DiscussMormonism.com

“DCP” wrote: I’ve often heard Brigham Young denounced as a racist and a supporter of slavery. . . . It should be obvious, I think, that such claims are false

That statement is false. Historical records and Brigham Young's own statements show that he supported a form of slavery and held views on race that are considered racist by modern standards.

Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, presided over the Utah Territory where he permitted and regulated slavery. The 1852 Act in Relation to Service, a law passed by the Utah Territorial Legislature, legalized slavery within the territory. This act provided a legal framework for the enslavement of African Americans and a system of "indentured servitude" for Native Americans. Young supported this legislation and justified it as a means of managing and controlling the enslaved population.

Brigham Young's teachings included a belief in the "curse of Cain," a theological interpretation used to explain and justify racial hierarchy. According to this doctrine, black people were descendants of Cain and were thus subject to a divine curse. This belief was used to prohibit black men from being ordained to the priesthood in the church, a policy that remained in place until 1978. Young taught that the curse was a mark of God's displeasure and that black people were "cursed" with a dark skin.

In an 1852 address to the Utah Territorial Legislature, Young stated, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will be a perpetual law for all time to come.” This statement reflects a strong belief in racial separation and a harsh view of interracial relationships.

These historical facts demonstrate that Brigham Young did not oppose slavery and held views on race that are inconsistent with DCP’s spin.

“DCP” wrote: As a practical matter for historical analysis, the effect of the 1852 bill on children on the posterity of servants is impossible to study because (a) slavery came to an end nationally only a few years afterward and (b) the population of such servants was so very small.

However, It is far from insignificant that the bolded line was omitted from the final draft of the bill. For one thing, the law wasn't merely about Black servants but about all unfree labor within the territory -- hence, the language about Canaan wasn't relevant. And there might easily have been arrangements of indentured servitude (for both Blacks and non-Blacks) that entailed the servitude of minor dependent children during the period of their parents' indenture.

Moreover, it's vitally important that the word servant is used, rather than the word slave. That was deliberate. And, furthermore, it again reflects the fact that the law wasn't only about Blacks. Brigham Young and his associates (and many of their contemporaries, including many Quaker abolitionists) believed in "servitude" but rejected slavery. You continue to use the word slave, but neither Brigham Young nor the framers of the law used that word. Quite consciously, they used the word servant instead, and they did so intentionally.

DCP makes several claims that are historically inaccurate and misleading. He attempts to downplay the severity of the 1852 Utah Act in Relation to Service by re-framing it as a form of "servitude" rather than slavery.

The **1852 Act in Relation to Service** legalized the ownership of African Americans and a form of forced labor for Native Americans. While the law used the term "**servant**," its provisions—including allowing the purchase and sale of people, mandating that the enslaved person's labor was owed to their master, and requiring the enslaved to be returned to their master if they ran away—are characteristics of slavery, not indentured servitude. The distinction between "servant" and "slave" is a semantic one and does not change the practical reality of the law. This was a common tactic in the 19th century to soften the language around the institution of slavery.

The claim that Brigham Young and others "believed in 'servitude' but rejected slavery" is a false distinction. Their actions and statements show they supported the system of human bondage that the rest of the country recognized as slavery. Brigham Young explicitly referred to black people as "slaves" in his 1852 address to the Utah Territorial Legislature, saying, "I will not consent for a moment to see a slave in our territory." This statement, however, was immediately followed by a justification for the very system he was discussing, and other statements from him show he was not an abolitionist.

The argument that the law was "not merely about Black servants" is also misleading. While the law did include provisions for Native Americans, the primary legal justification for the enslavement of African Americans in the Utah Territory was a belief in racial inferiority. This is evident in Brigham Young’s sermons, which explicitly linked Black people to the “curse of Cain” and other racist ideas.

