s struggle to stamp out Mormon polygamy and the current war on terror. “In effect, the fight against polygamy was a slow, frustrating, expensive, ultimately successful campaign to democratize Utah. (The parallels to the war on terror are eerie)” (parenthesis original). Writing further that “the Mormons renounced polygamy and set themselves on the path to democracy.” He also asserted that “Religious leaders schooled their families privately, while most of the territory’s children remained illiterate.” (See Polygamy versus Democracy for data on why his assertions are totally false.) There was also an article written by Damon Linker in The New Republic, “The Big Test” (Jan 15, 2007) where Linker asserted that Mormonism is politically perilous. (My response is here.) 

Anyway, my motivation stems from those articles. So for the last several years I’ve been compiling statistical data on Utah and US education and using that data to respond to what they wrote. After having looked at the data I find no evidence that Kurtz’s assertions are true; and the problem with Linkers article is that he ignores the historical record. I’m not exaggerating when I say the historical reasons why the church abandoned polygamy and what Linker asserts are not even similar.

I’ve already published a number posts using my education data. They are listed above. My findings from looking at the attendance data are given below. 

I restricted my analysis to ages 5 thru 19 of the white population demographic. The earlier censuses made it easy to get population data on that age group and it is still close to the school ages of 5 thru 18. Also, Utah’s population was predominately white. So I compared Utah’s white population to the same US demographic. 

The data presented is based on “attended school” during the census year. That is, if a child attended school during the census year then she was counted. Except for 1890 there is no census data on the number of months of attendance. The 1870 census gives average daily attendance, however, this data is taken from the Report of the Commissioner of Education and is for public schools only. Given that a significant number of Utah children were enrolled in private schools I decided not to include this data. Indeed, the 1888-90 Commissioner of Education report indicates 20.94% of Utah’s school age population was enrolled in private schools—the next highest percentage for that year was New Jersey at 16.81%.

I needed some way to compare the aggregate data of the United States to that of Utah. So I have used the first and third quartiles.  That is, if Utah is between the 25th and 75th percentile—the middle 50%--then I consider that to be ordinary. (See here for comparison to a normal distribution.)

The boxplots are for the US states and territories, Utah excluded. Utah is indicated with a red point. 

Conclusions

The typical census question that was asked was, “Had the person attended school in the past year?” It only asks if a person had attended school; not how long, or his average attendance. This leads to a startling conclusion. For the census years of 1850, 1860 and 1870  the median for the states and territories of the US was around 50%, so at least half of the white student age population in half of the states and territories of the United States had not attended school! While in the other states and territories attendance was 50% to 90%. The 75th percentile for all the census years varies between 60% and 70%. This means that in 75% of the states and territories of the United States at least 30-40% of the school age population had not attended school.

Utah is below the national median for all years except 1850 and 1860. In all years it fits my definition of ordinary with the exception of 1880. But even in that year it is nearly so.

The 1890 census did asked how many months a person attend school and it reports attendance according to three parentage categories:

• Native white of native parents (child and parents born in US)
• Native white of foreign parents (child born in US, parents born outside US)
• Foreign white of foreign parents (child and parents born outside of US)

I included the “attended school” category for sex and parentage in Figure 7. Utah is ordinary in all categories but two, and in those it is nearly ordinary.

I also estimated the average number of months attended for each 5 to 19 child. Utah is ordinary at about (2.5 months)/(school age child) while the median is about (3 months)/(school age child). 

                                 1850                           

Figure 1:  Attended school during 1850. 

1850 Census Education Question: “Was the person at school within the last year?”

Comments: For the census year of 1850 Utah is above the national median. 

                                 1860                           

 Figure 2: Percent attended school during 1860.

1860 Census Education Question: “Did the person attend school within the last year?”

Comments: For the census year of 1860 Utah is above the national median. 

                                 1870                            

 

Figure 3: Percent attended school during 1870. 

