History vs. Apologetics: What They Don’t Tell You About Brigham Young and Slavery

Byadmin

I recently came across an article from The Interpreter Foundation titled “Brigham Young, Race, and Slavery: Reexamining Utah’s 1852 Service Act.” The author, Daniel C. Peterson, argues that “recent scholarship” has overturned our understanding of this period. He claims that the 1852 law, far from legalizing chattel slavery, actually established a more benign system of “quasi-indentured servitude” designed for “gradual emancipation.”

The article’s stated goal is to “reduce… the challenges posed to contemporary Latter-day Saints by Brigham Young’s racial attitudes.” It presents a version of history that is more comfortable and less damning.

As someone who has spent considerable time analyzing this exact history, I feel compelled to respond. The article is a masterclass in apologetics—a practice defined by its publisher’s mission of “Defense… against criticisms of Church beliefs, policies, and practices.” And the first rule of apologetics is that the conclusion—in this case, “the Church and its leaders are better than they seem”—is decided before the evidence is even examined.

The problem with the Interpreter article isn’t just that it’s wrong; it’s how it’s wrong. It achieves its comforting conclusion not through lies, but through strategic, calculated omissions. It tells a few convenient truths while systematically hiding the damning historical context that gives those truths meaning.

Let’s break down what the article claims, and then, more importantly, what it deliberately leaves out.

The Grains of Truth: What the Law Said on Paper

To build its case, the article highlights several provisions in the 1852 “Act in Relation to Service” that were, on paper, more “benign” than the brutal slave codes of the American South. And to be fair, these points are textually correct. The Utah law did:

  • Forbid hereditary servitude: The children of “servants” were not automatically enslaved for life. Academic analysis shows an original clause “that would have made enslavement perpetual” was dropped from the final bill.
  • Require education: Masters were legally required to provide “at least eighteen months” of schooling. In the South, teaching an enslaved person to read was often a crime.
  • Grant limited rights: The law forbade cruelty, family separation, and sexual abuse. It required a servant’s consent before a judge to be sold out of the territory.

If you stop there, as the article wants you to, you might walk away thinking that while it wasn’t perfect, this system was a progressive step away from slavery. You might conclude that Brigham Young was presiding over a system of “gradual emancipation.”

But this is where history ends and apologetics begins. The accuracy of a historical claim isn’t just about whether a specific fact is true, but whether that fact is presented within its full, unvarnished context.

Deception by Misdirection: The “European Immigrant” Ruse

The first major piece of misdirection is the article’s repeated emphasis that the law “applied not only to African-American enslaved people but to unfree European-immigrant labor, as well.”

This is a clever rhetorical move. By suggesting the law applied equally to white Europeans, the author attempts to de-racialize it. It becomes a law about labor and debt, not a law about controlling Black bodies.

Again, this is technically true on paper. The law was written to potentially cover indebted white immigrants. But here is the critical fact that the Interpreter article conceals, drawn directly from the very scholars it claims to be summarizing: There is no evidence this provision of the law was ever actually used for European immigrants.

In an interview, historian W. Paul Reeve, a primary scholar on this topic, states, “We don’t, we didn’t find any evidence of these European immigrants, registering before a probate judge.”

Think about what this means. The article builds a central part of its argument on a legal fiction—a clause in the law that existed on paper but, as far as we can tell from the historical record, was never put into practice. It’s a factoid without substance, used to dilute the law’s undeniable and practiced racial purpose.

The Sins of Omission: What the Article Hides

The most profound deception in the article lies in what it omits. It’s not just hiding a few inconvenient details; it’s gutting the entire historical event of its meaning.

Omission #1: The Real Reason for the Law—The “Curse of Cain”

The article presents Brigham Young’s racism as a “cringe-worthy” personal attitude, separate from the pragmatic lawmaking he was supposedly engaged in. This is a complete inversion of reality.

