Thunder From The Right Ezra Taft Benson In

Mormonism And Politics Matthew L Harris download

https://ebookbell.com/product/thunder-from-the-right-ezra-taft-
benson-in-mormonism-and-politics-matthew-l-harris-34433764

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Thunder From The Sea Harlow Joan Hiatt

https://ebookbell.com/product/thunder-from-the-sea-harlow-joan-
hiatt-7720082

Thunder From The Sea Joan Hiatt Harlow

https://ebookbell.com/product/thunder-from-the-sea-joan-hiatt-
harlow-47517362

A Roll Of Thunder From The Void Vajrakila Texts Of The Northern

Treasures Tradition Rig Dzin Rdorje Martin Boord

https://ebookbell.com/product/a-roll-of-thunder-from-the-void-
vajrakila-texts-of-the-northern-treasures-tradition-rig-dzin-rdorje-
martin-boord-4171296

Gifts From The Thunder Beings Indigenous Archery And European Firearms
In The Northern Plains And Central Subarctic 16701870 Bohr

https://ebookbell.com/product/gifts-from-the-thunder-beings-
indigenous-archery-and-european-firearms-in-the-northern-plains-and-
central-subarctic-16701870-bohr-11796230
Distant Thunder The Us Artillery From The Spanishamerican War To The
Present 1st Edition Alejandro De Quesada

https://ebookbell.com/product/distant-thunder-the-us-artillery-from-
the-spanishamerican-war-to-the-present-1st-edition-alejandro-de-
quesada-43251606

Brushes With History Writing On Art From The Nation 18652001 Peter G
Meyer

https://ebookbell.com/product/brushes-with-history-writing-on-art-
from-the-nation-18652001-peter-g-meyer-51574692

In Lands That Never Were Tales Of Swords And Sorcery From The Magazine
Of Fantasy Science Fiction Gordon Van Gelder

https://ebookbell.com/product/in-lands-that-never-were-tales-of-
swords-and-sorcery-from-the-magazine-of-fantasy-science-fiction-
gordon-van-gelder-47579772

Yank The Memoir Of A World War Ii Soldier 19411945 From The Desert War
Of Africa To The Allied Invasion Of Europe From German Pow Camp To
Home Again 1st Paperback Ellsworth

https://ebookbell.com/product/yank-the-memoir-of-a-world-war-ii-
soldier-19411945-from-the-desert-war-of-africa-to-the-allied-invasion-
of-europe-from-german-pow-camp-to-home-again-1st-paperback-
ellsworth-6646090

Thunder Over The Horizon From V2 Rockets To Ballistic Missiles Clayton

Ks Chun

https://ebookbell.com/product/thunder-over-the-horizon-
from-v2-rockets-to-ballistic-missiles-clayton-ks-chun-1392724
THU
T
D
N
E
H
E
R
R
G
IT
H
R
FM
O
EZRATAF
TBENSON i m
nMor ons
im
i
ndPol
a i
tcs

Edi
tedby
MATTHEW L.HARRIS
Thunder from the Right
Thunder from the Right
Ezra Taft Benson
in Mormonism and Politics

Edited by
Matthew L. Harris
© 2019 by the Board of Trustees
of the University of Illinois
All rights reserved

Photographs courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Harris, Matthew L., editor.
Title: Thunder from the right : Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and
politics / edited by Matthew L. Harris.
Description: [Urbana, Illinois] : [University of Illinois Press], [2019]
| Photographs courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: lccn 2018032359| isbn 9780252042256 (hardcover : alk.
paper) | isbn 9780252084010 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Subjects: lcsh: Benson, Ezra Taft—Political activity. | United States—
Politics and government—1945–1989. | Mormon Church—Political
activity. | Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—Political
activity.
Classification: lcc bx8695.b38 t48 2019 | ddc 289.3092—dc23
lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018032359

E-book isbn 978-0-252-05108-1

 Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction
Breaching the Wall: Ezra Taft Benson on Church and State 1
Matthew L. Harris

Part I: Politics and Cold War Anxieties

1 Ezra Taft Benson and the Family Farm 23
Brian Q. Cannon
2 Ezra Taft Benson Meets Nikita Khrushchev, 1959: Memory
Embellished 53
Gary James Bergera
3 From New Deal to New Right 68
Robert A. Goldberg
4 Potomac Fever: Continuing Quest for the U.S. Presidency 97
Newell G. Bringhurst
5 Martin Luther King, Civil Rights, and Perceptions of a
“Communist Conspiracy” 124
Matthew L. Harris
Part II: Theology
6 The Cold War and the Invention of Free Agency 159
Matthew Bowman
7 Women and Gender 178
Andrea G. Radke-Moss
8 LDS Church Presidency Years, 1985–1994 208
J. B. Haws

Contributors 239
Index 243
Photographs follow page 156
 Acknowledgments

My interest in Mormon studies began years ago when I coauthored a book

on Mormons and blacks with the distinguished Mormon historian Newell
Bringhurst. Newell taught me the “tricks of the trade” as he introduced me
to the burgeoning field of Mormon studies. Since our collaboration began
nearly a decade ago, Newell has read virtually everything I have written
about Mormon history. His keen insights, perceptive criticisms, and gentle
encouragement have bolstered my spirits. I value his friendship.
Special thanks also to the numerous archivists and librarians who tracked
down obscure documents, located hard-to-find books, and shared materials
even when I didn’t ask for them. Bill Slaughter, now retired from the LDS
Church History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah, is one such archivist. I dis-
tinctly recall years ago when I was researching at the Church History Library
when, out of the blue, Bill approached me from behind, tapped me on the
shoulder, and said, “Matt, you need to see this.” With friends like that, you
can’t go wrong.
Bill’s colleagues at the Church History Library have also been a pleasure
to work with, as have archivists at Brigham Young University, the Univer-
sity of Utah, Utah State University, and the Utah State Historical Society.
To these good folks I must acknowledge the support of my own institution
at Colorado State University–Pueblo. Not only has the university provided
generous research stipends over the years, but they have funded confer-
ence excursions and provided release time from my teaching duties to meet
publishing deadlines. None of that compares, though, to the indefatigable
Kenneth McKenzie, CSU–Pueblo’s interlibrary loan whiz. Kenny has tracked
viii Acknowledgments

down books and journals with superhuman speed, never complaining about
the endless requests I send his way. Thank you, Kenny.
Other friends have aided me along the way. The ever-genial Steve Mayfield
sent newspaper clippings, Ensign articles, and anything he perceived was
related to my work. Greg Prince generously shared his oral histories with me
on Ralph Harding and Reed Benson. Gary Bergera patiently read drafts of
my work, shared research materials, and offered sound advice. Joe Geisner
shared a trove of Benson documents. Bill Morain granted permission for
me to use portions of an article I published in The John Whitmer Historical
Association Journal. The contributing authors deserve a special shout-out as
well. Their sensitivity, unflagging honesty, and superb scholarship have car-
ried this book. Thanks, too, to the skilled and efficient staff at the University
of Illinois Press, especially to Dawn Durante, the senior acquisitions editor,
whose humor and professionalism are unmatched.
And finally, my family. Where to begin? My father and stepmother lent me
their “church” (for example, Deseret) books to support my work, and they
never hesitated sharing stories or recollections about Ezra Taft Benson. To
their support I add my mother, who has been a frequent interlocutor and
patient listener as I regaled her with stories about Benson on my long hikes
at the Pueblo Reservoir. My brothers and sisters have been stalwarts as well,
especially my sister, Trina Hammond, and my brother, Mike Harris. My
sister invited me into her home during my research capers in Utah, while
my brother has been my intellectual partner for many years on all things
Mormon. He and I debate, argue, share stories, and reflect on our shared
interest in the Mormon past. Thank you, brother. Thank you, sis.
Last but not least, I end with my wife and children, who make it all pos-
sible. Though they didn’t help with any of the research, edit any of the prose,
or attend any of my presentations, they alone are the indispensable people in
my scholarship. They make our home a lively and energetic place to be—one
full of love, good nature, and warmth. Courtney, Madison, Taylor, and Jack-
son: I’m blessed to have you.
Introduction
Breaching the Wall
Ezra Taft Benson on Church and State
Matthew L. Harris

In the summer of 1989, President George H.W. Bush awarded the Mormon
apostle-president Ezra Taft Benson the Presidential Citizen’s Medal, the sec-
ond highest award bestowed by the United States government. Nearly four de-
cades earlier Benson had served as the agricultural secretary in Eisenhower’s
administration, the first Mormon leader to serve in a presidential cabinet.
Benson’s dogged advocacy of conservativism and his slashing sermons against
communism made him a memorable figure. During his Mormon ministry
he gave hundreds of speeches on political themes, fusing his strong political
convictions with his religious ones. On at least two occasions he tried to run
for the U.S. presidency, vowing to curtail liberal government programs, which
he deemed destructive to the republic. Moreover, in sermons and writings he
warned about a “communist conspiracy” within the U.S. government, claim-
ing a link between American bureaucrats, civil rights leaders, and Kremlin
operatives from the Soviet Union.1 Perhaps it was fitting, then, that in the
commendation citation President Bush recognized Benson’s tireless devotion
“to the principles of freedom.” The Mormon leader, in Bush’s judgment, was
“one of the most distinguished Americans of his time.”2
Benson’s strong political convictions were formed during a time of in-
tense political conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. As
the Cold War gripped the nation following the chaotic post–World War II
years, Benson, like other Americans, promoted Christianity and traditional
family values as an antidote to “godless communism.”3 The Mormon apostle
frequently discussed “god, family, and country” in his sermons, urging fellow
Mormons to join civic groups to fight communism.4 Benson’s own family
set the example, energetically embracing the John Birch Society, an extreme
2 Introduction

anticommunist organization. For more than three decades, Ezra, his wife
Flora, and sons Reed and Mark affiliated with this controversial organiza-
tion, where Reed also served as a regional director and then subsequently
as the national director of public relations. The family also associated with
other “freedom groups” and was actively involved with the Republican Party,
both as consultants and party organizers.5 Benson viewed his family’s civic-
mindedness in providential terms: “Certain bloodlines seem to have the
spirit of freedom in their veins,” the apostle told his children. “Mother and I
are grateful that each of our children has that spirit of freedom . . . and have
a love for this country and understand its divine destiny.”6
The apostle’s fierce political views were often indistinguishable from his
religious ones. During his five decades as an LDS general authority, including
forty-two years in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (1943–1985) and nine
years as LDS church president (1985–1994), Benson promoted a conservative
constitutionalism that breached the wall between church and state.7 Most
notably, he criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down school prayer
in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and balked at other high court rulings, claiming the
justices had waged a “weird war” against religion.8 Indeed, Benson’s inter-
pretation of the First Amendment permitted cracks in the proverbial wall
between church and state because he believed that political matters were
largely spiritual affairs. In his typical blunt fashion, Benson proclaimed that
he “never had to separate his religion from his politics” because the two were
so closely intertwined. “I think it’s all one great big ball of wax,” he memorably
noted.9
Benson similarly linked conservativism with Mormonism. He envisioned
a world of free markets, limited government, personal choice, and liberty
under law.10 At the same time, he condemned labor unions, liberalism, and
government welfare programs, specifically federal aid to education, Medicaid
and Medicare, and Social Security. These programs, he frightfully asserted,
not only contravened the basic tenets of Mormonism, but they were neither
constitutional nor fiscally sustainable.11 In his popular Mormon book, The Red
Carpet, published in 1962, the apostle declared that the welfare state would
lead the country down “the royal road to communism.”12 He viewed this as a
three-phased process asserting that liberalism would morph into socialism,
socialism into communism, and communism into enslavement, thus robbing
Americans of free agency and individual initiative. For Benson, then, it was
imperative that Latter-day Saints avoid socialism and communism because
these “principles run counter to the revealed word of God. . . .”13
The apostle’s conservative values were forged and nourished growing up
on a small family farm in the bucolic agricultural community of Whitney,
 Introduction 3

Idaho. Benson’s rugged individualism and indefatigable work ethic instilled

in him an unwavering sense of independence and self-sufficiency that influ-
enced his views of government. Early in his Mormon ministry, for example,
he cautioned Latter-day Saints to avoid government assistance, warning
them to “stand on [their] own feet” and be resourceful rather that “run to
a paternalistic government for help when every problem arises.”14 Later in
his ministry Benson was even more direct, instructing Latter-day Saints
that if “the individual cannot support himself he should look to his family
for assistance. If the family cannot help, the Church may provide necessary
sustenance—not as a dole, but in exchange for earned labor.”15
Benson’s Mormon heritage contributed to his conservative values as well.
The Mormon church’s teachings on self-sufficiency, independence, and hard
work influenced his views on government, the welfare state, and public assis-
tance. Benson, moreover, was steeped in American exceptionalism. Since the
founding of the Mormon church in 1830, during a time of intense American
nationalism after the War of 1812, LDS leaders proclaimed the Constitution
“divinely inspired.” Mormon prophets and Mormon scripture had foretold
the providential destiny of the United States, declaring the fledgling republic
a favored nation.16 Thus, for Benson, the United States was a “choice land”
and “the American Constitution . . . an inspired document.” The “day will
come,” he insisted, “when the Constitution will be endangered and hang as it
were by a single thread. I was taught that we should study the Constitution,
preserve its principles, and defend it against any who would destroy it. To
the best of my ability I have always tried to do this.”17
Benson’s conservative views were further solidified during the Great De-
pression when millions of Americans, crushed by staggering poverty and
chronic unemployment, looked to the federal government to help them.
In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal,
one of the most far-reaching and innovative government programs in the
nation’s history. Like many conservatives of his generation, Benson viewed
it as a form of collectivism that had done irreparable harm to the nation. Es-
pecially troubling were Roosevelt’s agricultural policies, which the Mormon
leader decried for “weakening initiative, destroying character, discouraging
industry, breeding waste and dishonesty” and promoting more “government
control,” which “demoralized people.”18
Three pivotal moments shaped Benson’s Mormon ministry and defined
the leader he would become. The first occurred in 1946 when the First Presi-
dency dispatched him to Europe to oversee the church’s relief efforts after
World War II. To his wife Flora, whom he had left behind along with their
six young children, he reflected: “I’m so grateful you and the children can
4 Introduction

be spared the views of the terrible ravages of war. I fear I’ll never be able to
erase them from my memory.”19
Benson traveled with his secretary, Frederick Babbel, visiting Latter-day
Saints in Germany and Poland whose lives had been upended by war.20 When
Benson returned home in December 1946, after eleven exhausting months
covering nearly sixty-one thousand miles and overseeing some two thousand
tons of relief supplies, he was a changed man. He had seen firsthand death,
starvation, and poverty. “I have personally witnessed the heart-rending re-
sults of the loss of freedom,” he dourly noted. “I have seen it with my own
eyes.” He associated this “godless evil” with totalitarian regimes, which he
denounced for usurping free agency and enslaving people. Fellow apostle
Gordon B. Hinckley vividly recalled that “the bitter fruit of dictatorship” in
war-ravaged Europe instilled in Benson an “almost hatred for communism
and socialism.”21
Six years later another transformative event occurred in Benson’s life when he
accepted a position to serve as agriculture secretary in president-elect Dwight
D. Eisenhower’s administration. This was a position for which Benson was well
qualified. Prior to his call as an LDS apostle in 1943, he worked as the chairman
of the Idaho Department of Economics and Marketing in Boise, where he was
employed from 1930 to 1939 overseeing the state’s farm policies, and then from
1939 to 1943 when he served as the executive secretary of the National Council
of Farm Cooperatives in Washington, D.C., overseeing some five thousand
farm cooperatives representing more than two million farmers nationwide.22
Benson initially resisted the call as the secretary of agriculture. He believed that
his ecclesiastical responsibilities as a Mormon apostle were more important
than government service. But after LDS church president David O. McKay
warmly supported the move, Benson reluctantly acquiesced.23
Four factors prompted Benson to accept the call. First, he secured the
blessing of President McKay, who granted him a leave of absence from his
church responsibilities. Second, Eisenhower convinced him that the nation’s
agrarian policies were “spiritual matters.” Third, Benson came to believe
that service in the Eisenhower administration would give him a platform to
fight “socialized agriculture,” specifically the New Deal, whose policies he
abhorred.24 And fourth, a cabinet appointment gave Benson the opportunity
to root out communists in the federal government, particularly the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, which he alleged had the “first Communist cell.”25
Benson’s tenure in the Eisenhower administration, where he worked from
1953 to 1961, occurred during a time of great uncertainty. He lived in the na-
tion’s capital during the rapid expansion of communism around the world
compounded by a red scare at home that put Americans on edge. Several
 Introduction 5