1870 Census Education Question:  “Did the person attend school within the last year?”

Comments: For the census year of 1870 Utah is below the national median but still ordinary.

 

                                 1880                             

 

Figure 4: Percent attended school during 1880. 

1880 Census Education Question: “Had the person attended school in the past year?”

Comments: For the census year of 1880 Utah is a little below Q1. However, I suspect there is a problem with the census data for this year. If we look at the median values for the United States from 1850 to 1890 they are:

1850    45.2%

1860    50.3%

1870    50.8%

1880    63.9%

1890    56.6%

 Notice that there is a jump of 13.1 points from 1870 to 1880 and a drop of 7.3 points from 1880 to 1890. I cant explain the unusually large change. However, Utah does not compare badly. 

                                 1890                            

 

Figure 5:  Percent attended school during 1890. 

1890 Census Education Question: “How many months did the person attend school in the past year?”

Comments: For the census year of 1890 Utah is below the national median but still ordinary.

Figure 6: Average number of months attended per school age child in 1890. 

Comments: Utah is below the median but still ordinary.

Some comments on how I calculated this data. There were four categories reported in the 1890 census for months attended.

• 1 month or less
• 2 to 3 months
• 4 to 5 months
• 6+ months

I took the number of months attended and multiplied them by the number of students who were in that category. I multiplied the number of students who attended 1 month or less by 1 month to estimate the total months. I multiplied the number of students who attended 2 to 3 months by 2.5; 4.5 for students who attended 4 to 5 months; and 6 for those attended 6+ months. Finally, I summed up each category for each state and territory getting an estimate of the total months attended by the 5 thru 19 population for each state and territory. I divided this by the student age population to get an estimate of the average number of months attended for each 5 thru 19 person.

Figure 7: “Attended school” category according to sex and parentage.

Comments: Utah is ordinary or nearly so for all parentage and sex. 

 Parentage categories are as follows.

• Native white of native parents: Native White (NP)
• Native white of foreign parents: Native White (FP) 
• Foreign white of foreign parents: Foreign White (FP)

The M and F indicate male and female. 

Polygamy versus Democracy

The June 5, 2006 issue of the Weekly Standard has an article written by Stanley Kurtz titled “Polygamy Versus Democracy: you can’t have both.” (Kurtz is an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and has written for National Review Online, Weekly Standard, Policy Review, The Wall Street Journal, and Commentary.) His general thesis is polygamy, or more broadly polyamorous unions, as well as gay marriage are antithetical to democratic values. He writes, “American democracy rests upon specific family structures.” In his article he outlines what he believes is a relationship between polygamy and tyranny, and a large section of his article is dedicated to an analysis of 19th century Mormon polygamy—The Mormon church officially discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890. Under the section titled “The Mormon Question” he draws parallels between the United States Government’s struggle to stamp out Mormon polygamy and the current war on terror. “In effect, the fight against polygamy was a slow, frustrating, expensive, ultimately successful campaign to democratize Utah. (The parallels to the war on terror are eerie)” (parenthesis original). Writing that “the Mormons renounced polygamy and set themselves on the path to democracy.”

Being a devout Mormon that naturally ticked me off. But for this post I shall focus on only one sentence from his article.

“Religious leaders schooled their families privately, while most of the territory’s children remained illiterate.”

The data
Because I am a mega-nerd, and because I was so irritated by Kurtz’s article, I spent the last year collecting education data for every US state and territory for every year from 1870 to 1899 from the annual reports of the United States Commissioner of Education (COE reports), as well as illiteracy rates for every state and territory in the US from the 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 census. Education statistics from the 19th century can be tricky. And I nearly have my database in a usable format. Some of the results are rather embarrassing for Utah, but most are ordinary or nearly so. But I’ll save that for later posts. One metric that is fairly objective is the illiteracy rates, reported in the census. The census divides the data into age groups, race, sex, and parentage. You can find the census data for the years I cover (here) at the US Census Bureau. The earlier census’ have less detail; the 1900 census has the most.

