Gun control, genocide, Darfur . . . and the Mormon experience

Dave Kopel writes today at Volokh, suggesting that government controls on gun ownership are contributing to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.  He has similarly argued, along with others, that the genocide in places like Darfur is a result of gun control.

Proponents of this sort of argument suggest that if Darfur (Zimbabwe, Rwanda, etc) residents were armed, they would be able to fight back and prevent genocide.  Dave Kopel writes in the National Review that "the Darfur genocide — like the genocides in Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia, and so many other nations in the last century — was made possible only by the prior destruction of [the right to bear arms]."

My own cultural history makes me doubtful of Kopel's argument. As I've stated earlier, I'm a Mormon, and my views on modern instances of genocide, like Darfur, are colored by the Mormon experience with armed persecution.

Mormons were heavily persecuted during the 1830s and 1840s.  A very condensed history of the persecution (thanks to Nate Oman for helping me get the details right; all errors are mine, not his) goes along these lines:

The church was founded in 1830 in New York state, and quickly came under intense persecution.  Mormons were killed and driven out by armed mobs, first from New York and then from Ohio.  They fled Ohio for cities in Missouri and Illinois.

The roots of Mormon persecution are complex.  The church was growing rapidly due to missionary work, and tended to enter new communities with a large influx of newcomers.   Mormons were perceived to pose political and economic threats to other residents because they often voted together.

Mormon beliefs were also controversial -- starting with a belief in a living prophet and new scriptures, and eventually expanding to include beliefs in polygamy and in communal ownership of property.  Mormon millenialism was also a factor: Mormons tended to believe that Christ's return was imminent and that He would vent His wrath on the "Gentiles" (as non-Mormons were called) -- a belief that didn't much endear them to the locals.  In addition, some of the persecution in some states, such as Missouri, arose from racial strife -- Mormons were abolitionists, and Missourians saw them as a threat to the "peculiar institution." Finally, a good deal of persecution everywhere no doubt stemmed from old-fashioned avarice.  Successful persecution meant freedom to seize Mormon land, loot Mormon property, and rape Mormon women, and that goal motivated greedy mobs to attack Mormon settlements. 

In any case, the Mormons did not find a safe haven in either Missouri or Illinois.  They were instead driven out of both states, within a few years, suffering massive losses of life along the way.  Church founder Joseph Smith was imprisoned by complicit government officials and then assassinated by a mob, and other church leaders were imprisoned, attacked, or killed.  Across both states, Mormon homes were burned, families killed, women raped, property seized.

And this expulsion took place despite the right to bear arms, which the Mormons used in vain.

The failure of the right to bear arms to protect the Mormons is instructive. The Mormon settlers armed themselves, formed protective militias, and planned defenses. They organized the Nauvoo Legion, which was a powerful local army. At many points in time, the Mormon militias including the Nauvoo Legion outnumbered the anti-Mormon militias in size and armament.

However, the powerful Mormon militias seldom engaged in pitched battle with their foes.  This was due to a number of factors.  First, church leaders were eager to defuse tensions and avoid a destructive all-out war with the anti-Mormons, so they held their own army in check much of the time.  Second, the anti-Mormons were at times successful in allying themselves with state and federal military units, knowing that the Mormons could not attack government troops without suffering unbearable political consequences.   (For example, Joseph Smith's assassination was made possible by the collaboration of local officials).  In addition, the anti-Mormon raiders sought to avoid direct combat with the Mormon militias, opting instead to ransack unprotected outlying settlements.  It was not until 1846, after the Mormon city of Nauvoo was being evacuated, that the militias actually met in battle. (At that time, due to the ongoing Mormon evacuation, the Mormons were badly outnumbered).

And so the Mormons were driven out of their cities in Missouri and Illinois, as thousands perished.   The right to bear arms did not enable them to protect their property, their families, or their lives.

Of course, there were instances in which Mormon guns helped some Mormon settlers survive. The threat of the Nauvoo Legion's power helped keep many of the raiders at bay for portions of the evacuation of the city of Nauvoo, for example, which no doubt prevented that retreat from causing an even greater loss of life.

Some settlers were aided by their guns in individual confrontations with anti-Mormons. Famous Mormon gunslinger Porter Rockwell made his name in part by killing anti-Mormon raiders and defending Mormon settlers.  Rockwell even, if one rumor is to be believed, tried to assassinate the rabidly anti-Mormon governor of Missouri -- a governor who had issued an "extermination order" stating that "the Mormons are to be driven from the state, or killed" -- and nearly succeeded.  (The governor's would-be assassin, who evaded pursuit and was never positively identified, succeeded only in injuring the governor.  Rockwell denied being the gunman; his defense was "He's still alive, a'int he?").

Overall, however, the right to bear arms didn't much protect the Mormons.  They were only eventually saved by the decisive actions of Brigham Young, who led the survivors out of the United States altogether, to live in unsettled territory in then-northern Mexico.

The Mormon experience makes me wonder about the confident assertions of Kopel and others that a right to bear arms could prevent genocide. Yes, it's possible that a right to bear arms would have saved oppressed groups in Rwanda or Cambodia or Darfur.  But I'm doubtful.  After all, that right couldn't even save an oppressed minority group right here in America.