The use of the word "servant" instead of "slave" does not change the law's nature. Historian Scott G. Kenney, in his book *Mormonism and the Making of the American West*, notes that while the law used the word "servant," it was **functionally a slave code**. The law allowed for the buying, selling, and bequeathing of "servants" and made no provision for their freedom or for the end of their service, which are key components of indentured servitude.

DCP’s statement attempts to use linguistic distinctions to obscure the historical reality that the 1852 Utah law legalized a system of chattel slavery, and that Brigham Young was a key supporter and proponent of this system.

These sources provide historical context, analysis, and interpretation of the primary documents:

Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism by Newell G. Bringhurst: This book is a foundational academic work on the history of race and slavery in the LDS Church. It provides a comprehensive, chronological account of the topic from the early days of the church through the modern era.

Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness by W. Paul Reeve: This award-winning book is highly regarded by historians. It explores how early Mormons, including Brigham Young, used race and racial ideology to define themselves in the 19th-century United States. It provides deep context on how views on slavery and race developed within the church.

Primary source document:

Brigham Young, before Territorial Legislature, January 23, 1852, CR 100 912, Church History Department
Pitman Shorthand transcriptions, 2013-2021

https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/files/ori ... ad7cc7.pdf

“Brigham Young” wrote: In [the] first place, with regard to slavery, inasmuch as I [believe2] in [the] Bible, [inasmuch as I] believe in [the] ordinances of [God and in the] priesthood order of God, I believe in slavery. Just as far as this act [is concerned], we believe in making this [African] creature amenable to certain [laws]; in their freedom they have subjected themselves to cursing. [In their] families, [in their] classes, [and] in their various capacities [they] have brought curses upon themselves and until the curse is removed by Him who has put the curse on this class, I am not authorized to [re]move it. I am a firm believer in slavery.

“Brigham Young” wrote:A strong abolitionist feeling has power over them, and they commence to whisper round their views upon the subject, saying, “Do you think it’s right? I am afraid it is not right.” I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their masters, because they are not capable of ruling themselves. When the Lord God cursed old Cain, He said, “Until the last drop of Abel’s blood receives the Priesthood, and enjoys the blessings of the same, Cain shall bear the curse;” then Cain is calculated to have his share next and not until then

More primary quotes here:

https://wasmormon.org/brigham-youngs-ra ... doctrines/

Thank you for this, drumdude. I've learned a lot about the 1852 Act in Relation to Service thanks to you.

The Fugitive Slave Clause:

In Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, the United States Constitution wrote:No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

The US constitution didn’t use the word “slave” anywhere, either. It still required fugitive slaves to be returned to slavery even when they had escaped to states that prohibited slavery. The rabidly pro-slavery states were content with this clause in the federal constitution. It did everything they wanted to keep their slaves in bondage. It didn’t need the word “slave”.

The concisely worded 13th Amendment from 1865, like the 1833 Act which abolished slavery in the British Empire, didn't hesitate to call a slave a slave. Little nuances between words are only important when you're trying to uphold slavery.

As a practical matter for historical analysis, the effect of the 1852 bill on children on the posterity of servants is impossible to study because (a) slavery came to an end nationally

Perfect example of kicking the ball into the wrong goal. Because of the greater conscious of the gentiles, the racist bill Brigham had crafted was of no effect.

That's like saying the bank robber was an upstanding member of his community because as he drew the gun to rob the bank, the security guard tackled him and thwarted the robbery.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 29, 2025 1:22 pm

As a practical matter for historical analysis, the effect of the 1852 bill on children on the posterity of servants is impossible to study because (a) slavery came to an end nationally

Perfect example of kicking the ball into the wrong goal. Because of the greater conscious of the gentiles, the racist bill Brigham had crafted was of no effect.

That's like saying the bank robber was an upstanding member of his community because as he drew the gun to rob the bank, the security guard tackled him and thwarted the robbery.