The “recent scholarship” the article leans on is the transcription of the 1852 legislative debates. Those very transcripts prove that the law and Young’s racist theology are inseparable. The law was the direct catalyst for Brigham Young’s first public articulation of a racial priesthood restriction on January 23, 1852. This timeline is confirmed in the Church’s own “Race and the Priesthood” essay.

Speaking to the legislature in defense of this very Act, Brigham Young laid out his justification: the “Curse of Cain.” He declared that “any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the Priesthood.”

This law was not some detached piece of legal work that happened to be passed by a racist. The law was the political manifestation of that racism. Young’s theology was not a footnote to the law; it was its foundation. By severing this link, the article conceals the 1852 Act’s most significant and lasting legacy: the codification of Mormonism’s 126-year racial priesthood and temple ban.

Omission #2: Brigham Young, In His Own Words

The article works hard to paint Brigham Young as an opponent of slavery, claiming he “sincerely believed the statute did not legalize chattel slavery, of which he had long and often expressed his strong disapproval.”

The newly transcribed 1852 debates, which the author claims as his source, demolish this portrayal. Here is what Brigham Young actually said to the lawmakers while arguing for the Act:

“I am a firm believer in slavery.”

He argued that an enslaved Black person was “much better off than if he was free.” When debating whether Black men should have the right to vote, he was even more blunt, stating you might as well “make a bill here for mules to vote as Negroes.”

This wasn’t a man trying to create a system of “gradual emancipation.” This was a man creating a system of bondage that he believed was divinely sanctioned and morally superior to the Southern system. By hiding these direct quotes, the article doesn’t just misrepresent Young’s position—it reverses it.

Omission #3: The Silenced Mormon Abolitionist

Perhaps the most cynical omission is the erasure of Apostle Orson Pratt. The article presents the 1852 Act as the consensus view of a unified Church leadership. The historical record shows the exact opposite.

The debate was “hotly contested,” marked by “fundamental disagreements.” Orson Pratt was Brigham Young’s chief opponent. In a series of fiery speeches before the legislature, Pratt pleaded with his fellow Latter-day Saint leaders to reject the bill. His newly transcribed words are a powerful Mormon anti-slavery testament:

“Shall we hedge up the way before us by introducing this abominable slavery? No! My voice shall be against it… Shall we take then the innocent African that has committed no sin and damn him to slavery and bondage without receiving any authority from heaven to do so?”

Pratt directly challenged the moral and religious basis for the law. By erasing Orson Pratt from the story, the article silences the 19th-century Mormon anti-slavery voice. It presents Young’s racist faction as the only option, when in reality, it was the winning side of a bitter internal conflict. There was a choice, and the pro-slavery argument won.

Omission #4: The Broader Context of Bondage

Finally, the article treats the “Act in Relation to Service” in a vacuum. It fails to mention that the very same 1852 legislature passed a parallel law: “An Act for the Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners.” This law codified the practice of Latter-day Saints purchasing Native American children from slave traders and indenturing them in their homes for terms up to 20 years.

This context is vital. The 1852 laws weren’t an isolated attempt to deal with Southern converts. They were part of a comprehensive legislative project to create and regulate multiple forms of unfree, racialized labor in the territory.

Conclusion: The Difference Between History and Heritage

The Daniel Peterson article is not a summary of “recent scholarship.” It is an act of apologetic curation. It carefully selects the few legally benign clauses from a historical document while systematically concealing the racist theology that birthed it, the pro-slavery rhetoric that defended it, the internal apostolic opposition that condemned it, and the broader context of racial bondage in which it operated.

It uses the existence of new research as a shield to lend itself authority, while burying the actual findings of that research because they are too challenging, too messy, and too damaging to the simplified narrative of faith it wants to promote.

This isn’t history. History is the messy, complex, and often painful work of understanding the past in its totality. This article is an exercise in heritage—the practice of polishing the past to make it suitable for modern consumption. It is designed not to reveal the truth, but to manage it. And in doing so, it does a profound disservice to the historical record and to the readers it claims to be educating.

References

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *