Was Fort Bridger Sold or Stolen?

8/12/2013

by Greg Strandberg

Fort Bridger in 1850

I received a comment on my Jim Bridger post the other day. A mistake was pointed out to me, as well as some information that I’d put down about how Fort Bridger had changed hands.

For those who don’t know, Fort Bridger was a fort built on the Green River and used to supply travelers on the Oregon Trail, California Trail, and also the Mormon Trail. Jim Bridger started it up with his partner, Louise Vasquez, in 1843.

The fort was later burned down by the Mormons during the Mormon War of 1857. One of the most contentious issues surrounding Fort Bridger is whether Jim Bridger did in fact sell the fort to the Mormons. Let’s take a look at what the literature says on the subject.

Fort Bridger in 1853

Brigham Young

Hunt Janin in Fort Bridger, Wyoming states that “In 1853, the Mormons asserted that Jim Bridger had sold his fort to their representative, Louis Robinson, for $8,000, half of this sum to have been paid in cash.

Bridger denied that such a transaction had taken place and claimed he still owned the land around the fort (as well as the fort itself, which he and Vasquez had built) through a Mexican grant of 30 square miles.

However, when the Mormon leader Brigham Young tried to confirm Bridger’s grant claim in Washington, D.C., he was unsuccessful.” (Janin, 78)

It’s a quite lengthy quote and I’d like to continue it below:

“There are three explanations for this imbroglio. One theory is that Bridger simply made up the land grant story in order to sell to the Mormons property which he did not legally own.

Another thesis is that he honestly thought he did have title to the land but was mistaken. A third possibility is that the Mormons forced Bridger to sell out against his will. This is at least what Bridger himself wanted his friends to believe.” (Janin, 78)

Newspaper Accounts in 1855

Jim Bridger

According to the November 5, 1855, edition of the Missouri Republican, Bridger was forced to abandon his fort and a posse had been sent to get him. The main reason for this was because Bridger had good relations with the Indians; he had an Indian wife after all, and was even rumored to be selling them guns.

One theory surrounding this story is that Bridger was selling guns to the Indians in the hope that they’d fight the Mormons. If Bridger did indeed get ripped-off by the Mormons, this has some validity.

Was Fort Bridger Sold in 1858?

William Adams burned the fort down

Another account comes from Cornelius M. Ismert’s essay “James Bridger” which is found in Mountain Men and Fur Traders of the Far West: Eighteen Biographical Sketches. Ismert states that “sometime during 1858 Fort Bridger was sold. The litigation is still unsolved, although there is a deed, even several of them. There is evidence that Bridger’s partner, Louis Vasquez, sold the fort, or his part of it, to the Mormons in 1855, with final payment in 1858; but Bridger appeared to be unaware of this.” (Ismert, 265)

Those were all sources that I used when I originally wrote this article and chapter in my book, in April. As to my assertion that the fort was seized being “highly disputable and also inflammatory,” perhaps there’s a point there.

It seems from the accounts of the time and recollections later, however, that the Mormons did their damndest to get Bridger out of that fort, mainly as a way to pacify the Indians in the area. One of their main contentions with Bridger was their accusation that he was purposefully supplying arms to the Indians as a way to get back at the Mormons.

Well, why would he be trying to get back at them if he’d willingly sold his fort? While it may be true that the fort wasn’t actually seized, I think the events surrounding its changing of hands are suspicious at best and illegal at worst.

If anyone has a different opinion I’d love to hear it!

6 Comments

Howard J.Field

7/22/2018 11:26:09 am

All dates and references are available. Assumptions are my own.

Jim Bridger - Outlaw
Jim Bridger, a well know frontiersman and fur trapper, was very familiar with the areas of what is known today as the states of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho. His familiarity with the area allowed him to be a well-respected guide and he was often paid for the service of helping people, companies and wagon trains find the areas they wanted to go to.
Louis Vasquez was born and raised in St. Louis Missouri and became a fur trader early in his life. At a young age he and a partner owned and operated Fort Vasquez on the Missouri River. Unable to make a profit they sold the fort in 1840 and the new owners subsequently struggled and finally took out bankruptcy in 1842 leaving Vasquez unpaid.
Bridger and Vasquez had crossed paths several times while trading fur in the Rocky Mountains and in 1842 the two men decided to establish a trading post on the Blacks Fork River. They thought the location would be convenient for the mountain men and travelers going through on the Overland and California trails. It was also thought to be an excellent location for the locals, including the Indians. Bridger was married to an Indian woman and had a relationship with the Indians that allowed much trading.