Per Jacob Hansen and others none of this matters because it’s all the fault of the abominable Protestant church. They infected the One True Church with racism and Brigham Young still did nothing wrong.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 29, 2025 7:04 am

Thank you for this, drumdude. I've learned a lot about the 1852 Act in Relation to Service thanks to you.

My pleasure!

I think DCP would do well to learn about it too before speaking falsely about it. It’s all right there in black and white, in Brigham’s own words.

That picture of Brigham and Woodruff reminds me of the many sealings Wilford had done. I think two were under 6 years old and deceased. If I remember my Mormon theology correctly on the morning of the resurrection children are raised at the same age they passed away. That means these two young girls will wake up and realize they are sealed to a 19th century polygamist prophet.

The obsession with BY continues. The Afore was downright angry and indignant with Axelbeingcivil:

However, by editing what I wrote, you've significantly altered what I said, which both surprises and disappoints me.

Sure, sure: go grab your smelling salts! I wouldn't be surprised if Axel was banned for this. He didn't really do anything wrong, though, other than point out that the Afore is defending BY's racism, which *is* indeed what the Afore is doing. It's like he's arguing for a version of BY's racism that might be called "Racism Lite." Like, we should be more forgiving of BY's rotten attitudes and behavior, because, hey, at least *THIS* racism was better than other kinds of racism that were out there at the time?

This might be *the* most ridiculous argument that the Afore has ever attempted. I mean, is he going to argue next that Hitler deserves new consideration, because his anti-semitism was actually "anti-semitism 'lite,'" and that there were others in the Nazi party who were way worse anti-semites? The sheer stupidity, plus the fact that he's getting angry over having the obvious pointed out to him, is just yet another sign, I guess, that he is past his prime, and that his skill at Mopologetics is waning.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 29, 2025 1:22 pm

As a practical matter for historical analysis, the effect of the 1852 bill on children on the posterity of servants is impossible to study because (a) slavery came to an end nationally

Perfect example of kicking the ball into the wrong goal. Because of the greater conscious of the gentiles, the racist bill Brigham had crafted was of no effect.

That's like saying the bank robber was an upstanding member of his community because as he drew the gun to rob the bank, the security guard tackled him and thwarted the robbery.

But you left out a key part of his quote: "slavery came to an end nationally only a few years afterward." (emphasis added) "Only a few years"??? Uh, you mean like an entire decade? (1863?) Yeah, sure: for this Mopologist, being enslaved for *11 years* qualifies as "only a few years." Wow. And recall that this was the same guy who had to issue a public apology after posting photos of Black people being lynched as a joke.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 29, 2025 7:56 am

The concisely worded 13th Amendment from 1865, like the 1833 Act which abolished slavery in the British Empire, didn't hesitate to call a slave a slave. Little nuances between words are only important when you're trying to uphold slavery.

This is a good point. The Afore's quote in whole reads:

I’ve often heard Brigham Young denounced as a racist and a supporter of slavery. In fact, I’ve encountered accusations that his racial attitudes were little different from those of the Nazis. It should be obvious, I think, that such claims are false.

He goes on to express massive levels of outrage that the middle sentence was omitted by axelbeingcivil:

The claims that I regard as obviously false are the claims that Brigham Young's racial attitudes were little different from those of the Nazis. You omitted that sentence. And yet it's the closest element of the passage to the phrase such claims and, thus, the more obvious referent. Why did you do that?

I freely grant and have repeatedly said that Brigham Young said many things that we would consider racist today. (I said so in my oral remarks at the 2025 FAIR Conference.

Does he not understand how English grammar works? His "such claims" *could* refer to the bit about the Nazis. But it could also refer to the bit about BY being "denounced as a racist and a supporter of slavery." And the reality--despite his indignation--is that his "such claims" *DOES* refer to *BOTH* the Nazi tidbit *AND* the bit about Brigham being "a supporter of slavery." He goes on to spend a big chunk of his responses attempting to argue that Brigham thought that slavery was actually "servitude," or something else.