The tragedy of the Willie and Martin handcart companies can’t be blamed on one person. It resulted from delayed departures, flawed handcart designs, and leadership decisions under pressure. For example, Brigham Young’s instructions, Levi Savage’s warnings, and Franklin D. Richards’s missteps all shaped the outcome. Beyond blame, the story also highlights the faith, resilience, and sacrifice of the emigrants and their rescuers. In this interview, Don H. Smith and Mark C. Austin provide insights that challenge myths while honoring the courage of the 1856 pioneers, drawing from their book, Bring Them to Zion: The 1856 Handcart Emigration Organization, Leadership, and Issues.
Don’t Miss Our Latest Interviews!
Sign up to be notified when we publish new content, including articles about Winter Quarters and a showdown between Jim Bridger and Brigham Young.
Causes of the 1856 Handcart Tragedy
Why did church leaders introduce the handcart system?
Handcarts were introduced in 1856 as an effort to keep expenses down while simultaneously maximizing the number of poor, faithful saints who could come to Zion. At the time, there were more Latter-day Saint members in Europe than in the United States, and many were poverty-stricken. Others were subjected to persecution because of their beliefs and needed relief. Furthermore, the Church was in debt over $60k from the 1855 emigration.
Brigham Young chose to give the poor Saints in Europe access to the Perpetual Emigrating Fund. Some of the early English converts had been Church members for fifteen to eighteen years, and Young thought it was time to bring these people from England to Utah.
Hoping to minimize emigration costs through the use of handcarts, Young instructed the Saints to bring out:
those in Britain who have been in the church from the introduction of the Gospel on those lands; old members, many of whom have remained poor and unable to get away, or through infirmity are remaining . . . God requires us to help these out, and bring them to Zion, where they can be taken care of, and not suffered to want for the necessaries of life.
Brigham Young
How did church leaders prepare the 1856 emigration?
There were numerous delays throughout the 1856 emigration process. To evaluate fairly, the process must be seen broadly. There was extensive planning at many levels; what happened cannot simply be blamed on a lack of preparation. Still, an operation of this magnitude inevitably required adjustments, suffered disruptions, and made some misjudgments in design.
Brigham Young envisioned handcarts as a way to bring poor, worthy European Saints to Zion. Other leaders helped translate his vision into practical steps. John Taylor gathered missionaries to consider cart design and food requirements. His counsel proved both inspired and practical, refining Brigham Young’s directions and adding key modifications such as supply wagons.
There was no chance for a trial run. Everything had to succeed on the first attempt.
In the fall of 1855, seventeen leaders met in Liverpool to oversee overall planning, including estimating the number of Perpetual Emigrating Fund (PEF) participants who would travel to Iowa City. Daniel Spencer, later in charge of outfitting at Iowa City, participated and knew how many Saints to expect. Franklin D. Richards and his staff developed a new and efficient system for selecting, notifying, and gathering emigrants.
The scale in 1856 was unprecedented. Almost 2,000 Saints participated—nearly twice as many as in all five companies combined during later years. There was no chance for a trial run to test the new route, handcart design, outfitting site, craftsmen, or suppliers. Everything had to succeed on the first attempt.
Before the Plains — Planning Failures
How were the Willie and Martin handcart companies behind schedule before Florence?
The late departure of ships from England was a key factor behind the 1856 handcart companies’ late start from Florence. Once that initial setback occurred, the migration effort became a catch-up problem.
How significant were the Liverpool delays in 1856?
All ships chartered for the emigration sailed one to ten weeks later than planned. Icebergs and poor weather added to the disruption. Ideally, ships would have left by mid-March, crossed the Atlantic in six weeks, traveled by train and steamer to Iowa City, and reached Florence by July 1.
Instead, the first handcart company left Florence on July 20, and the fifth on August 27—three to eight weeks late.
These lost weeks could never be recovered.
What caused the initial delays in Liverpool?
The late departure of the 1856 pioneer ships from England is often misunderstood. It resulted from delayed instructions, a shortage of ships, and uncertain funding. Efforts to minimize expenses further led to costly decisions.