international incidences concerned the Mormon apostle. First, the Soviets had
gobbled up territory in eastern and central Europe, expanding the borders of
their communist empire. Second, the United States failed to unify Korea in a
war against communist North Korea and China. And last, Fidel Castro led a
revolution in Cuba bringing communism to the tiny sea island ninety miles
off the Florida coast. All of these events prompted Benson to write in 1961 that
“[n]ever in recorded history has any movement spread its power so far and so
fast as has socialistic-communism in the last three decades.”26
For Benson, these international events were key markers in a communist
conspiracy to enslave Americans. The demagogic Wisconsin senator Joseph
McCarthy fueled the conspiracy with allegations that communists had infil-
trated the U.S. State Department and the U.S. military.27 J. Edgar Hoover, the
powerful, longtime FBI director, also contributed to the frenzy. In his bestsell-
ing book Masters of Deceit, published in 1958, he asserted that “many persons,
including high-ranking statesmen, public officials, educators, ministers of
the gospel, professional men, have been duped into helping communism.”28
These allegations alarmed Benson, specifically Hoover’s claim that “the grav-
est danger” in the world was not the spread of communism abroad but the
spread of communism from within the United States. For Benson, Hoover’s
warnings were a call to action.29 His books were “must reading.”30
Another pivotal moment in Benson’s life occurred in 1961 when he met
Robert Welch, the controversial founder of the John Birch Society. The two
men became extremely close. They exchanged dozens of letters in the 1960s
and 1970s and spent countless hours in person discussing politics and social
conditions in the United States.31 Welch’s bold claim that President Eisen-
hower and members of his cabinet participated in a massive “communist
conspiracy” profoundly affected the Mormon apostle.32
The turbulent decade of the 1960s brought both men together. Benson and
Welch shared a common ideology that the United States was in rapid decline,
reflected most vividly by the rise of urban violence, the mismanagement of
the Vietnam War, and a promiscuous sexual culture that damaged families,
undermined patriotism, and bred “godless atheism.” The civil rights move-
ment especially concerned them. They asserted that Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. and his associates were communists and traitors.33 But most significant,
both men vigorously complained that President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great
Society programs were destroying the country. They lamented that “no Con-
gress has passed more socialistic legislation recommended by a president
than probably any other Congress in the history of our Republic.” To that end
Benson, with Welch’s support, pursued two presidential bids in the 1960s,
vowing to roll back Johnson’s liberal government programs.34
6 Introduction

Eisenhower and Johnson were not the only public figures in their cross-
hairs. Benson and Welch asserted that environmental activist Rachel Carson,
Harvard historian and John F. Kennedy adviser Arthur Schlesinger Jr., mu-
sicians Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie, and various Hollywood producers
all leaned red.35 They also condemned “the communist” Warren Court and
supported a movement to impeach Earl Warren, the chief justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court.36
The apostle and the Birch founder viewed communism in religious terms—
as a fight “for the souls and bodies of men.” “This world-wide battle,” Benson
insisted, was “the first of its kind in history, between light and darkness;
between freedom and slavery; between the spirit of Christianity and the
spirit of the anti-Christ.”37 Moreover, both men asserted that the United
States was a Christian nation on the verge of losing its moorings. Though
Welch was a Catholic and Benson a Mormon, they shared a common belief
that Americans needed a rebirth of Christianity to restore the nation to its
religious heritage, which was under siege by “godless communism.”38
Alarmed by the rapid expansion of communism around the world, Ben-
son looked to the Birch founder to mentor him. “I am most anxious to . . .
accurately determine those who are promoting communist purposes,” he
explained to Welch. “Many of us recognize that you have an uncanny ability
to ‘sniff-out’ the communists and those who are willingly or unwillingly fol-
lowing the communist line.”39 So enamored with the Birch founder, Benson
attended Birch events,40 shared Birch literature with friends and family,41 and
vigorously defended the Birch Society against critics, both inside and outside
the LDS church, who condemned it as a subversive organization.42
Benson’s authoritative position as an LDS apostle, coupled with his warm
support of the organization, prompted thousands of Latter-day Saints to
join. In the 1960s and 1970s, the John Birch Society established chapters in
Utah, Arizona, Idaho, and California, in towns and cities heavily populated
by Latter-day Saints. These patriotic Mormons paid monthly dues, attended
weekly Birch meetings, and worked tirelessly to spread the Birch line. In
ever-increasing numbers, they heeded Benson’s call “to participate in non-
church meetings that are held to warn people of the threat of Communism.”43
Robert Welch rewarded these earnest Latter-day Saints by dispatching Birch
speakers to their neighborhoods, where they gave lectures, did book sign-
ings, and provided tips on how to recruit their friends and neighbors into
the anticommunist organization.44
Although LDS church president David O. McKay rebuffed Benson’s re-
quest to join the controversial organization or sit on its council, the apostle
actively promoted the Birch cause.45 Francis Gibbons, Benson’s secretary
 Introduction 7

and biographer, observed that “thirteen of Elder Benson’s eighteen general

conference talks” during the 1960s “focused on one aspect or another” of
communism. Gibbons further noted that Benson “gave hundreds of other
talks, both inside and outside of the Church, in which he dwelled on the
perils of communism and the remedies to thwart it.”46 He also published
three widely circulated books during this period—The Red Carpet (1962),
Title of Liberty (1964), and An Enemy Hath Done This (1969)—each heavily
influenced by Birch ideas.47
Benson’s books fused a militant anticommunism with Christian apoca-
lyptism. His sermons and writings echoed prominent Christian evangelicals,
who also warned about communism and “godless atheism.”48 But unlike
these evangelicals who used biblical end-times prophecy to understand the
Cold War, the apostle turned to Mormon scripture. As the Cold War in-
tensified during the 1960s, Benson quoted extensively from the Book of
Mormon, specifically from passages that discussed “secret combinations.”
Here he postulated that a communist conspiracy existed in the “last days.”
He was emphatic that the Book of Mormon played a central role in identify-
ing communists because ancient prophets “saw our day.”49 It was therefore
imperative for Latter-day Saints to study the book carefully and ponder its
message, where they would find a corrective to “many of the current false
theories and philosophies of men.”50
Not surprisingly, the apostle’s extreme views polarized the church.51 Critics
scoffed when he blended conservatism, Mormonism, and Birchism. But most
troubling, Benson and his son Reed used LDS meetinghouses to promote
the Birch message. This drew a sharp response from the First Presidency.52
Nevertheless, Benson continued his crusade against communism. President
McKay, himself an ardent anticommunist, allowed Benson to do so. Though
the aging Mormon leader found the Birch Society divisive, he permitted
Benson to address anticommunism as long as he refrained from discussing
the Birch Society or speaking at Birch events.53 When Benson crossed the
line, McKay’s counselors—Henry D. Moyle and Hugh B. Brown—nudged the
president to reign him in. “When we pursue any course [of action] which re-
sults in numerous letters being written to the Presidency critical of our work,
it should be some evidence we should change our course,” Moyle explained
to an LDS bishop, echoing his frustration with Benson.54
The First Presidency, in fact, reprimanded Benson on at least four oc-
casions over the course of two decades. In 1963, President McKay and his
counselors issued a statement rejecting the Birch Society after Benson and
his son Reed implied that the Mormon president endorsed the controversial
organization and its extreme right-wing agenda.55 Benson ran into more
8 Introduction

trouble later that year when he delivered an ill-advised speech at the five-
year anniversary of the Birch Society. There he expressed support for Welch’s
claim that Eisenhower and his cabinet were communist sympathizers.56 After
the speech, the First Presidency reprimanded him by dispatching him to
Germany, where Benson presided over the European mission from 1964
to 1965. Senior apostle Joseph Fielding Smith quipped that he was “glad to
report . . . that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother
Benson,” adding, “When he returns I hope his blood will be purified.”57
In similar fashion, the church hierarchy scolded Benson in 1974 when he
told a reporter that the church might endorse political candidates or parties
in the near future. Benson also proclaimed that “it would be very hard” to
be a “liberal Democrat” and “a good Mormon” if members were “living the
gospel and understood it.”58 LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball con-
fided in his journal that a “number of people came in to deplore the things
[Benson] said.” President Kimball “[c]ounselled Brother Benson that all of
the general authorities must speak with one voice,” declaring that “we can-
not take any partisan position in politics, either candidates or parties.”59 The
First Presidency, clearly displeased with the apostle’s partisanship, issued a
statement of political neutrality to counter him.60
Six years later Benson got himself into trouble again when he gave a con-
troversial speech at Brigham Young University. “The prophet may be involved
in civic matters,” Benson sternly noted. He further added: “Those who would
remove prophets from politics would take God out of government.”61 For many
Latter-day Saints, the address foreshadowed Benson’s rise to the LDS presi-
dency. Dozens of Mormons complained to the First Presidency that Benson,
who was next in line to be the church president, might align the church with
his right-wing politics. Sterling M. McMurrin, an outspoken and unorthodox
Mormon professor at the University of Utah, opined to Kimball that Benson’s
speech was “extremely divisive within the Church,” predicting it would “undo
much of the great good that was done by your 1978 revelation” lifting the priest-
hood ban. Former BYU professor Richard Poll protested that if “Benson tries to
put the prophetic imprimatur on this rightist crusade while holding prophetic
office, the alienation within the American church will be profound.”62 Even
the media outlets commented on the speech. Newsweek journalists Kenneth
Woodward and Jack Goodman bluntly noted that the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles “will insist that Benson agree to limit his official teachings to spiritual
matters before it anoints him as President and Prophet.”63
Such views concerned President Kimball, who found Benson’s politics
polarizing. The soft-spoken Mormon president made Benson apologize to
the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles after the BYU speech and then again, the
 Introduction 9

following week, to all the general authorities.64 Benson also drafted a letter
of apology to Latter-day Saints, though it is not clear if he delivered it.65
Kimball’s rebuke ended Benson’s public politicking. After Benson became
the church president in 1985, the aging Cold Warrior confined his sermons
to spiritual matters.66 Nevertheless, he kept abreast of political affairs. He
requested Birch literature for his counselors, Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas
S. Monson, and his secretary, D. Arthur Haycock.67 He also hosted Birch
Society president John F. McManus and other Birch officials at church head-
quarters, where Benson asked “many questions about how the Society was
progressing.” “The whole time we were there was devoted to JBS matters,”
McManus recalled years later.68
When Benson died in 1994, thousands of Latter-day Saints lined the streets
from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Whitney, Idaho, to mourn him as his hearse
passed along the highway.69 It was a “solemn moment,” recalled one well-
wisher. “Our prophet was gone.”70 In the eulogy, delivered before government
officials, friends, and family, Gordon B. Hinckley, Benson’s colleague for
more than thirty years in church leadership, praised the Mormon leader as
a “fearless and outspoken enemy of communism, a man who with eloquence
and conviction preached the cause of human freedom.”71 With these simple
words, Hinckley captured why Latter-day Saints loved Benson—and why they
found him polarizing. Simply put, Ezra Taft Benson’s intense patriotism and
fierce ultraconservatism made him a controversial figure within the Mormon
community.

* * *
The essays in this volume probe Ezra Taft Benson’s remarkable, though
controversial, career as a religious leader, political figure, and anticommu-
nist leader. Each essay is written by an experienced Mormon scholar and
is informed by archival material previously underutilized or unavailable
to researchers. The essays have been enriched by material from the Robert
Welch–Ezra Taft Benson correspondence at the John Birch Society head-
quarters in Appleton, Wisconsin; the George Wallace Papers at the Alabama
Department of Archives and History in Montgomery, Alabama; the William
Grede Papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison, Wisconsin; the
Ezra Taft Benson file at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington,
D.C.; the Dwight D. Eisenhower Papers at the Eisenhower Presidential Li-
brary in Abilene, Kansas; the Richard Nixon Papers at the Nixon Presidential
Library in Yorba Linda, California; the Hugh B. Brown Files at Brigham
Young University in Provo, Utah; and most importantly the David O. McKay
Papers at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.
10 Introduction

The book is divided into two sections, with each essay exploring a critical
aspect of Benson’s life and career. Part I examines Benson’s politics and Cold
War anxieties. Brian Cannon evaluates the apostle’s tenure as the agricul-
tural secretary in the Eisenhower administration, in particular, how new
transformations in technology affected his farm policies and, more critically,
how they divided the American public. Gary Bergera critically appraises a
statement Benson made about Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, in which he
argues that Benson deliberately embellished Khrushchev’s words to coun-
ter critics who found the apostle’s public anticommunism polarizing. Rob-
ert Goldberg situates Benson within a conservative grassroots movement
among Latter-day Saints and argues that Benson was responsible for building
a Republican coalition that reshaped Mormon politics. Newell Bringhurst
explores Benson’s perennial interest in running for the U.S. presidency, an
interest stoked by admiring Latter-day Saints who pined to see the Mormon
apostle elected. Matthew Harris evaluates Benson’s opposition to the civil
rights movement—specifically why he believed that Martin Luther King was
a communist agent and sympathizer. Harris contends that Benson’s anti–civil
rights views posed significant challenges for the church when Benson became
the church president in 1985.
Part II examines Benson’s religious teachings, both as an apostle and as
the LDS church president. Matthew Bowman homes in on Benson and “free
agency,” explaining how the Mormon apostle-president weaved this critical
LDS teaching into a larger narrative about freedom, government, and lib-
erty during the Cold War. Andrea Radke-Moss explores Benson’s views on
women and gender, demonstrating the ways in which the apostle’s teachings
on these critical topics were similar to and different from his contemporaries.
J. B. Haws concludes the volume assessing Benson’s church presidency. He
discusses Benson’s signature teachings on the Book of Mormon, missionary
work, and family life, while at the same time acknowledging the many chal-
lenges Benson faced during his nine-year tenure as president of the Mormon
church.
It is my hope that this book will offer a fresh and stimulating retrospective
assessment of Ezra Taft Benson’s life and legacy, particularly his considerable
accomplishments as a public servant, Cold War figure, and religious leader
in the half century after World War II.