I shall compare the illiterate white population of the states of the United States with the illiterate white population of Utah.

You will find Kurtz’s assertion that “most of the territory’s children remained illiterate” is patently false. But how did it originate?

The Mormon Question
In Kurtz’s polygamy vs democracy article he mentions a book written by Sara Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question, which apparently was an important source of information.[1] In Gordon’s book she mentions many of the issues surrounding Utah common schools during the polygamy years. Here are two quotes.

“Indeed, the majority of Mormon children did not attend school until the 1890’s” (p. 198)

“Local schools, although they did exist in many communities by the 1880’s, generally were privately financed, and understaffed” (p. 199)

Based on my own research I do find fault with what the first quote asserts. The second quote is partially correct. According to my data, from 1870 to 1899 the enrollment rates for Utah common schools were never below 50%.

From the 1890-91 COE report the average enrollment in Utah common schools was 65%. Rather low, but considering the average for the US was 68% it’s not too bad. However, even with this low number Utah had higher enrollments than the common schools of Texas, Idaho, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Maryland, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Louisiana. I don’t have private school enrollment data for 1890 Utah.[2]

For 1889-90 school year I calculated common school enrollment as a percentage of the 1890 school age population because the school age populations were not listed in the ‘88-89 COE report (so the percentages will be different). The average common school enrollment for Utah was about 52% compared to a value of 68% for the US. However, when private and common school enrollments are considered the overall enrollment for Utah school children becomes 66%, which compares more favorably to the US value of 76% for common and private enrollment. Indeed the 1888-90 COE report indicates 20.94% of Utah’s school age population were enrolled in private schools—The next highest percentage was New Jersey at 16.81%. The private school enrollment for the Western Division was around 8%, Utah omitted.[3]

In 1880 common school enrollment for Utah was 51%, and 65% for the US. In 1870 Utah was at 50% and the US 56%.[4]

I’ll eventually do a post on how Utah compares to other states in enrollment and attendance, and other stats, but for now this will have to do.

Stanley Ivins
Gordon references a paper by sociologist Stanley Ivins, “Free Schools Come to Utah,” published in the Utah Historical Quarterly.[5] In it Ivins lists some school statistics. For example,

“By 1866 attendance had increased to 40%, and by 1876 to 44%. In the early eighties it began to drop, and by 1889, was down to 36%...for the years between 1862 and 1890, average attendance per school throughout the territory, was 44%.”

Note that Ivins lists only percent attendance, not enrollment. Ivins failed to list average US attendance, or any other like comparisons. I calculated from the COE reports and census data the average daily attendance for the United States as a percentage of the 5 to18 school age population: 29% in 1870; 39% in 1880; 44% in 1890; and 47% in 1899.[6] Ivins does not factor for private school attendance. From the 1860 Census, 58% of Utah’s white student age population attended school during the year; for the United States it was 60% of the white school age population. (The 1860 Census data seems to be if a student attended school he or she was counted.[7] So this is probably not average daily attendance.)

(*** TYPO: I rechecked my average daily attendance numbers for the US and they are 41% in 1870 and 42 % in 1880. The percentages for 1890 and 1899 are correct. I also neglected to mention that those numbers are for public schools only. ***)

Definition of “ordinary”
My contention is that Utah illiteracy rates for 1860, 70, 80, 90, and 1900 are “ordinary.” So what do I mean by ordinary? Any data point between Q1 and Q3. That is, between the 25th and 75th percentile, in the middle 50% of the data. This is tighter than a standard deviation, which covers about 68% of a normal distribution. If a data point is between Q1 and Q3, as far as I am concerned it qualifies as ordinary.

From Wikipedia, “Box Plot”

1860 Census
(click for larger image)
(Red dot indicates Utah)
(Better than ordinary)

In 1860 the median illiteracy rate for the United States was 5.6% for males and 9.2% for females. For Utah it was 1.2% for males and 2.7% for females.