One of the most damaging delays stemmed from the use of green wood in handcart construction. Brigham Young specifically directed leaders to use green wood for the wheel hubs, which caused repeated breakdowns and delays. He also instructed that the handcarts be built by pioneer craftsmen rather than contracted companies.
Although these craftsmen began early, their 200 assigned handcarts were not finished in time for the trek. By contrast, the 200 carts built by outside contractors were completed and used by the first three companies. Had all 400-plus handcarts been contracted out, the delays and resulting hardships could likely have been avoided.
Don’t Miss Our Latest Interviews!
Stay connected with fresh content and scholarly insights every week.
At a Glance: Major Contributing Factors
This is a short breakdown of the most important factors that led to the late departure of the 1856 handcart companies:
- Liverpool Delays — The companies faced setbacks in leaving Liverpool because of late instructions, limited ships, and insufficient funds.
- PEF Funding Sources — The 1856 emigrants were supported by the Perpetual Emigrating Fund, which relied on donations and Church resources.
- Liverpool Planning Meeting — Leaders held a planning meeting in Liverpool to determine how many pioneers could be sent that season.
- Expense Pressures — Leaders felt heavy pressure to minimize costs at every stage of the migration effort.
- Handcart Challenges — The decision to use handcarts introduced a new and largely untested method of travel.
- Iowa City Shortages — Upon their arrival in Iowa City, the emigrants found that the handcarts were not yet ready for use.
- Craftsmen-Built Carts — Local pioneer craftsmen were enlisted to build the handcarts, though their workmanship and available materials created problems.
- Green Wood Problems — Many carts were built with green wood, which warped and broke under the strain of the journey.
- Florence Decision Point — Leaders wrestled with whether to stop at Florence, Nebraska, for the winter or to continue the trek west.
The Florence Council — A Crucial Decision Point
Why couldn’t the Willie and Martin handcart companies stop for the winter in Florence?
When the Willie Company arrived in Florence, some members chose not to continue west, prompting a council to decide who would stay and who would go on. Delays had begun in England and continued throughout the journey, and once the emigrants were in motion, stopping was not a simple option.
Most Saints had already sold their homes, left their jobs, and disposed of their furniture in Europe. Unlike the Winter Quarters experience of 1846, the handcart companies in 1856 lacked the supplies to last through the winter, as well as the tools needed to build housing.
By then, all the land around Florence was privately owned, leaving no free space for building or camping, and there was no accessible supply of wood for construction or fuel.
In short, the situation in 1856 was very different from 1846—and the available choices were both complex and costly.
Why did the Willie Company continue from Florence despite Levi Savage’s warning?
Some members of the Willie Company in Florence had prior trail experience, but not all. Levi Savage, though a veteran of the Mormon Battalion, had neither wintered in the Florence area nor traveled the Mormon Trail west. In that sense, he was as unfamiliar with the region as many of the emigrants.
By contrast, James G. Willie had traveled the trail twice and had spent a winter in Florence. Local outfitters also understood the risks of stopping there in ways that Savage did not.
The decision was not a simple matter of “stop or continue,” as both options carried serious challenges. While Savage correctly predicted the dangers of pressing forward, that did not automatically make stopping the right choice.
The ultimate goal remained to reach the Salt Lake Valley, and most emigrants were eager to proceed—encouraged by the majority of their leaders.
Was Franklin D. Richards motivated by faith, loyalty, or pressure?
Franklin D. Richards was just trying to follow directions. He was acting on all three areas: (1) faith, (2) institutional loyalty, and (3) pressure to meet expectations and assignments.
He was essentially overall responsible for the emigration process, especially in Europe, for both handcarts and wagon companies. He had numerous responsibilities, including:
- Gathering the necessary funding.
- Identifying, notifying, and collecting the emigrants.
- Contracting with limited sailing ships.
- Arranging leadership to help guide the emigrants.
- Coordinating with John Taylor in the United States.
Franklin D. Richards was dedicated to helping gather the Saints to Zion.