Notes
1. Matthew L. Harris “Ezra Taft Benson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Emergence of
a Conspiracy Culture Within the Mormon Church,” John Whitmer Historical Association
Journal 37 (Spring/Summer 2017): 51–82; Gregory A. Prince and William Robert Wright,
 Introduction 11
David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press, 2005), 286–322; D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power
(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), chap. 3.
2. “Presidential Citizens Medal” Commendation for Ezra Taft Benson, reel 1, Ezra Taft
Benson Papers, LDS Church History Library (courtesy of Jay Burrup of the LDS Church
History Library). See also “President Benson Awarded Presidential Citizens Medal,” De-
seret News, July 29, 1989.
3. Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New
York: Basic Books, 1988; sec. ed., 2008); Kevin M. Kruse, One Nation Under God: How
Corporate America Invented Christian America (New York: Basic Books, 2015).
4. Benson, “God, Family, and Country,” address delivered at the New England rally for
God, Family, and Country honor banquet, Boston, Massachusetts, July 4, 1972, in Ezra
Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties (Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 1974), 401–7.
5. Benson, Title of Liberty: A Warning Voice, compiled by Mark A. Benson (Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 1964), 39. See also David O. McKay journal, October 26, 1962, Box
51, Folder 5, David O. McKay Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University
of Utah; Willard Clopton, “Cookies, Talk of Treason Served at Opening of Birch Head-
quarters,” Washington Post, September 18, 1965. Besides the Birch Society, Reed and
Mark Benson also affiliated the “Utah Forum for the American Idea,” the “Freeman
Institute,” and other anticommunist organizations. See Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy,
71, 111; and John Harrington, “The Freeman Institute,” The Nation 231 (August 16–23,
1980): 152–53.
6. Ezra Taft Benson to “Our Beloved Children,” August 10, 1981, as cited in Sheri L.
Dew, Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 476. See also
Mark Benson to the Benson family, June 29, 1953, reel 2, Ezra Taft Benson Papers, LDS
Church History Library; and Reed Benson to the Benson family, December n.d., 1948,
ibid. For more on Benson’s family, see Andrea Radke-Moss, “Women and Gender” in
this volume.
7. Benson was not the only LDS leader to blur the line between church and state. For
this point, see J. D. Williams, “The Separation of Church and State in Mormon Theory and
Practice,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (1966): 30–54; Patrick Q. Mason, “God
and the People: Theodemocracy in Nineteenth-Century Mormonism,” Journal of Church
and State 53 (September 2011): 349–75; D. Michael Quinn, “Exporting Utah’s Theocracy
Since 1975: Mormon Organizational Behavior and America’s Culture Wars,” in Jefferey
E. Sells, ed., God and Country: Politics in Utah (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2005),
129–68; and Randall Balmer and Jana Riess, eds., Mormonism and American Politics (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2016).
8. For Benson’s opposition to the Supreme Court, particularly in regard to the Engel
decision, see “Godless Forces Threaten Us,” Improvement Era 72 (December 1969): 69–73
(quote on 70). See also Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This (Salt Lake City:
Parliament Publishers, 1969), 31, for a discussion of the “anti-spiritual decisions of the
Supreme Court.” For criticism of the Engel decision in general, see Bruce J. Dierenfield,
The Battle over School Prayer: How Engel v. Vitale Changed America (Lawrence: University
Press of Kansas, 2007).
12 Introduction
9. “Support for Candidate Possible Some Day, LDS Apostle Says,” Salt Lake Tribune,
February 22, 1974. See also Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 306; Benson, Title of
Liberty, 28; and Reed A. Benson, ed., The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1988), 608–9.
10. Benson’s political ideology bears a striking parallel to today’s Tea Party. See Jill
Lepore, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle over American
History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2010); Theda Skocpol and Vanessa
Williamson, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2016).
11. Benson, ed., Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 627–46, 653–61, 668–74, 679–95.
12. Ezra Taft Benson, The Red Carpet: Socialism—the Royal Road to Communism (Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1962).
13. Benson BYU devotional address “A Four-Fold Hope” (May 24, 1961), Brigham Young
University Speeches of the Year (Provo, Utah: BYU Extension Publications, 1961), 10. See
also Benson, Title of Liberty, 173, 190; and Matthew Bowman, “The Cold War and the
Invention of Free Agency” in this volume.
14. Benson, “Principles of Cooperation,” Improvement Era 48 (November 1945): 711. See
also Ezra Taft Benson, So Shall Ye Reap: Selected Addresses of Ezra Taft Benson, compiled
by Reed A. Benson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1960), 187, where Benson wrote that
the “God of heaven expects his children to stand on their own feet and not depend on
an over-paternalistic government. . . . I know what the God of heaven has said, and he
expects us to ask for nothing of the government that we can provide ourselves.”
15. Benson, This Nation Shall Endure (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979), 75–76; and
Benson, So Shall Ye Reap, 331. Here Benson followed the standard church protocol, articu-
lated most vividly in a number of First Presidency statements and church welfare policies.
See Statements of the First Presidency, compiled by Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City:
Signature Books, 2007), 493–96.
16. Donald Q. Cannon, ed., Latter-day Prophets and the U.S. Constitution (Salt Lake
City: Bookcraft, 1991); Ray C. Hillam, ed., “By the Hands of Wise Men”: Essays on the U.S.
Constitution (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1979); J. Reuben Clark, Stand
Fast by Our Constitution (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1962); Noel B. Reynolds, “The
Doctrine of an Inspired Constitution,” BYU Studies 16 (Spring 1976): 315–40.
17. Benson, Title of Liberty, 28 (quote), 82, 226; see also Benson, So Shall Ye Reap, 223–30;
Benson, This Nation Shall Endure, chaps. 2–4; Benson, The Constitution: A Heavenly Ban-
ner (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986).
18. Benson, So Shall Ye Reap, 288; Steve Benson, “Ezra Taft Benson: A Grandson’s
Remembrance,” Sunstone (December 1994) 29–37 (quotes at 30–31).
19. No editor listed, A Labor of Love: The 1946 European Mission of Ezra Taft Benson
(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 188–89. The best treatment of Benson’s European
mission is Gary James Bergera, “Ezra Taft Benson’s 1946 Mission to Europe,” Journal of
Mormon History 34 (Spring 2008): 73–112. See also Dew, Ezra Taft Benson, chap. 12; and
Francis M. Gibbons, Ezra Taft Benson: Statesman, Patriot, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1996), chap. 10.
20. A seminal account of Benson’s European mission is Frederick W. Babbel, On Wings
of Faith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1972).
 Introduction 13
21. Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 65, 320; Hinckley, “Farewell to a Prophet,” Ensign
(July 1994): https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/07/farewell-to-a-prophet?lang=eng. See
also Gibbons, Ezra Taft Benson, 157; and Larry B. Stammer, “Faithful Throngs Remember
Benson,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1994.
22. For two biographical sketches of Benson with information on these years, see “Ezra
Taft Benson Biographical Sketch” [1966], Box 26, Folder 2, William J. Grede Papers, Wis-
consin Historical Society, Madison, Wisconsin; and Benson, So Shall Ye Reap, 333–42.
23. Benson recounted his call to Eisenhower’s cabinet in several venues. See Benson,
So Shall Ye Reap, 234–35; Benson, Cross Fire: The Eight Years with Eisenhower (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1962), 3–12, 345–46; and Reed Benson interview by Greg Prince,
September 15, 1999, Box 22, Folder 1, Gregory A. Prince Papers, Special Collections,
Marriott Library, University of Utah. See also Prince and Wright, David O. McKay and
the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 351; Francis M. Gibbons, David O. McKay: Apostle to the
World, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986), 314–15; and Merlo J. Pusey,
Eisenhower, the President (New York: Macmillan, 1956), 67–68.
24. Benson’s anti–New Deal views are discussed in three books he wrote: Farmers
at the Crossroads (New York: Devin-Adair, 1956); Freedom to Farm (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1960); and Cross Fire. See also Gibbons, Ezra Taft Benson, 94–96; and Brian
Q. Cannon, “Ezra Taft Benson and the Family Farm” in this volume.
25. On numerous occasions, Benson asserted that the first “communist cell” in gov-
ernment “was organized in the Department of Agriculture in the 1930s.” Alger Hiss, a
former agricultural official, particularly concerned the Mormon apostle. See Benson,
“The Internal Threat to the American Way of Life,” talk given at the Shrine Auditorium,
Los Angeles, California, December 11, 1961 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1961), 16; Benson
to H. Roland Tietjen, May 22, 1962, Box 7, Folder 3, Alumni Association Records, L. Tom
Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Benson, “We
Must Be Alerted and Informed,” address given by Ezra Taft Benson at a Public Patriotic
Meeting, Logan, Utah, December 13, 1963, p. 2; “Trade and Treason,” talk first given on
February 17, 1967, at the Portland Forum for Americanism in the Benson High School
Auditorium, Portland, Oregon, reprinted in Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 65; and
Reed Benson interview by Greg Prince, September 15, 1999, Box 22, Folder 1, Gregory A.
Prince Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. For Alger Hiss’s
involvement in a communist cell in the Department of Agriculture, go to G. Edward
White, Alger Hiss’s Looking-Glass Wars: The Covert Life of a Soviet Spy (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005).
26. Benson conference address, “The American Heritage of Freedom—A Plan of God,”
Improvement Era 64 (December 1961): 953. Benson’s speeches and writings convey his
engagement with world affairs in stark terms. See Benson’s So Shall Ye Reap; Red Carpet;
Title of Liberty; and An Enemy Hath Done This. See also Gary James Bergera, “Ezra Taft
Benson Meets Nikita Khrushchev, 1959: Memory Embellished” in this volume.
27. The best studies of Cold War hysteria include Ellen Schrecker, Many are the Crimes:
McCarthyism in America (Boston: Little, Brown, 1998); David M. Oshinsky, A Conspiracy
So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005);
Richard Gid Powers, Not Without Honor: The History of American Anticommunism (New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998).
14 Introduction
28. Hoover, Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight
It (New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1958), 93. Benson frequently quoted Hoover in
general conference, at BYU devotionals, and in addresses to civic groups. See Benson, Red
Carpet, 21, 23, 40, 56, 80–81, 225, 264, 277, 289–90; Benson, Title of Liberty, 5, 18, 26–27,
33–34, 39–44, 59, 65–70, 72–73, 111–12, 166, 176; Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 44,
49, 65, 308, 310.
29. Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 65.
30. “Race Against Time,” Speeches of the Year (December 10, 1963) (Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University Extension Services, 1963), 18.
31. Part of this correspondence will be published in Matthew L. Harris, ed., Ezra Taft
Benson and Anticommunism: A Documentary History (Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press, forthcoming).
32. In The Politician (unpublished manuscript, 1958), 267–68, Welch asserted that Eisen­
hower was a communist. For more on this point, see Harris “Ezra Taft Benson, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, and the Emergence of a Conspiracy Culture Within the Mormon Church,”
57–59; and Harris, “Martin Luther King, Civil Rights, and Perceptions of a Communist
Conspiracy” in this volume.
33. Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, chaps. 1 (“Americans Are Destroying America”),
7 (“The Erosion of America”), 13 (“Civil Rights: Tool of Communist Deception”); Benson,
God, Family, Country, chap. 25 (“Three Threatening Dangers”). For a critical appraisal of
Welch and civil rights, see Benjamin R. Epstein and Arnold Forster, Report on the John
Birch Society, 1966 (New York: Vintage Books, 1966), chap. 2; and Matthew L. Harris,
“Martin Luther King, Civil Rights, and Perceptions of a ‘Communist Conspiracy’” in this
volume.
34. Benson, “The Proper Sphere of Government,” Improvement Era 71 (December 1968):
51–53; Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 309. See also Benson to Robert Welch, March
8, 1968, Ezra Taft Benson Correspondence, JBS Headquarters, Appleton, Wisc.; and D. J.
Mulloy, The World of the John Birch Society: Conspiracy, Conservatism, and the Cold War
(Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014), 99–101, 135, 160–64. For Benson’s
presidential bids, see Newell G. Bringhurst, “Potomac Fever: Continuing Quest for the
U.S. Presidency” in this volume.
35. Benson complained about environmental activist Rachel Carson to President Eisen­
hower. He wondered why a “spinster was so worried about genetics” and concluded
that she was “probably a Communist.” In Linda J. Lear, “Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,”
Environmental History Review 17 (Summer 1993): 36. To Mormon Tabernacle Choir Di-
rector Isaac M. Stewart, Benson expressed dismay that the choir recorded songs by “two
hard-core Communists, Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger.” He insisted that the “use of
music by these Communist authors will be used to give aid and comfort for the Com-
munists, their fellow-travelers and dupes, and can only bring difficulty to the Church.”
See Benson to Stewart, November 19, 1965, Richard L. Evans Files CR 605 1, Box 49,
Tabernacle-Choir Correspondence File, LDS Church History Library (my thanks to BYU
professor Michael Hicks for calling this letter to my attention). For Benson’s views on
Schlesinger, see Benson to Hugh B. Brown, September 18, 1962, Box 3, Folder 4, Hugh
B. Brown Research Files, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU;
Benson, Title of Liberty, 29–30; and Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 39. Benson and
 Introduction 15
Welch ruminated on Hollywood producers in a pair of letters they exchanged. See Welch
to Benson, November 1, 1965, and Benson to Welch, November 9, 1965, both in Ezra Taft
Benson Correspondence, John Birch Society Headquarters, Appleton, Wisc.
36. Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 31, 68, 101, 104, 308, 332–33, chap. 23 (“The
Supreme Court—A Judicial Oligarchy”); and First Presidency Minutes, wherein Benson
explained that the Supreme Court issued rulings favorable to communists, Box 61, Folder
4, David O. McKay Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. Mal-
loy, World of the John Birch Society, 109–17, discusses in some detail the Birchers’ attempt
to impeach Warren. See also “The Movement to Impeach Earl Warren,” John Birch Society
Bulletin (August 1961): 5; and John Birch Society Bulletin (August 1965): 4.
37. Benson, Title of Liberty, 59.
38. Benson conveys this sentiment in his books and sermons: see So Shall Ye Reap, Title
of Liberty, God, Family, Country, and This Nation Shall Endure. For Welch and religion, see
The Blue Book (1959; reprint, Appleton, Wisc.: Western Islands, 1999). See also Benson to
Welch, October 1, 1969, Ezra Taft Benson Correspondence, JBS Headquarters, Appleton,
Wisc. Kruse, One Nation Under God, chap. 3, discusses other ministers and businessmen
who countered communism by invoking Christianity.
39. Benson to Welch, May 17, 1965, Ezra Taft Benson Correspondence, John Birch
Society Headquarters, Appleton, Wisc.
40. The correspondence between Ezra Taft Benson and Robert Welch reveals that
Benson was active in attending Birch events and sponsoring Birch ideology. See Harris,
Ezra Taft Benson and Anticommunism.
41. See Ezra Taft Benson to Robert Welch, June 21, 1966, and October 11, 1965, both in
Ezra Taft Benson Correspondence, John Birch Society Headquarters, Appleton, Wisc.;
and Benson to Spencer W. Kimball, n.d., Box 64, Folder 2, Spencer W. Kimball Papers,
LDS Church History Library.
42. Benson defended the Birch Society most vigorously to President Eisenhower and
President Nixon. See Benson to Eisenhower, December 9, 1965, Box 20, 1965 Principal
File, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library; Benson to Richard Nixon; December 9,
1965, Box 3, Ezra Taft Benson folder, Wilderness Years: Series I:S; Sub-Series A: 1963–1965,
Series 238; Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, Yorba Linda, Calif.
43. Benson, “Protecting Freedom—An Immediate Responsibility,” Improvement Era
69 (December 1966): 1146.
44. The Birch Society published “coming events” in their magazines, indicating where
and when Birchers would speak. Reed Benson and W. Cleon Skousen, a close friend of the
apostle, frequently held Birch rallies in LDS communities in Utah, Arizona, California,
and Idaho. For other Birch speakers, see Birch Bulletin (March 1965): 30–31; (June 1965):
31–32; (July 1965): 32. See also Russell W. Stevenson, For the Cause of Righteousness: A
Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830–2013 (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2014),
118–19, depicting African American Birchers who spoke in Utah communities.
45. For McKay’s denial of Benson’s request to join the Birch Society and sit on its board,
see McKay journal, August 9, 1963, Box 54, Folder 1, and March 5, 1964, Box 56, Folder
2, in David O. McKay Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah;
and Ezra Taft Benson to William J. Grede, April 19, 1967, Box 26, Folder 2, William J.
Grede Papers, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, Wisc.
16 Introduction
46. Gibbons, Ezra Taft Benson, 240.
47. Benson’s sermons were also influenced by Birch ideas—so much so that three Utah
State University professors accused him of plagiarism. After hearing Benson’s sermon in
the Logan Tabernacle in December 1963, the professors complained to the First Presidency
that the apostle had lifted passages from The Blue Book—one of Robert Welch’s signature
writings. As proof, they sent the First Presidency a copy of the talk, along with passages
from the book. See E. Boyd Wennergren, N. Keith Roberts, and B. Delworth Gardner to
David O. McKay, January 18, 1964, Box 55, Folder 1, Leonard J. Arrington Papers, Special
Collections, Merrill-Cazier Library, Utah State University.
48. Matthew Avery Sutton, American Apocalypse: A History of Modern Evangelism
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014), chaps. 10–11; Grant Wacker, America’s
Pastor: Billy Graham and the Shaping of a Nation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 2014); Steven P. Miller, The Age of Evangelicalism: America’s Born-Again Years (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2014); Randall Balmer, Evangelicalism in America (Waco,
Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2016), chap. 5; Kruse, One Nation Under God, chap. 5.
49. Benson, Conference Report (October 1986): 5; Benson, A Witness and a Warning:
A Modern-day Prophet Testifies of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
1988), 19–20; Benson, “Book of Mormon Warns America” (BYU devotional, May 21,
1968), An Enemy Hath Done This, chap. 29; and Benson, “Book of Mormon is the Word
of God,” Ensign (April 1975): https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/the-book
-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng.
50. Ezra Taft Benson, “Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations” Ensign (May 1975): https://
www.lds.org/new-era/1975/05/jesus-christ-gifts-and-expectations?lang=eng. See also
Benson, ed., Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 61. Some scholars aver that Benson’s emphasis
on reading the Book of Mormon elevated the book to a greater status in the Mormon
Church. See Paul C. Gutjahr, The Book of Mormon: A Biography (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 2012), 108–9; Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American
Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002),
241–42; and Patrick Q. Mason, “Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Con-
servatism,” in Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner, eds., Out of Obscurity: Mormonism
Since 1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80.
51. This point is ably covered in Prince and Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of
Modern Mormonism, chap. 12; Gregory A. Prince, “The Red Peril, the Candy Maker, and
the Apostle: David O. McKay’s Confrontation with Communism,” Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought 37 (Summer 2004): 37–94; Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, chap. 3: D.
Michael Quinn, “Ezra Taft Benson and Mormon Political Conflicts,” Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought 26 (Summer 1992): 1–87.
52. Hugh B. Brown, “Honor the Priesthood,” Improvement Era 65 (June 1961): 450; David
O. McKay journal, January 23, 1963, Box 52, Folder 4, David O. McKay Papers, Special
Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. In private letters, the First Presidency
warned members to “be wary of such societies.” For example, First Presidency (David O.
McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner) to Wilson J. Morley, December 12, 1963, Matt
Harris files (courtesy of Joe Geisner).
53. McKay told Benson that “it would be best for him not to speak at strictly John Birch
Society meetings, but approved of his filling speaking appointments already accepted
 Introduction 17
which were not associated with this group.” In McKay journal, March 23, 1966, Box 62,
Folder 1, David O. McKay Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah;
see also Benson to McKay, March 25, 1966. For an astute analysis of McKay’s complicated
relationship with Benson, see Prince and Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern
Mormonism, 300–312.
54. Moyle to J. D. Williams, January 9, 1963, Box 21, Folder 1, J. D. Williams Papers,
Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah.
55. The First Presidency statement was printed in several newspapers. See “Church
Sets Policy on the Birch Society,” Deseret News, January 4, 1963; “Birch Tie Flatly Denied
by LDS,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, January 4, 1963; “Mormon Head Clarifies Stand on
Birch Society: McKay Lashes at Those Who Try to Align Church With Group’s Partisan
Views,” Los Angeles Times, January 4, 1963; “LDS Leaders Reject Any Idea of Link Between
Church, Birch Society,” Sacramento Bee, January 4, 1963. The statement was also published
as “Ezra Taft Benson’s Support of the John Birch Society is Criticized” (September 25, 1963),
in the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress, First Session.
For David O. McKay’s discussion with Ezra Taft Benson about the statement, see David
O. McKay journal, January 23, 1963, Box 52, Folder 4, David O. McKay Papers, Special
Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah.
56. Benson’s address, “Let Us Live to Keep Men Free” (September 28, 1963), is repub-
lished in Benson, Title of Liberty, 1–21. For more on this point, see Harris “Ezra Taft
Benson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Emergence of a Conspiracy Culture Within the
Mormon Church,” 56–59.
57. Smith to Ralph Harding, December 23, 1963, Matt Harris files. Smith complained
in his journal that Benson’s missionary “farewell meeting was long,” a sentiment that
underscored Benson’s divisiveness. In Smith, “Executive Planner,” December 15, 1963,
Box 4, Folder 2, Joseph Fielding Smith Papers, LDS Church History Library. Smith kept
a journal in his executive planner.
58. For Benson’s remarks about political parties and candidates, as well his critique of
Democrats, see “Support for Candidate Possible Some Day, LDS Apostle Says,” Salt Lake
Tribune, February 22, 1974. Benson’s rhetoric denouncing the Democratic Party has had a
lasting effect on Mormon voting patterns, the majority of whom support the Republican
Party. For this point, see Robert A. Goldberg, “From New Deal to New Right” in this
volume. For data on Mormon voting blocs, see David E. Campbell, John C. Green, and J.
Quin Monson, Seeking the Promised Land: Mormons and American Politics (New York.:
Cambridge University Press, 2014), chap. 4. See also David E. Campbell, Christopher F.
Karpowitz, and J. Quin Monson, “A Politically Peculiar People: How Mormons Moved
into and Then out of the Political Mainstream,” in Balmer and Riess, eds., Mormonism
and American Politics, chap. 9. For the stigma of being a Democrat in the LDS church,
consult Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides
and Unites Us (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 367–68.
59. For Kimball’s anguish over the remarks, see his journal entry, February 22, 1974,
and November 5, 1974, both in reel 39, Spencer W. Kimball Journals, LDS Church History
Library. Kimball’s son writes that “calls flooded the Church phone lines” over Benson’s
remarks. He also explained that his father “disapproved of political statements by Church
leaders as divisive,” citing “that statements critical of foreign governments might hamper
18 Introduction
missionary work, especially in communist or fascist countries.” In Edward L. Kimball,
Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball—Working Draft (Salt Lake
City: Benchmark Books, 2009), 235–36.
60. Kimball immediately reaffirmed the church’s neutrality, releasing a public statement
indicating that members were free “to make their own choices as to political parties, candi-
dates and issues.” See statement to “All Stake and Mission Presidents in the United States,”
April 1, 1974, copy in Box 55, Folder 1, Leonard J. Arrington Papers, Special Collections,
Merrill-Cazier Library, Utah State University. See also “Support for Candidate Possible
Some Day, LDS Apostle Says,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 22, 1974; and John Dart, “Ezra
Benson: Will Mormons Go Political,” Los Angeles Times, April 1, 1976; “LDS Presidency
Reaffirms ‘Nonpartisan Politics’,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 5, 1974; “American Party
told, ‘Stand Firm’,” Deseret News, November 4, 1974; David Briscoe, “Church Says Elder’s
Speech on Third Party ‘Unauthorized’,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, November 4, 1974.
61. For Benson’s address, see “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” BYU
Speeches of the Year, 1981 (Provo, Utah: BYU Extension Publications, 1981), 26–30. See
also Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 293.
62. McMurrin to Kimball, February 28, 1980, Box 16, Folder 1, George T. Boyd Papers,
L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Poll
to David John Buerger, September 19, 1980, Box 46, Box 3, Richard D. Poll Papers, Special
Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah. See also the J. D. Williams Papers, which
contains several protest letters from professors at BYU, Utah State and elsewhere. Box 28,
Folders 1–3, J. D. Williams Papers.
63. In Kenneth L. Woodward and Jack Goodman, “Thus Saith Ezra Benson,” News-
week, October 19, 1981, 109. For media coverage of Benson’s controversial address, see
“Prophet’s Word of ‘Law’ Benson tells Group,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, February 26,
1980; “Mormon Professor Says Benson Speech Was Plea Anticipating Rise to LDS Presi-
dency,” Idaho State Journal, February 28, 1980; “U Teacher Replies to Benson,” Salt Lake
Tribune, February 28, 1980; “Keep Partisan Political Actions Out of Church, Urge LDS,”
Salt Lake Tribune, March 8, 1980; and “No. 2 Mormon Leader Says Leaders’ Word is
Law,” Los Angeles Times, March 1, 1980. The church-owned newspaper, the Deseret News,
downplayed the controversy. See “Pres. Benson Outlines Way to Follow Prophet,” Deseret
News, “Church News,” March 1, 1980.
64. Details regarding Benson’s apology to general authorities is recounted in Paul Dunn
to George T. Boyd, May 30, 1984, Matt Harris files; Leonard Arrington journal, June 17,
1980, Box 34, Folder 6, Leonard J. Arrington Papers, Special Collections, Merrill-Cazier
Library, Utah State University; Quinn, Extensions of Power, 111, 469, n.353; Kimball, Work-
ing Draft, 237; Dew, Ezra Taft Benson, 469.
65. For Benson’s apology to Latter-day Saints, see “Apology” [1980], Ezra Taft and Flora
A. Benson file, 1980–1992, LDS Church History Library.
66. J. B. Haws makes this astute point in “The LDS Church Presidency Years, 1985–1994.”
See his chapter in this volume.
67. Benson to Jeffrey St. John, January 2, 1986, Ezra Taft Benson Correspondence, John
Birch Society Headquarters, Appleton, Wisc. St. John was the editor of The New American
magazine, a Birch publication.
 Introduction 19
68. John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, reflects on Ezra Taft Ben-
son, 2014, Matt Harris files (my thanks to Mr. McManus for his reflections on President
Benson).
69. Larry B. Stammer, “Faithful Throngs Remember Benson,” Los Angeles Times, June 5,
1994; Twila Van Leer, “Church Leader Buried Beside Wife. Cache Pays Tribute As Cortege
Passes,” Deseret News, June 5, 1994.
70. As explained by Pearl Adair, a ninety-six-year-old Mormon Bircher from Mesa,
Arizona, April 2017 (in conversation with Matt Harris, her nephew).
71. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Farewell to a Prophet,” Ensign (July 1994): https://www.lds.org/
ensign/1994/07/farewell-to-a-prophet?lang=eng; Gary Avant, “President Benson eulo-
gized,” LDS Church News (June 11, 1994): http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/
24134/President-Benson-eulogized.html.
 Part I
Politics and Cold War Anxieties
 1 Ezra Taft Benson and the Family Farm
Brian Q. Cannon

