Page:History of Utah.djvu/256

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

lf. In stat-



ure he was a little above medium height; in frame well-knit and compact, though in later years rotund and portly; in carriage somewhat stately; presence imposing, even at that time, and later much more so; face clean shaven now, but afterward lengthened by full beard except about the mouth; features all good, regular, well formed, sharp, and smiling, and wearing an expression of self-sufficiency, bordering on the su- percilious, which later in life changed to a look of sub- dued sagacity which he could not conceal; deep-set, gray eyes, cold, stern, and of uncertain expression, lips thin and compressed, and a forehead broad and massive — his appearance was that of a self-reliant and strong-willed man, of one born to be master of him- self and many others. In manner and address he was easy and void of affectation, deliberate in speech, con- veying his original and suggestive ideas in apt though homely phrase. ^^ When in council he was cool and imperturbable, slow to decide, and in no haste to act; but when the time for action came he worked with an energy that was satisfied only with success.

Like his predecessor, he was under all circumstances naturally a brave man, possessing great physical strength, and with nerves unshaken by much excess or sickness. That he was given to strong drink has often been asserted by his enemies, but never by his friends, and rarely by impartial observers. He was always in full possession of himself, being far too wise a man to destroy himself through any indiscre- tion.

He was undoubtedly the man for the occasion, however, for no other could, at this juncture, save the Mormons from dissolution as a sect and as a people. If the saints had selected as their leader a man less resolute, less confident, less devoted to his cause and to his people, a man like Sidney Rigdon,

^^ Bowles, Across the Continent, 86, says that even at 64 he spoke ungram- matically. This criticism is a fair commentary on the diflference between a Bowles and a B