Was the Willie Company’s decision blind obedience or complex leadership?
These emigration leaders have been greatly maligned and described, by some, as religious zealots who traded common sense for blind obedience because of their insistence on continuing the journey. However, this oversimplifies a complex situation.
Brigham Young’s mantle of delegated authority weighed heavily upon the shoulders of these dedicated men, and they were aware of the dangers of a late trek. The fate of the emigrants rested upon these leaders and their decisions. Unable to counsel with Young, who was over a thousand miles away, they were forced to rely upon their own experience and inspiration from heaven.
Loyalty to leadership was crucial.
There definitely was trust in the leadership. However, in Florence, those in the handcart company were encouraged to seek revelation for themselves as to whether to stop or continue trekking.
About 80 members of the Willie Company chose to remain in Florence rather than continue west. In one case, a family stopped out of concern for an elderly relative—a decision that likely saved that person’s life. They later reached the Salt Lake Valley four years afterward. Records survive for many who stayed behind, including details of the trials they faced; at least 39 from that group eventually made the journey to the Valley.
For those who continued, loyalty to leadership and the cohesion of the group were crucial. These qualities not only helped the handcart pioneers endure their hardships but also enabled them to strengthen one another—leaving a legacy of resilience that is remembered today.
Leadership and Blame on the Handcart Trail
What does the contrast between Levi Savage and Franklin D. Richards reveal about leadership?
Levi Savage: A Warning Voice and a Source of Setbacks
Levi Savage voiced his concerns about stopping in the Florence area but ultimately accepted the decision of the Willie Company and worked tirelessly to support them through their trials. Some leaders criticized him for expressing his opinion, yet in later years, he was praised for correctly predicting the dangers of pressing forward.
At the same time, Savage bore some responsibility for setbacks along the trail. While overseeing the draft animals, he failed to ensure they were secured at night in buffalo country. As a result, a stampede carried off 30 oxen, and the company lost three days searching for them in vain.
Daily progress was significanly reduced.
To compensate, they were forced to use beef cattle and milk cows to pull the wagons. These animals were too weak to handle the heavy loads, so much of the cargo had to be shifted onto the handcarts. The added strain caused frequent breakdowns, slowed repairs, and placed greater physical burdens on pioneers already weakened by reduced rations.
Daily progress was significantly reduced. Without this loss of oxen, the Willie Company might have reached Fort Bridger before the rescue parties arrived.
Franklin D. Richards: Speeding Ahead to Spark the Rescue
As for Franklin D. Richards, his decision to quickly continue to the Salt Lake Valley rather than remain with the company was critical.
Only by reaching Brigham Young could Richards alert Church leaders to the plight of the two late handcart companies, which in turn sparked the large-scale rescue effort.
In this light, Savage’s role was not one of formal leadership, but rather one of warning and diligent labor. Like many others in the company, he worked hard to help them press forward despite overwhelming challenges.
How culpable was Franklin D. Richards in the 1856 handcart tragedy?
Franklin D. Richards was more than an administrator—he was the driving force behind the emigration effort. He did not promote the late departure from England but had to work within the constraints of late notice and the new handcart program.
Richards carried responsibility for nearly the entire process: organizing, funding, and implementing emigration. It was a delicate balancing act:
- Managing limited funds
- Receiving last-minute instructions
- Gathering emigrants in Liverpool
- Securing scarce ships
Some aspects inevitably fell short of expectations. Later, when he encountered the Martin Company in Florence, Richards supported their decision to continue west.
Through it all, his guiding objective remained clear: “Bring Them to Zion.”
How did Brigham Young publicly respond to the handcart tragedy?
There was considerable finger-pointing after the handcart tragedy, with much of the blame directed at Brigham Young. He responded defensively, denying responsibility and appearing to shift fault onto others.
In defending himself, Young declared:
I know how to dictate affairs; and no man need to have walked in darkness touching his duty with regard to the foreign immigration. You can read their duty in our epistles, letters, and sermons.
Brigham Young
While many written instructions did come from him, carrying them out proved far more difficult than issuing them.