Ezra Taft Benson ranks among the most controversial secretaries of agri-
culture in the nation’s history. Over Benson’s eight-year tenure, American
farmers grappled with record surpluses that drove down the price of farm
commodities while the costs of farming soared. As millions abandoned ag-
riculture, Benson’s political opponents repeatedly blamed his austere fiscal
policies for undermining the family farm. Benson, who was reared on a small
farm, identified closely with farm families and bristled at the criticism. He
justifiably pointed out that far more Americans had abandoned their farms
during Harry Truman’s presidency than during his tenure as secretary under
Eisenhower, and insisted that the exodus from the farm was a harrowing but
unavoidable consequence of America’s heightened agricultural productivity.
Over the course of his administration the secretary argued that most family
farmers would benefit in the long run from the administration’s policies. Ben-
son believed the family farm was an ideal incubator of virtue and democracy,
and he was therefore pleased when struggling farmers were able to stabilize
their operations through off-farm income or government-backed repayable
loans. But the man who would later become a vocal anti-communist generally
combated government efforts to prop up marginal farmers with perpetual
grants and subsidies—a New Deal legacy that he derisively dubbed socialized
agriculture. The family farm he wanted to perpetuate was large enough to be
economically viable in an era of commercial, mechanized agriculture. For
marginal farmers Benson proposed a rural development program to boost
their options for off-farm employment.
Concerns about the future of family farming had been mounting for de-
cades by the time Benson took office in 1953. Late in the nineteenth century
24 ezra taft benson and the family farm

the nation’s farm population swelled, rising by nearly 13 percent in the 1880s
and 21 percent in the 1890s. The farm population continued to grow, albeit
less rapidly, between 1900 and 1916, but then declined during World War I
as people moved away to work in industry or joined the military. Some fret-
ted that those who left the farm during the war would never return. “How
ya gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree?” asked Sam
Lewis and Joe Young in their 1918 hit song. “How ya gonna keep ’em away
from Broadway, jazzin’ around and paintin’ the town?”1
Despite the allure of city lights, many wartime migrants returned to the
small towns and farms of their childhood after the war ended. Unfortunately
for rural Americans, the market for farm products shriveled as farmers in
Europe resumed production and as the U.S. military stopped buying food for
millions of soldiers. Confronted with bleak economic prospects, rural Ameri-
cans turned back to the cities, especially as the urban economy improved after
1922. The farm population rebounded somewhat early in the Depression as
millions of unemployed Americans moved to the countryside in search of
sustenance. But it slipped again in 1935 and plummeted during the Second
World War. In the postwar era, the number of out-migrants exceeded the
number of births and move-ins in most years; during Truman’s presidency,
the number of farm residents fell by 8.2 million. Midway through Eisen-
hower’s second term in 1958, fewer than 10 percent of Americans resided on
farms, down from close to one-third in 1920. The Census Bureau estimated
that well over thirty-one million Americans—approaching one-fifth of the
U.S. population—had left the farm since World War I.2
The out-migration of farmers did not jeopardize the nation’s food supply;
America produced far more food than it could consume in the postwar era
owing partly to farmers’ use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and machinery.
These trends had been foreseen during the war: in 1944 Roosevelt’s secretary
of agriculture Claude Wickard anticipated postwar surpluses, warning that
agriculture would “offer no large-scale possibilities” for returning soldiers.
Indeed, he forecast, “a somewhat smaller, rather than larger, farm labor force
will be needed to turn out full farm production.”3
Notwithstanding America’s abundance of food, some Americans worried
that a declining farm population would weaken the nation’s social fabric.
This view drew strength from the widely embraced yeoman ideal famously
purveyed by Thomas Jefferson—the view of family farms as the source of
national virtue, independence, and a strong work ethic. During the Cold
War, politicians touted small farmers as the nation’s staunchest bulwark
against communism. Historically America had offered abundant, inexpen-
sive land to the rising generation and to immigrants, in marked contrast to
 Brian Q. Cannon 25

the overworked lands of Europe. Many Americans attributed the nation’s

greatness in part to this heritage of broad-based agricultural opportunity and
wanted the government to continue fostering opportunities to farm. To these
citizens, policies that perpetuated the family farm seemed inherently good;
those that drove small farmers out of business seemed socially irresponsible
and politically disastrous.
Having grown up on a small family farm in southeastern Idaho during the
heyday of the Country Life Movement, a campaign by President Theodore
Roosevelt and the progressives to modernize rural lifestyles and perpetuate
America’s agricultural identity, Ezra Taft Benson instinctively identified with
the yeoman ideal, though he also understood the economic forces driving
farmers toward the city. Benson spent his early years in a two-room cabin
built by his father. The eighty-acre Benson farmstead furnished much of the
family’s food. “We ground our own grain or carried grist to a nearby mill.
We grew our own vegetables and fruit, made our own bread,” he recalled.
Benson learned to drive a team of horses and herd cattle, and he worked
hard, helping to milk seventeen Holsteins, “digging potatoes and sugar beets,
shocking grain, [and] putting up hay.” He relished the simple pleasures of
an open country boyhood like basketball, baseball, swimming, ice skating,
and horseback riding. That some of his farm work was really “half play, like
trapping muskrats and rounding up cattle,” heightened Benson’s nostalgia
for his farm boyhood.4
The secretary credited farm life with inculcating priceless lessons in “thrift,
self-reliance, work, awareness of Providence as evidenced in nature, coop-
eration, and tolerance.” Based upon his own experiences, he was convinced
that “country living produces better people. . . . It is a good place to teach
the basic virtues that have helped to build this nation.” A rock-ribbed op-
ponent of socialism and communism, Benson believed that industrious,
independently inclined family farmers were “the strongest bulwark we have
against all that is aimed, not only at weakening, but at the very destruction of
our American way of life.” Thus, family farms were “the best way to produce
American citizens.”5
Although Benson championed the family farm and attributed many virtues
to his farm background, educational opportunities ultimately led him, along
with many in his generation, away from the farm. His experiences in suc-
cessfully transitioning to a career in the nation’s capital convinced him that
with adequate training, rural youth did not need to remain on the farm in
order to thrive as adults. In his childhood, Benson recalled, “it was quite an
event” when someone left for graduate or professional training. The secretary
vividly remembered “the first boy who left our farm community to go East to
26 ezra taft benson and the family farm