1842-1843 The trading post was built/established on federal property. Admittedly very few people worried about property ownership if they were only passing through but if people wanted to put down roots and establish a home or ranch or business (many logging businesses were established) they would at least file for ownership in some form. Claiming property was accomplished by way of “buying it”, “The Free soil Party, 1848” (an actual government act), the “donation and claim Act of 1850” or the Homestead act. Jim Bridger could neither read nor write so that was probably not something he worried about at all. Louis Vasquez, educated in private Catholic schools, could read and write, and soon became the businessman of the company. The two made a good partnership.
Many people were excited to have the trading post and things went well with Louis tending the post and keeping the “books” at the business.
In July 1847 the Vanguard company of the Mormons came through Fort Bridger. Brigham Young recognized Fort Bridger as a good place to trade and encouraged subsequent wagon trains to trade there. There must have been a good relationship established during this brief encounter because in 1849 Louis went to Salt Lake and established a store that operated for several years.
In 1850 the Utah territory was established and was recognized by the federal government. Brigham Young was established as the first territorial Governor and the Federal Indian agent. The territory included what today is the southwest corner of Wyoming including the Fort Bridger and Green River areas.
Because of the great number of Mormons going to the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young decided it would be a wise plan to establish a fort of their own. In 1853 Fort Supply was established with John Nebeker and Isaac Bullock each directing a company of men that settled in the area. Fort Supply was about 12 miles south and slightly west of Fort Bridger and the intent was to grow crops, have additional wagon parts, and other supplies for the Mormon wagon trains as had been done at other locations along the Mormon trail.
At this time Federal law prohibited the sale of any firearms, ammunition or liquor to the Indians anyplace in the U.S.
On Aug 25th, 1853, after several reports of more and more problems with the Indians in the area of what is now the Uinta and Sweetwater counties of Wyoming, and those reports including information that the real problem was due to the sale of guns, ammunition and alcohol to those Indians, Brigham Young, Federal Indian agent, sent a militia of 48 men to Fort Bridger. The intent was to stop the sale of those items that were federally prohibited. Upon arrival they found that Jim Bridger had received word of their coming and had left just before they got there. As reported, the militia did find ample liquor but no guns or ammunition. They believed that the guns and ammunition, which had the greatest value, were taken by Jim Bridger in fear that the militia would confiscate them. From that time on neither Jim Bridger nor Louis Vazquez were at the fort for almost two years. Louis had actually returned to Missouri and was married to a widow woman with two children. In an effort to bring peace at the trading post, the Mormons helped maintain the fort and even built a stone wall part way around the fort for protection from the Indians. Jim Bridger returned to the fort in July 1855 and with Vasquez’s representative the fort was sold to the Mormons. It was sold for $8000.00. $4000.00 was given to Jim in gold coins with the balance due the follow November 1856. The following year Louis returne

Aaron Peavler

9/1/2018 02:51:57 am

from what I read about him Bridger was a bootlegger. The LDS Militia from Fort Douglas were sent to arrest him and seize the fort. Bridger was selling guns and whiskey to the Paiutes. The Militia seized the fort and Vasquez gave the church the keys and the deeds. The last thing they did was they destroyed Bridger's liquor stash.

Eli Davidson

5/6/2023 11:53:26 am

Why don’t you believe that the mormons appropriated Fort Bridger outright?

Considering its strategic position along a route that controlled not only east-west passage, which made it lucrative, but also and more importantly, a vital route and thus access and resupply thereby to the mormon settlements in Utah it would seem logical that they would want to control that access. When you combine these facts with the specious arguments put forward by the mormons regarding the sale, especially that Jim Bridger wasn’t present (a fact) for the sale of his life’s work and considering his ties to the area what would his motivation to sell a lucrative business have been? Combined with the mormons known reputation for having problems with their neighbors (and vice versa), the whole thing seems fishy beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you accept it if your partner “allegedly” sold your business and life’s work while you were on a business trip without telling you?

Keep in mind that whatever Bridger may have sold to the Indians Bridger’s business was built, and relied on selling wares and services to the settlers miving from east to west, ergo, I don’t believe he bore whites malice nor wanted to cause them problems. Not did he want problems with the Indians.

Futhermore, most (nearly all) of the fur traders traded alcohol to the indians for furs, including John Jacob Astor and the Hudson Bay Company, respected and powerful people/groups; it was one of those laws that someone had the best intentions for but just wasn’t practical because the indians wanted liquor: the same way drugs are illegal today but someone who is addicted still finds a way to get them.

As for the selling of guns, that may or may not be true, or the mormons made it up to justify the theft.

Anyway, respectfully, that’s my take. Rebuttal?

Carl Hueske

1/30/2025 05:18:49 pm

Seems as though he may have been extorted...

"An offer he could not refuse" - I apologize for using such a trope but it feels like it happened. And wasn't he paid in mormon fakebux?

Aaron Peavler

1/30/2025 06:23:36 pm

Brigham did not extort him. Bridger broke the law. When the soldiers were sent to arrest him and Vasquez they ran. Vasquez surrendered the fort and Bridger's liquor stash was destroyed and the guns turned over to the army.

Don't listen to what AME, Hell on Wheels, or American Primeval said about Brigham or Old Jim Bridger it is a lie and fiction and it goes against everything the NPS and the Church stand for.

carl hueske

1/30/2025 09:07:02 pm

May I ask if you know any good books or other reliable sources on the subject? Most of my knowledge about this stuff seems to be from popular media as you said.