He placed much of the blame on Franklin D. Richards.
Notably, Young did not personally meet the Willie Company when they entered Salt Lake City on November 9, instead placing much of the blame on Franklin D. Richards. He also discouraged public discussion of the matter.
Only after Young’s death in August 1877 did broader public conversations emerge.
Brigham Young’s Role in the Handcart Tragedy
How did Brigham Young contribute to the 1856 handcart problems?
Brigham Young’s Problematic Instructions in 1856
Brigham Young’s instructions included using green wood for the handcart wheel hubs, having the emigrants build their own carts, and assigning poor, elderly, and disabled members to travel in the handcart companies. These directions contributed to breakdowns that caused delays, slowed the initial departure, and increased deaths among the most vulnerable travelers.
In later years, such practices were abandoned, and most of the related problems of 1856 were resolved.
Communication Failures During the 1856 Handcart Emigration
Another issue was communication. Without clear notification, Salt Lake leaders assumed that the final two handcart companies would not be coming, and as a result, they stopped sending regular food resupplies to meet them.
In contrast, leaders in Iowa City believed Salt Lake City expected the companies to arrive. A letter from Daniel Spencer to Brigham Young, dated June 19, 1856, and published in the Deseret News on August 6, indicated that the companies would indeed be coming; it gave no suggestion of their staying in the East.
How many people died in the Willie and Martin handcart companies?
Approximately 165 pioneers died in the Willie and Martin Companies during their journey from Iowa City to Salt Lake City. Of these, about 98 deaths occurred in the Martin Company and 67 in the Willie Company.
In February 1857, Brigham Young asked the captains of the five handcart companies to report the number of deaths in their groups. The following month, Edward Martin reported that 98 people from his company had died between Iowa City and Salt Lake City. This figure was significantly lower than the frequently quoted estimate of Josiah Rogerson, a Martin Company member, who claimed that 135–150 had died. The Willie Company reported 67 deaths along the same route.
It is worth noting that among the roughly 80 Willie Company members who stopped at Florence, several early deaths occurred. Had both handcart companies and the two wagon trains chosen to remain in Florence, the strain on resources would have been immense, given the large number of emigrants needing shelter, food, clothing, and employment.
While this likely would have caused additional early deaths, the total loss of life may not have been as high as it was when the companies continued west. Still, such a decision would have created other family losses and long-term hardships of its own.
What challenges would the Willie Company have faced if they wintered in Florence?
Church leaders at the Florence outfitting site, including James McGaw and his assistants, understood the physical and spiritual dangers of remaining there. Those risks included apostate influences, anti-Mormon sentiment, and political unrest in nearby Missouri and Kansas between pro- and anti-slavery factions.
The Willie Handcart Company included many elderly, disabled, and poor Saints who would have struggled to provide for themselves if they had wintered in Florence.
In Utah, many had relatives or friends who could support them; on the frontier, they lacked such networks. This reality helps explain why most leaders urged the company to press westward despite the risks.
Would wintering in Florence or Council Bluffs have spared the pioneers from mountain storms?
The evidence suggests otherwise. Newspapers from the winter of 1856–57 describe one of the harshest seasons in memory, characterized by subzero temperatures, blizzards, frozen rivers, widespread livestock losses, and flooding due to heavy snowfall. Reports described people freezing to death, roads becoming impassable, and animals perishing across the region from November 1856 to April 1857.
Some who stopped in Florence—often the sick or elderly—likely preserved their lives by doing so, though they faced trials of their own. Survival required finding shelter, clothing, food, and employment in brutal conditions, and some families suffered separations and early deaths.
Hardships would have multiplied.
Had all the emigrants chosen to remain, these hardships would have multiplied. Of the approximately 80 Willie Company members who stopped, only 39 are known to have reached the Salt Lake Valley. Others took different paths, altering their lives and legacies.
Despite the tragedy, many today see blessings in the sacrifices of those who continued on. Their perseverance fulfilled the original objective: to gather European Saints to Zion. As Brigham Young counseled, “God requires us to help these out, and bring them to Zion.”