study dentistry.” The boy worked after school at the country store and post
office to “earn money to go to college in Chicago . . . in order to begin his
professional education.” After he left “the ice was broken and a number of
them went,” including Benson, who traveled to Iowa State in 1926 to study
agricultural economics. Benson expected that his university training would
make him a better farmer in an era when agriculture was professionalizing.
After receiving his master’s degree in 1927, he returned to the family farm,
which he had purchased with his brother Orval in 1923. Orval soon left the
farm to serve as a Mormon missionary in Denmark. Struggling to make
mortgage payments on the farm despite low dairy prices, Benson bought
more cows and hired another brother to help with bottling and marketing
the milk. The Bensons gathered eggs from a flock of 250 chickens and also
kept a dozen hogs. They raised alfalfa, sugar beets, and some grain.6
Early in 1929 Benson’s education opened a professional door. Impressed by
his credentials, the county commissioners asked the young farmer’s permis-
sion to nominate him to serve as Franklin County’s agricultural extension
agent. Benson assented, received his appointment in March, leased the farm
to a neighbor, and moved to town. It turned out to be a fortuitous time to
exchange full-time farming for a government job with its consistent salary,
just months before the Depression’s onset.7
Benson relished his work as an extension agent. Like many professionals
whose farm backgrounds led them to study agricultural subjects, Benson’s
career allowed him to keep working in the countryside while enjoying the
stability of a monthly paycheck. “Nothing that I have done in agriculture ever
gave me more solid satisfaction than working with rural people as a county
agent,” he reminisced. After working as a county agent for only a year and
a half, Benson accepted a promotion and moved to Boise, where he worked
as an agricultural economist and marketing specialist for the University of
Idaho’s Extension Division. In that capacity he helped potato growers, hog
farmers, dairy farmers, and poultry producers across the state to organize
cooperatives so that they could jointly buy farm machinery at reduced prices
and cooperatively market their products at more favorable prices. He helped
to found the Idaho Cooperative Council, the second statewide federation of
small producers’ cooperatives in the nation. Benson was convinced that co-
operative marketing was a more effective means of reducing price-depressing
agricultural surpluses than the federal government’s New Deal program of
paying farmers to produce less. As a government-employed marketing spe-
cialist, Benson dutifully publicized New Deal programs and assisted those
who wanted to sign up, but he regarded the programs as socialistic: as he
later recalled, “I never encouraged the farmers to join up.”8
 Brian Q. Cannon 27

In 1936 Benson applied for and received a prestigious fellowship to pursue

advanced studies at the Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics at
the University of California in Berkeley. Benson received a nine-month leave
from his post in Idaho, not long enough to complete a Ph.D. but neverthe-
less enough time to study under some of the nation’s foremost economists,
including Henry Erdman, a “politically progressive” expert in marketing and
agricultural co-ops. Benson took advantage of the opportunity to visit nearly
“every slaughter and feed yard” in the state as well as numerous avocado,
orange, and walnut cooperatives.9
Benson’s training and success in cooperative marketing attracted the at-
tention of officers in the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. In 1939
they hired him as executive secretary at the Council’s headquarters in Wash-
ington, D.C., at the munificent salary of $25,000 a year. As the public face of
the council, he lobbied on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch on behalf
of the interests of 1.6 million farmers who belonged to 4,600 cooperatives
and annually produced commodities valued at $1.3 million. In the process
he became acquainted with many of the nation’s agricultural experts. Many
considered Benson a rising star in farm management circles when he ac-
cepted a call to serve full-time as an apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, a calling with a yearly living allowance of only $6,000.
When he resigned from the National Council and moved to Salt Lake City,
he expected to spend the rest of his life serving his church, far removed from
the world of farming.10
After serving as an apostle for nearly a decade, Benson’s fortunes changed
abruptly when he was summoned to New York City shortly after the 1952
presidential election to meet with the nation’s president-elect, Dwight Eisen-
hower. Ike invited Benson to meet with him at the suggestion of conserva-
tive senator and former presidential contender Robert Taft, a powerhouse
in the Republican National Committee. Benson drew wide admiration for
his visionary advocacy of farmer cooperatives and possessed administrative
experience and solid academic training in agricultural economics. Impressed
by his credentials, Eisenhower, who did not know Benson personally, invited
him to become his secretary of agriculture. Alerted in advance to the pos-
sibility of an invitation, Benson had already discussed the possibility with
church president David O. McKay, who encouraged him to “accept if it was
a clear offer.” As Benson conferred with Eisenhower, he recalled, he told the
president that he opposed “the New Deal–Fair Deal program for agriculture.”
When the conservative churchman learned that the president-elect shared his
conviction that New Deal–era agricultural subsidies and regulations needed
to be rolled back, the challenging prospect of effecting such a shift in policy
28 ezra taft benson and the family farm

enthralled him. Benson wondered aloud about his fitness for the position
given his religious office, but when Eisenhower dismissed his concerns, Ben-
son accepted the president’s invitation. Suddenly, Benson’s farm background
and his views of agriculture and the family farm became relevant to millions
of rural Americans. On January 4, 1953, he began his work from a temporary
office in the World Center Building in Washington; just over a week later he
met with the rest of the incoming cabinet for the first time.11
Benson’s intense work ethic served him well in his new post. Arising at
5:30, the secretary worked for an hour at home, often drafting memos for his
staff, which they jokingly called “Epistles from an Apostle,” and was at the
office by 7:30. He ate lunch at his desk and often remained at work until 7
p.m. or later. He expected his associates to keep similar hours. When Benson’s
new administrative secretary, thirty-six-year-old Arthur Haycock, arrived
in Washington on Saturday January 13 after an exhausting train trip from
Salt Lake City, he phoned the office, “hoping Bro. Benson would not be in.”
Unfortunately for Haycock, his boss, who often worked on Saturdays, was
there and urged him to hurry on down because of the “telegrams and letters
that have been pouring in.”12
Haycock and Benson’s other associates in the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) learned that Benson was a man of strong, religiously grounded con-
victions regarding farming and the Constitution and that these convictions
shaped his actions. “Ezra Benson is going to shock Washington,” a friend
predicted. “He’s in the habit of deciding everything on principle.” Benson’s
decades of service in prominent church positions, including stints as the
president of two stakes and as an apostle, had habituated him to fast and
pray frequently for inspiration and to see himself as a divinely called agent.
A priesthood blessing given to Benson by President McKay, a fervent anti-
communist, before his departure for Washington assured him that “as an
apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ [y]ou are entitled to . . . divine guidance
which others may not have.” McKay blessed him to discern “the enemies who
would thwart the freedoms of the individual as vouchsafed by the Constitu-
tion” and to “be fearless in the condemnation of those subversive influences,
and strong in your defense of the rights and privileges of the Constitution.”
Benson’s agrarian roots, association with politically conservative church lead-
ers, and work with farmer cooperatives in Idaho and Washington, D.C., had
convinced him that farmers would be better off in a free market stripped
of policies that had been adopted during the Great Depression and Second
World War as temporary expedients. He shared McKay’s conviction, abetted
by Supreme Court rulings and an LDS First Presidency statement in 1936,
that elements of the New Deal were unconstitutional. He also shared McKay’s
 Brian Q. Cannon 29

distrust of socialism and contempt for communism and believed that “the
first Communist cell in our Government was established [in the 1930s] in the
Department of Agriculture, including Alger Hiss and some others.” Almost
certainly these were some of the “subversive influences” that came to Benson’s
mind when he heard McKay’s blessing, although he fit the mold of neither
an extremist nor an opportunist of the likes of Joseph McCarthy. Benson
never publicly attributed his actions as secretary of agriculture to divine
revelation, but Sherman Adams, Eisenhower’s special assistant, detected a
self-righteous streak in Benson’s dogged adherence to principle. Benson’s
intense religious commitments led him to lobby Eisenhower to open cabinet
meetings with prayer. “I really think Ezra is less concerned with his Depart-
ment than with making sure I open every session with prayer,” Eisenhower
reportedly quipped.13
Many of Benson’s fellow Mormons shared the view that his appointment
was providential, although some, like apostle and friend J. Reuben Clark, were
more circumspect. U.S. senator and former stake president Arthur Watkins
expressed gratitude that “a prophet of God was in the cabinet.” Fellow apostle
Harold B. Lee prophesied in March of that year that Benson’s detractors “will
be forgotten in the remains of Mother Earth.” Benson as an ordained apostle
had received “power from Almighty God,” and that applied in government
as well as church circles. As long as Benson remained faithful “there will
be given inspiration and revelation,” Lee proclaimed. As was the case with
many Mormons who wrote to Benson’s office, Carl Burton, president of the
church’s Great Lakes Mission, felt strongly that Benson’s cabinet appointment
“was inspired.” Charlie Geurts, an accountant in Salt Lake City, rejoiced that
“men bearing the Holy Priesthood should have the direction of this most
important Government department at a time when the ‘Constitution shall
hang by a thread.’” With Benson in the cabinet, Geurts expected that the
Eisenhower administration would galvanize “a great event in United States
history, the turning point for the betterment of all the people.”14
Benson entered the Department of Agriculture with the verve of a re-
former, describing the agency with a $2.1 billion budget as a “swollen bureau-
cracy.” His first major action as secretary was to reorganize the department:
he clipped the sails of the pro–New Deal, liberally oriented Production and
Marketing Administration and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, where
his former Iowa State professor Clarence L. Holmes had finished his career,
and warned USDA employees that he expected a full day’s work from ev-
eryone. His actions appeared autocratic and alienated some staffers. But the
shakeup had only begun. In his first press conference the secretary stated
that “farmers should not be put in the position of working for government
30 ezra taft benson and the family farm

bounty. Too many Americans are already calling on Washington to do for

them what they can and should be doing for themselves.” Although he did
not categorically condemn all federal farm aid, Benson made it clear that
he believed many government subsidies to farmers who produced crops
that were in oversupply were counterproductive: “price supports should
provide insurance against disaster to the farm-producing plant and help to
stabilize national food supplies. But price supports which tend to prevent
production shifts toward a balanced supply in terms of demand . . . should
be avoided.”15
Price supports in the form of commodity loans administered by the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a subsidiary of the USDA, were a
mechanism instituted during the Great Depression to regulate production
and prices for key crops and to protect farmers from economic ruin. Farm-
ers who voluntarily entered into marketing agreements to limit production
of key commodities to a specified acreage could either sell their crops on
the open market or borrow money from the CCC, depositing their crops
in government warehouses as collateral. If the price for the crop rose above
the loan amount within a year of depositing the crop, the farmer could sell
the crop at a profit and repay the loan with interest. If the price remained
below the loan level, the farmer could forfeit the crop, which would become
government property, and thereby convert the loan into a grant. When Ben-
son took office, most loans went to growers of cotton, corn, and wheat, but
the CCC also lent money to producers of butter, cheese, powdered milk,
peanuts, cottonseed and linseed oil, wool, tobacco, tung oil, olive oil, rosin,
and turpentine. Additionally, the agency supported prices for barley, dry
beans, cottonseed meal, flaxseed, rice, sorghum, oats, rye, seeds for hay and
pasture, and soybeans.16
CCC loan amounts were based upon parity—the concept that farmers
should receive a fair return for their labor. In modern history farmers had
supposedly enjoyed full parity between 1909 and 1914 when their returns
aligned favorably with their expenses. Thus, the USDA adopted those years
as its ideal standard. As journalist Jay Richter explained, in determining the
justice of farm profits, “if a hog paid for a new suit in 1909–14 . . . today’s hog
should bring enough to buy an equally good suit.” Because they were created
as a form of emergency insurance, the CCC’s commodity loans were gener-
ally pegged at a percentage below full, or 100 percent, parity. The underlying
expectation was that in most years supplies would conform to market demand
and the going price at some point in the year would exceed the loan amount.
When they were introduced in the 1930s loans were pegged at only 52–75
percent of parity, but Congress raised them during the Second World War
 Brian Q. Cannon 31

to 85 percent in 1941 and 90 percent in 1942. To forestall a postwar recession,

lawmakers allowed the loan rate to remain at 90 percent of parity for two
years beyond the war’s end in 1945. In 1948 and 1949 lawmakers approved a
gradual reduction in parity rates, but subsequent Congresses postponed those
reductions, ostensibly to incentivize farmers to grow more food for troops
during the Korean War. By 1953 when Benson took office, vast supplies of
surplus crops forfeited by commodity loan recipients clogged government
warehouses. Meanwhile the default commodity credit loan level remained at
90 percent, an amount fixed by Congress in 1952 to last through 1954, despite
the surpluses the government was withholding from markets in order to prop
up market prices. Benson “felt like somebody suddenly asked to take over a
train hurtling through the night at 90 miles an hour with the throttle stuck
open,” he recalled.17
Benson, who believed the high loan rate was unjustified given the CCC’s
immense stockpiles, pledged to honor the 90 percent rate through 1954 as
required by law. But he warned that overproduction, falling prices, and farmer
dependency would persist as long as the government continued its generous
commodity loans, and he promised that in the long term he would work to
persuade Congress to reduce the support level. Benson pled with American
farmers “to raise our sights beyond the dollar sign, beyond material things.
May we have the courage to . . . stand for principle.”18
Nearly one month into Benson’s tenure, hundreds of letters arriving at
the USDA headquarters reportedly endorsed his opposition to high price
supports and his other policies fifteen to one. “The people are for him, as
indicated by the letters and telegrams we receive from around the country,”
his assistant Arthur Haycock exulted. Wrote one farm couple, “We are 100
percent for any man who has the courage to tell us we are capable of standing
on our own feet rather than merely surviving with Government aid.” Owing
to the fact that commodity loans were unavailable for many of the nation’s
farm products including fruit, poultry, and beef, many farmers lacked a di-
rect stake in preserving high price supports, and some farmers resented the
privileged status of subsidized growers. It was no wonder they were willing
to see them go. The nation’s dominant farm organization, the American Farm
Bureau, which generally promoted the interests of large growers, who tended
to have larger profit margins, consistently supported Benson, too. Benson’s
stand against high subsidies also favored consumers, because commodity
loans and government warehouses inflated food prices. One urban letter
writer applauded Benson’s hostility toward “a policy that has prevailed so
long . . . of giving—sometimes quite unfairly—to certain favored groups of
our citizenry.”19
32 ezra taft benson and the family farm