Key
The boxplots are made from the illiteracy data for the states of the United States, Utah omitted. The red dots indicate illiteracy rates for Utah. The heavy dark line indicates the median US value. The line above and below the median are Q3 and Q1 respectively (75th and 25th percentile). Outliers are indicated by an open circle. This pattern applies to all the graphs below.

1870 Census
(click for larger image)
(Utah is well within ordinary.)

1880 Census
(click for larger image)
(Utah is very ordinary for each sex and for every age group.)

1890 Census
(click for larger image)
(Except for one data point everything is ordinary for Utah.)

The year 1890 is important because it is the year the announcement Mormons refer to as “the Manifesto” was given. The Manifesto was a public declaration that the Mormon Church has discontinued the practice of polygamy. It is included in our scriptures as Official Declaration-1.

Key
Green: Native white population of native parents.
Blue: Native white population of foreign parents.
Purple: Foreign white population.

Examples
Native White (NP) 10-14 M = Native white population of native parents, ages 10 to 14 Males.
Native White (FP) 10-14 F = Native white population of foreign parents, ages 10 to 14 Females.
Foreign White 10 to 14 M = Foreign born white population, ages 10 to 14 Males.

1900 Census
(click for larger image)
(As you can see, Utah is doing pretty well!)

Key
Green: Native white population of native parents.
Blue: Native white population of foreign parents.
Purple: Foreign white population.

Examples
Native White (NP) 10-14 M = Native white population of native parents, ages 10 to 14 Males.
Native White (FP) 10-14 F = Native white population of foreign parents, ages 10 to 14 Females.
Foreign White 10 to 14 M = Foreign born white population, ages 10 to 14 Males.

End Notes____________________________
[1] For book reviews of The Mormon Question from LDS perspectives see Terryl L. Givens (here) and Nathan B. Oman (here) in BYU Studies, and Kathleen Flake (here) in Dialogue.

[2] Percentage of the 5 to 18 school age population. School age population from 1890-91 COE report.

[3] Percentage of the 5 to 18 school age population. School age population from 1890-91 COE report. For 1889-90 I calculated common school enrollment as a percent of the 1890 school age population because the school age populations were not listed in the ‘88-89 COE report, so the percentages will be different.

[4] Percentage of the 5 to 18 school age population. School age population from 1880 and 1870 US Census.

[5] Ivins, S.S., Free Schools Come to Utah, Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 22, No. 4, p. 321, 1954.

[6] 1870 and 1880 school age populations from US Census.

[7] From the 1860 Census, “The average number of pupils attending school during the year amounted to nearly one in six for the entire population, and to almost one in five for the free white inhabitants of the Union.”

Idaho Test Oath

Related Posts: Edmunds Act (1882); Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862); Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887); More on gay marriage

The Idaho Test Oath in effect made it illegal for any Mormon in the state of Idaho to vote or hold public office. This disfranchisement was achieved through a test oath that every perspective voter was required to swear to prior to being allowed to vote.

Any person “who is a member of any order, organization, or association which teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages its members or devotees, or any other persons, to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy” was barred from voting.

This law was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court on February 3, 1890. For Court’s final decision see DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U. S. 333 (1890).

The following was taken from Laws of the territory of Idaho: An Act for Holding Elections, 1884-1885, pp. 106-117. Only the relevant sections are quoted. The sections which are quoted are quoted in their entirety. See part of the legislation at Google Books. 

TO PROVIDE FOR HOLDING ELECTIONS AND PRESCRIBING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Idaho, as follows:

Section 1.All male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years, who are citizens of the United States, and have resided in the Territory four months, and in the county where they offer to vote, thirty days, next preceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote at any election for delegate to Congress, and to Territorial, County and Precinct officers. All persons having qualifications of an elector, shall be eligible to any office within this Territory, except as otherwise provided by law.