Aftermath and Enduring Lessons of the 1856 Handcart Tragedy
How did perceptions of the handcart tragedy change over time?
The story of the handcart tragedy was not widely told during Brigham Young’s lifetime, since the program had been launched under his direction and many blamed him for its failure. Young, in turn, shifted responsibility onto others, who feared responding publicly. He discouraged open discussion of the tragedy, and handcart leaders often felt ridiculed for their involvement. Edward Martin, deeply despondent, is said to have even allowed some of his company’s records to be destroyed.
Over time, however, perspectives shifted. Members of the Willie and Martin Companies came to be honored for their strength in enduring hardship, and the rescuers were celebrated for their selfless service. Today, many youth groups reenact the handcart treks, revering both the pioneers who suffered and those who came to their aid.
What surprised you most while researching the 1856 handcart emigration for your book?
I was surprised at how complex the entire handcart emigration process was, and at the effort required to make it succeed. The leaders stepped up to their challenges and were dedicated to fulfilling their assignments. Yet despite their commitment, unfortunate events led to unplanned outcomes—flawed design choices, assumptions that proved faulty, and problems with who built the handcarts.
In many ways, it was an experiment from which important lessons were learned. In subsequent years, these issues were corrected, and later pioneer handcart companies avoided many of the difficulties of 1856.
It is surprising today how little is generally known about the handcart experience. Misinformation continues to circulate, offering simple but misleading explanations that get repeated year after year.
In contrast, studying the history reveals how committed the Saints and their leaders were, how faithfully the emigrants endured their hardships, and how those trials have continued to shape the lives and attitudes of their descendants.
What spiritual lessons does the handcart story offer today?
Following your spiritual leaders is especially important. Sometimes, however, learning to accept revelation for yourself and your family is also necessary. Your circumstances may call for personal inspiration.
As John Taylor wrote:
“Men differ in their judgment in many things,
and He that does the best that’s in his power,
Does well;
angels can do no more.”
It is also important to keep the long view in mind. Ask yourself: how will my choices today affect future generations?
The handcart story has inspired meaningful summer programs for Latter-day Saint youth, helping them appreciate the sacrifices of those who endured such trials.
Want More Scholar Interviews in Your Inbox?
Readers trust From the Desk for insightful interviews—Sign up to get the latest first.
About the Scholars
Don H. Smith has devoted over fifty years to researching the 1856 handcart emigration, with a special focus on the Willie Company. Trained in wood and metal working, he reconstructed and tested handcarts using pioneer methods to understand their design and durability. Don has spent thousands of hours in archives across Europe and the United States, gathering diaries, letters, ledgers, newspapers, and family histories.
Mark C. Austin partnered with Don H. Smith to bring decades of research on the Willie and Martin handcart companies to publication. He helped fact-check, organize, and write the manuscript, among other key contributions. In addition to assisting with Bring Them to Zion, Austin self-published some information trimmed from the draft in We Are Going to Zion: Pioneers of the Willie Handcart Company.
Further Reading
- What Happened at Winter Quarters?
- Was John D. Lee a Scapegoat for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
- How Important Was ZCMI to Utah Pioneers?
- What Do Historians Think About Brigham Young?
- What Was Brigham Young’s Swift Pony Express?
Martin and Willie Handcart Companies
- Bring Them to Zion: The 1856 Handcart Emigration Organization, Leadership, and Issues (Greg Kofford Books)
- Weather, Disaster, and Responsibility: An Essay on the Willie and Martin Handcart Story (BYU Studies)
- Five Things You Might Not Know About the Handcart Rescue (Church History)
- Levi Savage and Obedience to Church Authorities (Times & Seasons)
- 17 Miracles, More or Less (Keepapitchinin)
- Q&A with Don Smith and Mark Austin (Greg Kofford Books)
One reply on “Who Was Responsible for the 1856 Handcart Tragedy?”
I have ancestors who were members of the Willey Handcart company and they all survived. There were lessons learned from the handcart experience. The later development of the out and back program which was developed to deal the cost problem proved proved to be far more successful.