Growers of subsidized commodities, who were concentrated in the corn,

wheat, and dairy states of the northern plains and upper Midwest, where
relatively small family farms predominated, and their representatives on
Capitol Hill (the farm bloc) retorted that 90 percent parity was vital to family
farmers. Harriet Oeder, a Minnesotan, bristled at Benson’s insinuation that
recipients of subsidies were materialistic and greedy. She and her husband,
a veteran, labored mightily, saving and investing to improve their farm, and
still did not have a furnace, running water, or an indoor bathroom, she wrote.
She defied well-heeled bureaucrats like Benson who charged that “we are
burden on the taxpayers.” Was it fair, she questioned “here in these United
States that a hard-working person can’t have these [basic amenities]”? On
Capitol Hill farm bloc politicians and their allies excoriated the secretary in
the name of the small farmer. “Benson is like a man standing on the bank
of the river telling a drowning man that all he needs to do is take a deep
breath of air,” chided Minnesota Representative Eugene McCarthy. Montana
senator James Murray accused the secretary of having “no understanding of
the measures which brought prosperity to America’s farmers.” A friendlier
tongue-in-cheek letter to Benson published in the Chicago News and then
reprinted elsewhere quipped: “Dear Ezra: We note that you favor ‘letting the
Lord handle the farmers’ problems.’ Their prayers will be for faith, hope and
parity.” As Benson recalled, Eisenhower privately counseled him following a
tumultuous speech in Minnesota, “I believe every word you said in St. Paul.
But I’m not sure you should have said it quite so soon.”20
Benson’s supporters condemned the naysayers as selfish and opportunistic.
“They don’t care about anyone but themselves and the benefits they can derive
from it,” lamented Claude Petersen. Glen Burt, a Salt Lake City businessman,
charged, “There seems to be nothing but selfishness in the minds of most
people, with pressure groups seeming to have the upper hand at getting what
they want—rather than what might be best for the people of the land.”21
In April Time ran a cover story on the embattled secretary of agriculture.
The article quoted Benson’s statement that price supports should be suffi-
ciently high to “provide insurance against disaster” but that “no real American
wants to be subsidized.” The gist of Benson’s message, the article reported,
was that supports should “not guarantee profits to the inefficient.” Whether
or not the verbiage was Benson’s, the insinuation that farmers living on the
edge were inefficient and unpatriotic infuriated some small farmers and their
supporters.22
Letters to the editor published in response to the Time article criticized
Benson’s stance and defended small farmers. Francis Townsend, whose call
for old-age pensions had helped goad the Roosevelt administration into
 Brian Q. Cannon 33

proposing Social Security, defended subsidies as a means of preventing urban

poverty and unemployment. “Let us not be afraid,” he wrote, “of reasonable
subsidies paid to farmers. Let us use these subsidies to keep the little farm-
ers on the land instead of crowding them off and into the big cities where
they will become ‘surplus’.” Ted Banta, a small wheat farmer and rancher
in Geyser, Montana, disputed the charge that farmers in need of assistance
were inefficient. “My experience has been that the main difference between
efficient and inefficient farmers was merely a matter of weather,” he offered.
Houston Jones, a son of poor tenant farmers, accused Benson of ignoring “the
basic Christian tenet of the brotherhood of all men.” Why should the “man
who uses his hands” be denied the “bounty of America” when the nation
was bestowing “great bounties upon manufacturing and business interests”
in contracts, protective tariffs, and tax breaks?23
In October, as cattle prices languished, having fallen by one-third since
Benson took office, the secretary’s opponents plotted to either discredit him
or shame him into action. First the House Committee on Agriculture, domi-
nated by defenders of 90 percent parity, enjoined Benson to subsidize cattle
prices. Then two weeks later, 350 cattlemen arrived in the nation’s capital as
part of a widely publicized “cattle caravan” organized by the National Farm-
ers Union (NFU) to lobby for price supports. Considerably smaller than the
nation’s biggest farm organizations, the NFU billed itself as the champion
of low-income “dirt farmers”—the family farmers living on the edge whose
plight aroused public sympathy—and employed Benson’s Democratic prede-
cessor, Charles Brannan, as its general counsel. The caravan’s travels figured
prominently on the front pages of newspapers across the nation. In his regular
column in Newsweek, the conservative political economist Raymond Moley
dismissed the caravan as “the hammy show of a small group of cattle raisers.”
David O. McKay encouraged Benson to stand firm: “Your Agriculture policy
is sound. Political demagogues seek to undermine your clear thinking. Loyal
citizens are with you. Hold to your standards.” Benson met with caravan
participants and listened as they complained of having lost staggering sums
in the cattle market. He sympathized with their plight, pointed out that the
administration was trying to help by purchasing more beef for school lunch
programs, and reminded the ranchers that the government’s previous at-
tempts to purchase and store perishable commodities, including hogs and
potatoes, had been a “dismal failure” and a “fiasco.” The secretary pointed
out that most cattlemen’s organizations, including the American National
Cattlemen’s Association, opposed price support commodity loans. “I don’t
say it’s not possible for cattle but it would be a terrible thing if we got into this
program and found it wouldn’t work,” he indicated. He promised to keep an
34 ezra taft benson and the family farm

open mind and invited the ranchers to respond to his concerns and present
a viable new plan the next day. When they returned to merely reiterate their
demand for 90 percent of parity, Benson rebuffed them. In explaining his
actions, he charged, “They didn’t present a plan. They just said put supports
on cattle.”24
The cattle caravan turned out to be a public-relations disaster for the Farm-
ers Union and a triumph for Benson. Life magazine gave the secretary a
two-page spread to explain his opposition to price supports for cattle, and
followed it up with an editorial praising him as a “statesman.” Newsweek
dubbed him a “cool man on the hottest seat in Washington.” Benson’s force-
ful, confident handling of the caravan; the fact that the leading cattlemen’s
associations opposed price supports; and evidence that the caravan included
many privileged hobby ranchers claiming to be struggling small-time beef
growers, strengthened his clout. “We feel that it was a turning point in our
favor,” Benson’s secretary Haycock wrote.25
In his conferences with Eisenhower in 1953, Benson encouraged the presi-
dent to break with the 1952 Republican Party platform’s support for 90 per-
cent parity and instead advocate a sliding scale of price supports that would
decrease as surplus commodity stocks rose. Benson believed this step was
essential to reduce surpluses and gradually wean farmers from commodity
loans. In October Eisenhower at last told Benson he would publicly oppose
high, fixed supports, despite the inevitable political fallout of breaking with
the Republican platform. He likely decided to take the stance despite the po-
litical risk because, as presidential assistant Sherman Adams observed more
generally, “the so-called Benson farm policies that everybody indignantly
called to Eisenhower’s attention were actually Eisenhower’s own farm poli-
cies.” In his farm message to Congress in January 1954 the president urged
lawmakers to allow price supports to fluctuate between 75 and 90 percent of
parity, depending upon the amount of surplus crops stored in government
warehouses. Eisenhower’s message ignited protests from members of the
farm bloc, many of whom were fighting for reelection. Benson added to the
farm bloc’s ire when, a few weeks later, he used his discretionary authority
under existing legislation on dairy products to reduce dairy price supports
from 90 percent to 75 percent.26
In his appearances before legislative committees in the first quarter of 1954,
Benson argued that, over time, lower price supports would reduce surpluses,
incentivize farmers to switch to other crops that would sell more readily, and
thereby result in “higher average farm income.” Several lawmakers challenged
his reasoning. Senator Edward Thye of Minnesota pointed out that surpluses
existed for virtually every farm product. Thus, it made little economic sense
 Brian Q. Cannon 35

for a grower to switch from wheat or corn to an unsubsidized crop. North

Dakota senator Milton Young claimed that many farmers in his state could
not survive on anything less than 90 percent parity because of high produc-
tion costs. When South Dakota representative Harold Lovre raised the old
populist argument that farmers deserved help from the government as much
as manufacturers, Benson blandly dismissed the justification, condemning
“the trend to more and more Government handouts and subsidies.”27
In the hearings both Benson and his detractors claimed to speak for small
farmers, those culturally potent symbols of America’s agrarian ideal. The
secretary showed that large producers received a disproportionate share
of the commodity loan pie. In Kansas the largest wheat loan issued by the
Commodity Credit Corporation in 1953 amounted to $139,237, while the
average was only $1,525. In California, the largest cotton loan was just shy
of $1.25 million, while the average loan hovered at $1,731. “Present price
supports offer very little to the 3,500,000 of our farm operators whose
production is so small that price supports mean very few extra dollars,”
he insisted. For instance, the average Nebraska corn grower who received
$2,487 per year under 90 percent parity would have his payment reduced
by only $250 under 80 percent parity. When members of the House Com-
mittee on Agriculture retorted that the relatively paltry commodity loans
were nonetheless vital for small farmers, Benson replied, “I do not deny
that the extra dollars which might come to the small farmer through price
supports are important. But for every dollar that comes to him, many more
dollars come to the big operator and the competitive advantage of the large
operator is thereby increased.”28
Despite Benson’s persistent lobbying, the House Committee on Agriculture
voted by twenty-one to eight to maintain commodity loans at 90 percent.
Benson expected the outcome but was still disappointed. Judging from the
remarks of some legislators, he later observed, “one would have thought” that
high, rigid price supports were “as inviolable as the Ten Commandments.”29
The battleground for flexible parity shifted next to the full House. Benson
emphasized that the Commodity Credit Corporation was spending $700,000
a day to store surplus crops. Benson’s allies insisted that price supports inflated
consumer prices, reminding their colleagues that the price of butter had fallen
by 25 percent that year after Benson lowered price supports from 90 to 75 per-
cent. They also pointed out that price supports primarily benefited farmers in
a handful of states who specialized in supported commodities like corn and
wheat. They defended flexible parity as a step toward free enterprise and a step
away from “the wreckage of every socialistic system that has come to curse the
human race,” in the words of Republican Paul Dague of Pennsylvania.30
36 ezra taft benson and the family farm

So close was the contest between flexible and fixed parity advocates that
the “atmosphere on the floor and in the galleries of the House was electric,”
recalled Benson. “No one knew for sure who had what votes.” When it finally
became clear that the administration’s proposal for flexible parity rates as low
as 70 percent would not pass, House majority leader and Eisen­hower ally
Charles Halleck shrewdly suggested a compromise to avoid a presidential
veto of the entire farm bill: flexibility ranging from 82.5 percent to 90 per-
cent for 1955 for wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and peanuts and 75 to 90 percent
for the ensuing years. The House approved the compromise on July 1 and
adopted the entire farm bill the next day. After revisiting many of the argu-
ments raised in debates on the floor of the House, the Senate approved a
compromise bill setting parity for the first year between 82.5 percent and 90
percent by a vote of forty-nine to forty-four on August 9. Benson was elated
when his son Reed, who was monitoring the voting from the Senate gallery,
phoned with the news. At least the principle of flexibility and reductions in
price supports had been restored, and this promised to whittle away at the
size of government payments to farmers. Benson’s conviction that he was
on a divine errand was reinforced when he received a note from McKay
congratulating him on this “outstanding victory.” After a House and Senate
conference committee ironed out differences in the two bills, Eisenhower
signed the compromise bill on August 28.31
Comments in the congressional debates demonstrated that small farm-
ers’ welfare was tangential to the key objectives of most policymakers in the
debates over parity; Benson’s overriding objective was reducing farmers’
reliance on government payments, while most congressional defenders of
high parity were intent upon preventing any further inroads into the New
Deal’s agricultural legacy. However, a small group of Democrats on Capitol
Hill adopted a genuinely populist posture. Among them were Wright Patman
of Texas and Barratt O’Hara of Illinois. While Benson used the fact that large
farmers were receiving huge subsidies and that subsidies to anyone smacked
of socialism as the basis for arguing that subsidies should be abolished, Pat-
man and O’Hara contended that Congress should maintain subsidies but use
them exclusively to “guarantee income sufficient to feed, clothe and educate”
families on small farms. This could be done by “limit[ing] farm price sup-
ports given an individual farmer to a decent family income, and no more.”
This would save the government a significant amount of money.32
Although the president in his 1956 farm message to Congress suggested
that lawmakers might consider limiting the amount of money that any farmer
could receive in commodity loans, much as Patman and O’Hara had ad-
vocated, neither the president nor Benson was willing to directly advocate
 Brian Q. Cannon 37

ceilings on commodity loans, or to specify a particular ceiling that would be

appropriate. Both were opposed in principle to any farmer’s reliance upon
government support. Moreover, they were apparently leery of alienating
their support base among relatively large farmers and the Farm Bureau by
singling them out for rough treatment. In hearings in 1956 Benson clearly
displayed his preference for a certain type of family farm: one that was large
enough to be commercially oriented and economically efficient. Pressed by
Patman, Benson stated that farmers earning $25,000 in farm income should
be as eligible for commodity loans as any other producer, even though barely
4 percent of the nation’s full-time commercially oriented farms had sales ex-
ceeding $25,000. When Patman inquired if a $75,000 cap would be “too high,”
Benson replied, “I don’t know that it would. Some of these family operations
now where they are fully mechanized handle rather sizable volumes.” He did
concede that $100,000 in income might be close to an appropriate cap.33
Seeking to burnish Democrats’ credentials as champions of small, eco-
nomically vulnerable family farms, Harold Cooley, chair of the House Com-
mittee on Agriculture, established a nominally bipartisan Subcommittee on
Family Farms led by Texas representative Clark Thompson in 1955. The task
of the seven Democrats and two Republicans on the subcommittee was to
study “ways and means to protect, foster, and promote the family farm as
the continuing dominant unit in American agriculture.” Thompson candidly
alluded to the prospective political benefits of the project as he opened the
hearings, quoting from an editorial in a New Orleans newspaper: “Secretary
Benson has said that corporation profits and industrial workers’ earnings
have been going up, while farmers’ income has been going down. If that
situation isn’t corrected, several million farm voters will be after somebody
with a pitchfork in 1956.” The subcommittee collected political ammunition
against Benson in hearings held across the South. L. Y. Ballentine, North
Carolina’s commissioner of education, told the committee that the average
net income for farmers in the Tar Heel state had fallen from $518 in 1951 to
$441 in 1954 and blamed Benson’s policies. R. J. Howard, a country banker,
complained that Benson’s attempts to reduce subsidies were “absolutely
driving the masses of our farmers into bankruptcy . . . by the multiplied
thousands.” When bureaucrats including Benson said that struggling small
farmers should simply move “to town and get a job,” observed Thompson,
they overlooked or trivialized the “many years, perhaps a generation or two”
that families had invested in improving their farms.34
A media-related embarrassment early in 1956 abetted the perception that
Benson was hostile to small family farmers. It resulted from a gaffe on the part
of a USDA clerk in response to a “vituperative” editorial in the December 1955
38 ezra taft benson and the family farm

issue of Harper’s. The editorial’s author, John Fischer, called farmers “pampered
tyrants”; accused both political parties of supporting costly, inefficient farm
subsidies in order to woo the farm vote; and credited Benson with “a few gin-
gerly efforts to bring a little sense back into our farm economy.” Fischer sent a
copy of the article to the USDA, inviting Benson to comment. In his memoirs
the secretary wrote that the editorial “did make some good points about the
cost of the farm problem” but claimed that the employee who scrawled “This
is excellent” across the article had not consulted with him before doing so.
Another employee who assumed Benson had written the comment prepared
and mailed an endorsement over Benson’s name: “I have read the article by
John Fischer in the December issue of Harper’s with a great deal of interest. It is
excellent.” When the endorsement appeared in the February issue of Harper’s,
reaction on Capitol Hill “rose many decibels too high for comfort,” Benson
recalled. Opponents branded him as insensitive to small farmers. Standing on
the floor of the Senate, Hubert Humphrey roared, “This letter is an insult to
every farmer in America. This man should be fired—now—this afternoon!”35
Riding a tide of anti-Benson sentiment, Congress in the spring of 1956
passed a bill abrogating key provisions of the 1954 farm bill and restoring 90
percent parity for basic commodities for another year. Against the advice of
most of his assistants, who worried about his prospects for reelection, Eisen-
hower vetoed the bill upon Benson’s recommendation. But to the secretary’s
chagrin the president backpedaled by supporting compromise legislation that
maintained price supports between 82.5 percent and 90 percent for another
year rather than permitting them to range as low as 75 percent, as the 1954
law had stipulated.36
Benson’s principled stand against the New Deal legacy suffered a further
setback when he acquiesced under pressure from the president and vice
president to Eisenhower’s proposed soil bank program. To rein in surpluses
and boost farm income, the administration asked Congress to pay farmers
to retire land from cultivation and place it in a soil bank. North Carolina
Democrat Harold Cooley lost no time in pointing out the similarities between
the soil bank and the New Deal, which Benson opposed. When Benson
denied Cooley’s charge that the soil bank was inspired by the New Deal and
alleged that “its sources probably go back to Joseph in Egypt,” Representative
Bob Poage wondered aloud whether Joseph was a Democrat or Republican.
Taking the bait, Benson quipped, “He probably was a Republican.” Without
losing a beat Poage quipped, “Probably so. There was some report for his
taking golden vessels from his brethren.”37
When Benson voiced support for the acreage reserve, he “lost seriously in
prestige” among conservatives, according to his informal advisor Karl Butler.
 Brian Q. Cannon 39