Sec. 2. No person under guardianship, non compos mentis, or insane, nor any person convicted of treason, felony or bribery, in this Territory, or in any other State or Territory in the Union, unless restored to civil rights, nor any person who is a bigamist or polygamist, or who teaches, advises, counsels or encourages any person or persons to become bigamists or polygamists, or to commit any other crime defined by law, or to enter into what is known as plural or celestial marriage, or who is a member of any order, organization, or association which teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages its members or devotees, or any other persons, to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a rite or ceremony of such order, organization or association, or otherwise, shall be permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any position or office of honor, trust or profit, within this Territory.

…

Sec. 16. If any person offering to vote shall be challenged by any Judge or Clerk of the election, or any other person entitled to vote at the same poll, and either Judge shall challenge any person offering to vote whom he shall know or suspect not to be qualified, one of the Judges shall declare to the person so challenged the qualifications of an elector, if such person shall then declare himself duly qualified, and the challenge be not withdrawn, one of the Judges shall then tender him the following oath:

You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you are a male citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years; that you have actually resided in this Territory for four months last past, and in the county thirty days; that you are not a bigamist or polygamist; that you are not a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members, devotees or any other persons to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy or any other crime defined by law, as a duty arising or resulting from membership in such order, organization or association, or which practices bigamy or polygamy or plural or celestial marriage, as a doctrinal rite of such organization. That you do not, either publicly or privately, or in any manner whatever teach, advise, counsel, or encourage any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy or any other crime defined by law either as a religious duty or otherwise. That you regard the Constitution of the United States, and the laws thereof and of this Territory as interpreted by the courts, as the supreme law of the land, the teachings of any order, organization or association to the contrary notwithstanding, and that you have not previously voted at this election. So help you God.

If the person offering to vote be a naturalized citizen and does not produce his certificate of naturalization, the Judge of the election shall propound the following interrogatories:

First—In what country were you born?
Second—How long have you resided in the United States?
Third—When and before whom did you declare your intention to become a citizen of the United States?
Fourth—When and in what court were you finally admitted to citizenship?
Fifth—When did you last see your certificate of naturalization, and where is it now, if you know?

These interrogatories shall be answered under oath, and if it appear that the person offering to vote has been duly naturalized in a competent court, and he possess all the other qualifications of a voter, his vote shall be received, otherwise it shall be rejected. Provided, that when a person is entitled to vote only for a part of the officers voted for at such election, the oath shall be varied accordingly, and the Clerk shall enter the names of all persons who are challenged on the poll lists, and the word sworn, in the brackets, opposite such name, and such entry shall be presumptive evidence that such voter was sworn, and if any persona shall refuse to take the oath so tendered, his vote shall be rejected.

…

Sec. 43. If any person offering to vote at any election in this Territory shall willfully, corruptly and falsely swear, or affirm, touching his qualifications as a voter, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than three nor more than ten years.

Sec. 44. If any person, not a legal voter, and possessing all the qualifications prescribed for voters in this act, or who is laboring under any of the disabilities mentioned in section 2 of this act, shall vote at any election in this Territory, or shall hold or exercise any office, or position of public trust, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or both so fined an imprisoned, in the discretion of the court.

…

Approved February 3, 1885.

Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887)

Related Posts: Edmunds Act (1882); Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862); Idaho Test Oath (1884-85); More on gay marriage

(Google Books text here)

In an effort to stamp out polygamy the US Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887. This act made adultery punishable by up to three years in prison, unmarried sex was punishable by up to six months in prison, and the female vote was revoked. (Women had won the right to vote in Utah in 1870.)

Below is the entire text of the Edmunds-Tucker Act. 


Read more...

Edmunds Act (1882)

Edmunds Act
(1882) 
(Google Books text here)

Related Posts:Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862); Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887); Idaho Test Oath (1884-85); More on gay marriage

Forty-seventh Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 47, 1882.

CHAP. 47.—An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows, namely: 

Read more...

Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862)

Related Posts: Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862); Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887); Idaho Test Oath (1884-85); More on gay marriage

(Google Books text here)

Below is the entire text of the Edmunds Act.

Read more...