Brigham Young University president Ernest Wilkinson, who denigrated the

soil bank as a “complete Federal handout and subsidy,” perceived that it was
“utterly inconsistent with the feelings” of most LDS church leaders. In mid-
1956 Congress approved the soil bank as part of its legislative compromise
with Eisenhower.38
As the 1956 election approached, Benson campaigned assiduously for
Eisen­hower. In response to opponents’ claims that Benson and Eisenhower
were hostile to small farmers, the secretary concentrated increasingly upon
the family farm as a theme in his speeches. On September 25 he told the
Pennsylvania Millers’ and Feed Dealers’ Association that the administration
was not “ignoring or selling short our family farms.” Small farmers were
struggling because of the cost-price squeeze: prices of farm commodities
were low because supplies exceeded demand, and the problem was exacer-
bated by the government’s stockpiling of surplus crops. As production costs
rose owing to mechanization, the best way to pay for the machinery was to
farm more land. When some farmers left and their neighbors purchased
their land, they enjoyed “a better chance to produce efficiently and live well.”
The remaining family farmers thereby enhanced their economic security,
and this was desirable. Rhetorically he asked, “Would our critics . . . insist
that farmers . . . go back to horses and mules, so that adjustments to justify
modern equipment would not be necessary?”39
In a speech in Illinois Benson accused those who claimed he was hostile
to family farms with making “deliberately misleading, careless and irrespon-
sible statements.” “We have taken more constructive action for the benefit
of the family farm than has any previous Administration in many years,” he
averred. Some politicians selfishly wanted to enshrine an antiquated form
of family farming “the way grandfather did it” by propping up farmers on
uneconomical units. This was senseless, Benson argued. He, on the other
hand, “want[ed] to see farm families live well—rather than to be held in
poverty.”40
Simply because a farm was large did not make it an industrial operation,
Benson indicated. He assured audiences in Missouri and Iowa that 97 percent
of the nation’s farms were still family operations—the same percentage as
thirty years before. They were larger and more efficient than the average farm
had been in the 1920s, but “most” of the work was still performed “by the
farmer and his family, with perhaps some extra hired labor at harvest time.”
High price supports primarily benefited agribusiness, and Benson therefore
opposed them.41
In November Eisenhower was reelected. Thanks in part to rising hog prices,
Eisenhower did well in the major hog-producing states. Indeed, he carried
40 ezra taft benson and the family farm

every farm state outside the South. Even many counties that were hotbeds
of anti-Benson sentiment in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas
voted solidly for Eisenhower. However, western and midwestern Republican
candidates for the House and Senate, who were likely tainted by their partisan
link to Benson, lost some of the farm vote.42
Although Benson had been one of the most controversial members of
Eisenhower’s cabinet during his first term in office, Eisenhower retained him
as secretary of agriculture. The president reportedly defended his secretary,
telling Republicans in Congress who sought his ouster that the only way to
secure it was to “ask for my resignation as President.” Rumors continued to
circulate over the next year, though, that Benson was on the chopping block.43
Disillusionment with Benson’s policies mounted in Mormon country dur-
ing Eisenhower’s second term, as some Latter-day Saint farmers and ranchers
ran aground of the secretary’s policies. In a mass meeting in Logan in 1957
Mormon ranchers criticized Benson. A few months later Beth Hovey, a Mor-
mon who operated a dairy farm with her husband Garr, telephoned Apostle
J. Reuben Clark complaining that Cache Valley dairy farmers would lose a
million dollars over the next year because of cuts in price supports for dairy
products. She complained, “With price supports as they are, we can’t make
a go of it,” and wondered if she was duty-bound as a Mormon to support
Benson’s USDA policies or if she could “dissociate” Benson’s government
post from his apostolic calling. Clark advised her that a policy disagreement
with Benson did not constitute disloyalty to the church. “Don’t you know
that Church authorities do not always agree [even] on Church doctrines?”
he asked.44
In September 1957 David O. McKay traveled to Washington to meet with
Eisenhower about Benson. He informed the president that the church’s First
Presidency wanted to call Benson back from Washington to serve as su-
perintendent of the Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association, “if he
can be spared from the Government.” Church leaders knew that Benson’s
popularity was waning and had possibly heard rumors that most of Benson’s
“close advisors” in the USDA believed he should resign. It is unclear whether
the presidency genuinely needed Benson, whether they had lost hope that
the secretary could realistically make further gains in rolling back the New
Deal legacy, or whether they had heard rumors that Eisenhower might shelve
Benson and wanted to help him and the church save face. McKay later in-
formed Barry Goldwater that he mentioned the possible church calling to
the president “so that he might have an excuse to release Brother Benson if
he desired to do so.” According to McKay, Ike replied that he valued Benson’s
service and that he had told Benson a year earlier that “he would be pleased
 Brian Q. Cannon 41

to have him remain, but that he was free to follow his own wishes.” Eisen-
hower told McKay that he had a person in mind who could take Benson’s
place, provided that the person was willing to do so. McKay then met with
Benson. A few days later he told his counselors that he had advised Benson,
“We want you to be loyal to your position here, loyal to the government and
to the President, but if he can spare you, we would like to use you, and if not,
we will do something else.” Benson came away from the interchange with
the understanding that he should talk the matter over with his wife and with
Ike and then “report back by telephone.” A few days later Benson phoned to
inform McKay that Eisenhower would like him to stay in the cabinet “for at
least a year” unless McKay felt that it was “imperative” for Benson to return.
McKay advised him to stay. Benson’s fellow apostle Harold B. Lee reportedly
surmised that Benson was insufficiently humble to accept the call from the
First Presidency to “come back and properly take up his work as a member
of the Council of the Twelve,” but McKay’s record suggests that he probably
represented service in the Young Men’s presidency to Benson ambiguously
as a possibility rather than as a calling from the First Presidency.45
During Eisenhower’s second term, the secretary continued to fight for
flexible parity and reductions in parity payments. For instance, early in 1957
Benson squared off against Republican congressman H. Carl Andersen of
Minnesota, who introduced a bill that would have guaranteed 90 percent
parity to all growers on their first four thousand bushels of corn. Benson and
his staff announced that they “unalterably opposed” the bill; they wanted to
wean all farmers from high price supports rather than to redirect the benefits
to small farmers.46
A key contest involving small family farms that embroiled the secretary
during the second term surrounded competing plans in Congress and the
USDA for rehabilitating the nation’s poorest 1.5 million farm families. The
congressional approach was packaged in a bill for “preserving the family
farm” originally introduced in 1955 by Alabama senator John Sparkman and
reintroduced in expanded form by House and Senate Democrats in 1956,
1957, and 1959 as the Family Farm Development Act. The bill authorized the
government to assist farmers in as many as five hundred counties with the
largest low-income farm populations in the nation and reflected the views
of the National Farmers’ Union. It authorized county farmer committees,
which tended to be bastions of local Democratic patronage, to recommend
low-income farmers for assistance and required the USDA to coordinate its
efforts with those committees. USDA employees would assist needy farmers
in devising “farm and home plans” to boost family income and productiv-
ity. Farmers would be eligible for both loans at a maximum interest rate of
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
 THE GREAT FLOOD
Menomini

M
ANABUSH[5] wanted to punish the evil manidoes, the Ana
maqkiu who had destroyed his brother Wolf. Therefore he
invented the ball game.
[5] The Manabozho of the Ojibwas.

The place selected by Manabush for a ball ground was near a large
sand bar on a great lake near Mackinac. He asked the Thunderers to
play against the Ana maqkiu. These evil manidoes came out of the
ground as Bears. One chief was a silvery white bear, and the other a
gray bear. They played the ball game all day. Manabush watched the
game from a tree on a knoll.
When night came, Manabush went to a spot between the places
where the Bear chiefs had played ball. He said, “I want to be a pine
tree, cut off halfway between the ground and the top, with two
strong branches reaching out over the places where the Bear chiefs
lie down.” At once he became just such a tree.
Now when the players came to the ball game the next morning, the
Bear chiefs at once said, “This tree was not standing there
yesterday.”
The Thunderers at once said, “Oh, yes. It was there.” Thus they
argued. At last one Bear chief said, “This tree is Manabush.
Therefore we will kill him.” At once they sent for Grizzly Bear. They
said, “Climb this tree. Tear off the bark. Scratch it.” Grizzly Bear did
so. He also bit the branches.
Then the Bear chiefs called to Serpent. They said, “Ho, Serpent!
Come climb this tree. Bite it. Strangle it in your coils.” Serpent at
once did so. It was very hard for Manabush; yet he said nothing at
all.
Then the Bear chiefs said, “No, it is not Manabush. Therefore we will
finish the game.”
Now when they were playing, someone carried the ball so far that
the Bear chiefs were left entirely alone. At once Manabush drew an
arrow from his quiver and shot the White Bear chief. Then he shot
another arrow at Gray Bear chief. He wounded both of them. Then
Manabush became a man again and ran for the sand bar. Soon the
underground Ana maqkiu came back. They saw the two Bear chiefs
were wounded. They immediately called for a flood from the earth to
drown Manabush. It came very quickly and followed that one. Then
Badger came. He hid Manabush in the earth. As he burrowed, he
threw the earth behind him, and that held the water back. So the
Ana maqkiu could not find Manabush. Therefore they gave up the
search just as the water began to fill Badger’s burrow. So Manabush
and Badger returned above ground.
Now the underground people carried their chiefs to a wigwam. They
said to an old woman, “Take care of them.” Then Manabush followed
them. He met the old woman. He took her skin and hid himself in it.
So he went into the wigwam. He killed both the Bear chiefs. Then he
took the skins of the bears. When he came out of the wigwam he
shook a network of basswood twigs, so that the Ana maqkiu might
know he had been there.
At once they pursued him. Water poured out of the earth in many
places. A great flood came.
Manabush at once ran to the top of the highest mountain. The
waters followed him closely. He climbed a great pine tree on the
mountain top, but the waters soon reached him. Manabush said to
the pine, “Grow twice as high.” At once it did so. Yet the waters rose
higher. Manabush said again to the tree, “Grow twice as high.”
He said this four times, yet the waters kept rising until they reached
his arm pits. Then Manabush called to Kisha Manido for help. The
Good Mystery at once commanded the waters to stop.
Manabush looked around. There were only a few animals in the
water. He called, “Ho, Otter! Come to me and be my brother. Dive
down into the water. Bring up some earth that I may make a new
world.” Otter dived down into the water and was gone a long time.
When he appeared again on the surface, Manabush saw he was
drowned.
Then he called again, “Ho, Mink! Come to me and be my brother.
Dive down into the water. Bring me some earth.” Then Mink dived
into the water. He was gone a long time. He also was drowned.
Manabush looked about him again. He saw Muskrat. He called, “Ho,
Muskrat! Come to me and be my brother. Dive down into the water.
Bring me up earth from below.” Muskrat immediately dived into the
water. He was gone a very long time. Then when he came up,
Manabush went to him. In his paw was a tiny bit of mud. Then
Manabush held Muskrat up, and blew on him, so he became alive
again.
Then Manabush took the earth. He rubbed it between the palms of
his hands and threw it out on the water. Thus a new world was
made and trees appeared on it.
Manabush told Muskrat that his tribe should always be numerous,
and that wherever his people should live they should have enough to
eat.
Then Manabush found Badger. To him he gave the skin of the Gray
Bear chief. But he kept for himself the skin of the silvery White Bear
chief.
 ORIGIN OF FIRE
Menomini

W
HILE Manabush was still a young man, he said to Nokomis,
the Earth, “Grandmother, it is cold here and we have no fire.
I shall go and get some.”
Nokomis said, “Oh, no! It is too dangerous.”
But Manabush said, “Yes, we must have fire.”
At once Manabush made a canoe of birch bark. Then he became a
rabbit. So he started eastward, across the great water, to a land
where lived an old man who had fire. He guarded the fire carefully
so that people might not steal it.
Now the old man had two daughters. One day they came out of the
sacred wigwam where the fire was kept. Behold! There was a little
rabbit, wet and cold and trembling. They took it up at once in their
arms. They carried it into the wigwam. They set it down near the
fire.
So Manabush sat by the fire while the two girls were busy. The old
man was asleep. Then Rabbit hopped nearer the fire. When he
hopped, the whole earth shook. The old man roused. He said, “My
daughters, what has happened?”
The girls answered, “Nothing at all. We picked up a little wet rabbit
and are letting him dry by the fire.” Then again the old man fell
asleep. The girls were busy.
Suddenly Rabbit seized a stick of burning wood and ran out of the
wigwam. He ran with great speed towards his canoe. The old man
and the two girls followed him closely. But Rabbit reached his canoe
and paddled quickly away, to the wigwam of Nokomis. He paddled
so quickly that the fire stick burned fiercely. Sparks flew from it and
burned Rabbit.
At once Rabbit and Nokomis gave fire to the Thunderers. They have
had the care of fire ever since.
THE THUNDERERS AND THE ORIGIN OF
FIRE
Menomini

W
HEN the Great Mystery created the earth, he made also
many manidos. Those of animal form were People of the
Underground, and evil. But the bird manidos were Eagles and
Hawks. They were the Thunderers. The golden eagle was the
Thunder-which-no-one-could-see.
Now when Masha Manido, the Good Mystery, saw that Bear was still
an animal, he permitted him to change his form. Thus Bear became
an Indian, with light skin. All this happened near Menomini River,
near where it empties into Green Bay. At this place also Bear first
came out of the ground.
Bear found himself alone, so he called to Eagle, “Ho, Eagle! come to
me and be my brother.” So Eagle came down to earth and became
an Indian.
While the Thunderers stood there, Beaver came near. Now as Beaver
was a woman, she became a younger brother of the Thunderers.
Soon after, as Bear and Eagle stood on a river bank, they saw a
stranger, Sturgeon. They called to him. Therefore Sturgeon became
Bear’s younger brother and his servant. So also Elk was adopted by
the Thunderers. He became a younger brother and water carrier.
At another time, Bear was going up Wisconsin River and sat down to
rest. Out from beneath a waterfall came Wolf.
Wolf said, “What are you doing in this place?”
Bear said, “I am traveling to the source of the river. I am resting.”
Just then Crane came flying by. Bear called, “Ho, Crane. Carry me to
my people at the head of the river. Then will I make you my younger
brother.”
Crane stopped and took Bear on his back. As he was flying off, Wolf
called, “Ho, Bear. Take me also as your younger brother. I am alone.”
Bear said, “I will take Wolf as my younger brother.”
This is how Wolf and Crane became younger brothers of Bear. Wolf
afterwards let Dog and Deer join him, having seats in the council.
Now Big Thunder lived at Winnebago Lake, near Fond du Lac. The
Thunderers were all made by Masha Manido to be of benefit to the
whole world. When they return from the Southwest in the spring,
they bring with them the rains which make the earth green and the
plants and trees to grow. If it were not for the Thunderers, the earth
would be dry and all things would perish.
Masha Manido gave to the Thunderers squaw corn, which grows on
small sticks and has ears of several colors.
The Thunderers were also the Makers-of-Fire. Manabush first gave it
to them, but he had stolen it from an old man living on an island in
the middle of a great lake.
Bear and Sturgeon owned rice, which grew abundantly in the waters
near Bear’s village. One day the Thunderers visited Bear’s village and
promised to give corn and fire, if Bear would give them rice.
The Thunderers are the war chiefs and have charge of the lighting of
the fire. So Bear gave rice to them. Then he built a long tepee and a
fire was kindled in the center by the Thunderers. From this all the
people of the earth received fire. It was carried to them by the
Thunderers. When the people travel, the Thunderers go ahead to
the camping place and start the fire which is used by all.
 THE ORIGIN OF FIRE
Chitimacha

F
IRE first came from the Great Being, Kutnakin. He gave it into
the care of an Indian so old that he was blind.
Now the Indians all knew that fire was good, therefore they tried to
steal it. The old man could not see them when they came stealthily
to his wigwam, but he could feel the presence of anyone. Then he
would beat about him with his stick until he drove away the seekers
for fire.
Now one day an Indian seized the fire suddenly. At once the
Watcher of the Fire began beating about him with his stick, until the
thief dropped the fire. But the old man did not know he had dropped
it. He still beat about him so fiercely with his stick that he pounded
some of the fire into a log.
That is why fire is in wood.
 THE GIFTS OF THE SKY GOD
Chitimacha

L
ONG, long ago, many Indians started to reach the Sky-world.
They walked far to the north until they came to the edge of the
sky, where it is fitted down over the Earth-plain. When they
came to this place, they tried to slip through a crack under the edge,
but the Sky-cover came down very tightly and quickly, and crushed
all but six. These six had slipped through into the Sky-land.
Then these men began to climb up, walking far over the sky floor. At
last they came to the lodge of Kutnakin. They stayed with him as his
guests. At last they wished to go back to their own lodges on the
Earth-plain.
Kutnakin said, “How will you go down to the Earth-plain?”
One said, “I will go down as a squirrel.” So he started to spring down
from the Sky-land. He was dashed to pieces.
Kutnakin said to the next, “How will you go down to the Earth-
plain?”
And this man also went as an animal. And so the next one also.
They were dashed to pieces. Then the others saw that they were
crushed by their fall.
Therefore the fourth said, “I will go down as a spider.” And he spun
a long line down which he climbed safely to earth.
The fifth said, “I will go down as an eagle,” and he spread his wings
and circled through the air until he alighted on a tree branch.
The last one said, “I will go down as a pigeon,” and so he came
softly to earth.
Now each one brought back a gift from Kutnakin. The one who came
back as a spider had learned how to howl and sing and dance when
people were sick. He was the first medicine man. But one Indian had
died while these six men were up in the Sky-land. He died before the
shaman came down to earth as a spider. Therefore death came
among the Indians. Had the shaman come back to earth in time to
heal this Indian, there would have been no death.
The one who came back as an eagle taught men how to fish. And
the pigeon taught the Indians the use of wild maize.
 MONDAMIN
Ojibwa

W
HEN the springtime came, long, long ago, an Indian boy
began his fast, according to the customs of his tribe. His
father was a very good man but he was not a good hunter,
and often there was no food in the wigwam.
So, as the boy wandered from his small tepee in the forest, he
thought about these things. He looked at the plants and shrubs and
wondered about their uses, and whether they were good for food.
He thought, “I must find out about these things in my vision.”
One day, as he lay stretched upon his bed of robes in the solitary
wigwam, a handsome Indian youth came down from Sky-land. He
was gaily dressed in robes of green and yellow, with a plume of
waving feathers in his hands.
“I am sent to you,” said the stranger, “by the Great Mystery. He will
teach you what you would know.” Then he told the boy to rise and
wrestle with him. The boy at once did so. At last the visitor said,
“That is enough. I will come tomorrow.”
The next day the beautiful stranger came again from the Sky-land.
Again the two wrestled until the stranger said, “That is enough. I will
come tomorrow.”
The third day he came again. Again the fasting youth found his
strength increase as he wrestled with the visitor. Then that one said,
“It is enough. You have conquered.” He sat himself down in the
wigwam. “The Great Mystery has granted your wish,” he said.
“Tomorrow when I come, after we have wrestled and you have
thrown me down, you must strip off my garments. Clear the earth of
roots and weeds and bury my body. Then leave this place; but come
often and keep the earth soft, and pull up the weeds. Let no grass
or weeds grow on my grave.” Then he went away, but first he said,
“Touch no food until after we wrestle tomorrow.”
The next morning the father brought food to his son; it was the
seventh day of fasting. But the boy refused until the evening should
come.
Again came the handsome youth from the Sky-land. They wrestled
long, until he fell to the earth. Then the Indian boy took off the
green and yellow robes, and buried his friend in soft, fresh earth.
Thus the vision had come to him.
Then the boy returned to his father’s lodge, for his fasting was
ended. Yet he remembered the commands of the Sky-land stranger.
Often he visited the grave, keeping it soft and fresh, pulling up
weeds and grass. And when people were saying that the Summer-
maker would soon go away and the Winter-maker come, the boy
went with his father to the place where his wigwam had stood in the
forest while he fasted. There they found a tall and graceful plant,
with bright silky hair, and green and yellow robes.
“It is Mondamin,” said the boy. “It is Mondamin, the corn.”[6]

[6] Then Nokomis, the old woman,

Spake, and said to Minnehaha:
“’Tis the Moon when leaves are falling;
All the wild rice has been gathered,
And the maize is ripe and ready;
Let us gather in the harvest,
Let us wrestle with Mondamin,
Strip him of his plumes and tassels,
Of his garments green and yellow.”
—Hiawatha
 MONDAMIN
Ottawa

W
HEN the Ottawas lived on the Manatoline Islands, in Lake
Huron, they had a very strong medicine man. His name was
Mass-wa-wei-nini, Living Statue. Then the Iroquois came and
drove the Ottawas away. They fled to Lac Court Oreilles, between
Lake Superior and the Mississippi River. But Living Statue remained
in the land of his people. He remained to watch the Iroquois, so that
his people might know of their plans. His two sons stayed with him.
At night, the medicine man paddled softly around the island, in his
canoe. He paddled through the water around the beautiful green
island of his people. One morning he rose early to go hunting. His
two boys were asleep. So Living Statue followed the game trail
through the forest; then he came to a wide green plain. He watched
keenly for the enemy of his people. Then he began to cross the
plain.
When Living Statue was in the middle of the plain, he saw a small
man coming towards him. He wore a red plume in his hair.
“Where are you going?” asked Red Plume.
“I am hunting,” said Living Statue.
Red Plume drew out his pipe and they smoked together.
“Where does your strength come from?” asked Red Plume.
“I have the strength common to all men,” said Living Statue.
“We must wrestle,” said Red Plume. “If you can make me fall, you
will cry, ‘I have thrown you, Wa ge me na!’”
Now when they had finished smoking, they began to wrestle. They
struggled long. Red Plume was small, but his medicine was strong.
Living Statue grew weaker and weaker, but at last, by a sudden
effort, he threw Red Plume. At once he cried, “I have thrown you,
Wa ge me na!”
Immediately Red Plume vanished. When Living Statue looked at the
place where he had fallen, he saw only Mondamin, an ear of corn. It
was crooked. There was a red tassel at the top.
Someone said, “Take off my robes. Pull me in pieces. Throw me over
the plain. Take the spine on which I grew and throw it in shady
places near the edge of the wood. Return after one moon. Tell no
one.”
Mass-wa-wei-nini did as the voice directed. Then he returned into
the woods. He killed a deer. So he returned to his wigwam.
Now after one moon, he returned to the plain. Behold! There were
blades and spikes of young corn. And from the broken bits of spine,
grew long pumpkin vines.
When summer was gone, Living Statue went again to the plain with
his sons. The corn was in full ear. Also the large pumpkins were ripe.
Thus the Ottawas received the gift of corn.
 THE CORN WOMAN
Cherokee

O
NE day a hunter could find no game. He had but a few grains
of corn with him. He was very hungry. In the night a dream
came to him and he heard the sound of singing.
Early the next morning the hunter rose, but again he found no
game. When he slept again the dream came to him, and again came
the sound of singing, but this time it was nearer. Yet again he could
find no game.
The third night the dream came to the hunter, and when he awoke,
he still heard the song. Then he rose quickly and followed the song.
At last he came to a single green stalk of Selu.
The stalk spoke to him. It said, “Take off my roots, and take them
with you to your wigwam. Tomorrow morning you must chew them
before anyone awakes. Then go again into the woods. So will you
always be successful in hunting.”
The green stalk gave him many directions for hunting the elk and
the deer. So it talked until the sun rose to the very top of the sky
trail. Immediately the green stalk became a woman. She rose
gracefully into the air and vanished.
Then all the people knew that the hunter had seen Selu, the Corn,
wife of Kanati. Therefore the hunter was always successful.
 DISCOVERY OF THE WILD RICE
Ojibwa

L
ONG ago, Wenibojó[7] made his home with his grandmother,
Nokomis. One day Nokomis said to her grandson, “Prove
yourself a man. Take a long journey. Go through the great
forests. Fast you. Prepare for the hardships of life.”
[7] Another form of the Ojibwa Manabozho, or the Menomini Manabush.

So Wenibojó took his bow and arrow from his wigwam. He wandered
out into the forest. Many days he wandered. Then at last he reached
a broad lake, covered thick with heavy-headed stalks. But Wenibojó
knew not that the grain was food.
So Wenibojó went back to his grandmother, Nokomis. He told her of
the broad, quiet lake, with the heavy-headed stalks. So Nokomis
came, and in their canoe they gathered the wild rice and sowed it in
another lake.
From Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Wild Rice Tied in Bunches or Sheaves.

From Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

 Wild Rice Kernels after Threshing and Winnowing.

Again Wenibojó left Nokomis. With his bow and arrow he wandered
far into the forest. Then some little bushes spoke as he walked.
“Sometimes they eat us,” they said. Wenibojó made no answer.
Again the bushes spoke, “Sometimes they eat us.”
“Who are you talking to?” he asked.
“To Wenibojó,” they said. So he bent down and dug up the bushes
by the roots. The roots were long, like an arrow. They were good to
eat, but Wenibojó had fasted too long.
After a while, Wenibojó wandered on. He was very hungry. Many
bushes spoke to him. Many said, “Sometimes they eat us,” but he
made no answer.
One day he followed the river trail, when the sun was high. Many
little bunches of straw were growing out of the water. They spoke to
him. They said, “Wenibojó, sometimes they eat us.”
So Wenibojó picked some of the grains from the heavy-headed
stalks and ate.
“You are good to eat,” he said. “What do they call you?”
“They call us manomin,” answered the wild rice.
Then Wenibojó waded far out into the water. He beat out grains and
ate many. They were good for food.
Then Wenibojó remembered the grain which Nokomis had sown, and
he returned to his grandmother and the manomin lake.
 ORIGIN OF WILD RICE
Ojibwa

N
OW one evening Wenibojó returned to his wigwam from
hunting. He had found no game. As he came towards his fire,
he saw a duck sitting on the edge of a kettle of boiling water.
Immediately the duck flew away.
Wenibojó looked in the kettle. Behold! Grains were floating upon the
water. Then he ate the broth made with the grains. It was good.
So Wenibojó followed the trail of the duck. He came to a lake of
manomin. All the birds and the ducks and geese were eating the
grain. Therefore Wenibojó learned to know manomin, the wild rice.
 ORIGIN OF WINNEBAGO
Menomini

O
NE day Manabush walked along the lake shore. He was tired
and hungry. Then he saw, around a sand spit jutting far out
into the water, many waterfowl.
Now Manabush had with him only a medicine bag. He hung that on
a manabush tree in the brush. He put a roll of bark on his back, and
returned to the lake shore. He passed slowly by so as not to frighten
the birds. Duck and Swan suddenly recognized him, and swam
quickly away from the shore.
One of the Swans called out, “Ho! Manabush, where are you going?”
“I am going to have a dance,” said Manabush. “As you may see, I
have all my songs with me.”
Then he called out to all the birds, “Come to me, brothers! Let us
sing and dance.”
At once the birds returned to the shore and walked back upon an
open space in the grass. Manabush took the bundle of bark from his
back. He placed it on the ground, got out his singing sticks, and then
he said to the birds,
“Now, all of you dance around me as I drum. Sing as loudly as you
can and keep your eyes closed. The first to look will always have red
eyes.”
So Manabush began to beat time upon his bundle of bark. The birds
with eyes closed danced around him. Then Manabush began to keep
time with one hand, as the birds sang loudly. With the other he
seized a Swan by the neck. Swan gave a loud squawk.
“That’s right, brothers! Sing as loudly as you can,” shouted
Manabush.
Soon he seized another Swan by the neck. Then he seized a Goose.
At last there were not so many birds singing. Then a tiny duck
opened his eyes to see why. At once he shrieked, “Manabush is
killing us! Manabush is killing us!” And he started for the water,
followed by the rest of the birds.
Now this little duck was a poor runner. Manabush quickly caught him
and said, “I won’t kill you; but you shall always have red eyes. And
you shall be the laughing stock of all the birds.”
And with that Manabush pushed him so hard, yet holding on to his
tail, that the duck went far out into the middle of the lake and his
tail came off. Because of that he has red eyes and no tail, even to
this day.
Then Manabush gathered up the birds he had killed and took them
out on the sand spit. He buried them in the sand and built a fire over
them to cook them, but he left sticking out the heads of some and
the legs of others so he would know where they were.
But Manabush was tired. He slapped his thigh and said, “You watch
the birds and awaken me if anyone comes near them.” He stretched
out on the sand with his back to the fire and went to sleep.
After awhile, Indians came along in their canoes. They saw the fire
and the roasting birds. They went ashore on the sand pit. They
pulled out the birds and ate them. But they put back into the sand
the heads and feet, just as they had found them. So they departed.
Afterwards, Manabush awoke, very hungry. He pulled at the head of
a swan. Behold! The head came out, but there was no bird. He
pulled at the feet of a goose. No bird was there. So he tried every
head and foot; but the birds were gone.
He slapped his thigh again and asked, “Who has been here?
Someone has robbed me of my feast. I told you to watch.”
His thigh answered, “I fell asleep also. I was very tired. See! There
are people moving away in their canoes! They are dirty and poorly
dressed.”
Then Manabush ran to the point of the sand spit. He could see the
people who were just disappearing around a point. He shouted,
“Winnebago! Winnebago!” Therefore the Menomini have always
called their thievish neighbors Winnebago.
 THE ORIGIN OF TOBACCO
Menomini

O
NE day when Manabush was passing by a high mountain, a
fragrant odor came to him from a crevice in the cliffs. He went
closer. Then he knew that in the mountain was a giant who
was the Keeper of the Tobacco. He entered the mouth of a cave,
going through a long tunnel to the center of the mountain.
There in a great wigwam was the giant. The giant said sternly,
“What do you want?”
Manabush said, “I want some tobacco.”
“Come back again in one year,” said the giant. “The manidoes have
just been here for their smoke. They come but once a year.”
Manabush looked around. He saw a great number of bags filled with
tobacco. He seized one and ran out into the open air, and close after
him came the giant.
Up to the mountain tops fled Manabush leaping from peak to peak.
The giant came close behind him, springing with great bounds.
When Manabush reached a very high peak, he suddenly lay flat on
the ground; but the giant, leaping, went over him and fell into the
chasm beyond.
The giant picked himself up, and began to climb up the face of the
cliff. He almost reached the top, hanging to it by his hands.
Manabush seized him, and drew him upwards, and dropped him
down on the ground.
He said, “For your meanness, you shall become Kakuene, the
jumper. You shall become the pest of those who raise tobacco.” Thus
the giant became a grasshopper.
Then Manabush took the tobacco, and divided it amongst his
brothers, giving to each some of the seed. Therefore the Indians are
never without tobacco.
 ORIGIN OF MAPLE SUGAR
Menomini

O
NE day Manabush returned from the hunt without any food.
He could find no game at all. So Nokomis gathered all their
robes, and the beaded belts, and their belongings together.
They built a new wigwam among the sugar maple trees.
Nokomis said, “Grandson, go into the woods and gather for me
pieces of birch bark. I am going to make sugar.” Manabush went into
the woods. He gathered strips of birch bark, which he took back to
the wigwam. Nokomis had cut tiny strips of the bark to use as
thread in sewing the bark into hollow buckets. Then Nokomis went
from tree to tree cutting small holes through the maple bark, so that
the sap might flow. She placed a birch-bark vessel under each hole.
Manabush followed her from tree to tree looking for the sap to drop.
None fell. When Nokomis had finished, Manabush found all the
vessels half full.
He stuck his finger into the thick syrup. It was sweet. Then he said,
“Grandmother, this is all very good, but it will not do. If people make
sugar so easily, they will not have to work at all. I will change all
this. They must cut wood and keep the sap boiling several nights.
Otherwise they will not be busy.”
So Manabush climbed to the very top of a tree. He showered water
all over the maples, like rain. Therefore the sugar in the tree
dissolved and flows from the tree as thin sap. This is why the uncles
of Manabush and their children always have to work hard when they
want to make sugar.
From Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Birch-Bark Yoke, and Sap Buckets, Used in Maple Sugar Making.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com