Mormonism and slavery

Joseph Smith justified slavery using the Curse of Ham.

Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young referred to the Curse of Ham to justify slavery.[16]^:126[17][18] According to the Bible, after Cain killed Abel, God cursed him and put a mark on him,(Genesis 4:8-15) although the Bible does not state the nature of the mark. In another biblical account, Ham discovered his father Noah drunk and naked in his tent. Because of this, Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan to be "servants of servants".(Genesis 9:20-27) While nothing explicitly supports enslaving black Africans, one interpretation that was popular in the United States during the Atlantic slave trade was that the mark of Cain was black skin, and it was passed on through Canaan's descendants, who they believed were black Africans. They argued that because Canaan was cursed to be servants of servants, then they were justified in enslaving Canaan's descendants. By the 1800s, this interpretation was widely accepted in America,[14][19] including among Mormons. An assistant president of the church, W. W. Phelps, wrote in a letter that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain, and that the Canaanites were black Africans and covered by both curses.[20][16][21][22]

In June 1830, Joseph Smith began translating the Bible. Parts of it were canonized as the Book of Moses and accepted as official LDS scripture in 1880. It states that "the seed of Cain were black" (Moses 7:22). The Book of Moses also discusses a group of people called the Canaanites, who were also black (Moses 7:8). These Canaanites lived before the flood, and hence before the Biblical Canaan. Later, in 1835, Smith produced a work called the Book of Abraham. It relates the story of Pharaoh, a descendant of Ham, who was also a Canaanite by birth. Pharaoh could not have the priesthood because he was "of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,"(Abraham 1:27) and that all Egyptians descended from him (Abraham 1:22). The Book of Abraham also says the curse came from Noah (Abraham 1:26). This book was also later canonized as Mormon scripture.

In 1836, Smith taught that the Curse of Ham came from God, and that it demanded the legalization of slavery. He warned those who tried to interfere with slavery would face divine consequences.[3] While Smith never reversed his opinion on the Curse of Ham, he did start expressing more anti-slavery positions. In 1844, Smith wrote his views as a candidate for president of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands.[23]^:19

After the succession crisis, Brigham Young consistently argued slavery was a "divine institution," even after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued during the Civil War by President Abraham Lincoln. In the year following the Emancipation Proclamation, Young gave several discourses on slavery and characterized himself as neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man.[24]^:290 He based his position on the scriptural curses.[6][12]^:40 He also used these curses to justify banning blacks from the priesthood and from holding public office.[25] After Young, leaders did not use the curse of Cain to justify slavery, but this doctrine continued to be taught by President John Taylor[26] and Bruce R. McConkie.[27] The LDS Church today does not support slavery and disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse. [28]

Most modern scholars believe "Canaanites" to refer to people of Semitic origin, not black African. Most Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions also reject the teaching that Canaanites were black Africans.[29]

Young taught the Emancipation Proclamation went against the decrees of God and predicted it would eventually fail

While Mormon scripture taught against slavery, it also taught the importance of upholding the law. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young stated that the Mormons were not abolitionists.[6][30]

In the Book of Mormon, slavery was against the law.(Mosiah 2:13 & Alma 27:9) The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage to another" (D&C Section 101:79), but it is unclear whether it applied to black servitude, since it was never used either for or against black slavery in early discourses on slavery.[31]^:13 The official position which was more often cited was the belief that one shouldn't interfere with slaves against the will of their masters, since it would cause unrest.(D&C Section 134:12) This explanation avoided taking a direct stance on slavery, and instead focused on following current laws.[31]^:13 In general, Mormon teachings encouraged obeying, honoring and sustaining the laws of the land.(Articles of Faith 1:12)

In 1836, Smith wrote a piece in the Messenger and Advocate which supported slavery[12]^:18 and affirmed that it was God's will.[32]^:15 He said that the Northerners had no right to tell the Southerners whether they could have slaves. He said that if slavery were evil, southern "men of piety" would have objected. He expressed concern that freed slaves would overrun the United States and violate chastity and virtue. He pointed to biblical stories of slavery, arguing that the prophets who owned slaves were inspired of God, and knew more than abolitionists. He said that blacks were under the curse of Ham to be servants, and warned those who sought to free blacks were going against the dictates of God. Warren Parrish and Oliver Cowdery made similar arguments.[31]^:14 During this time the Mormons were based in the slave state of Missouri.

After the move to the free state of Illinois, Smith began expressing more abolitionist ideals. He argued that blacks should be given employment opportunities equal to whites.[33] He believed that given equal chances as whites, blacks would become like whites.[34] In his personal journal, he wrote that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought "into a free country and set ... free— Educate them and give them equal rights."[35] During Smith's 1844 campaign for president of the United States, he had advocated for the immediate abolition of slavery through compensation from money earned by the sale of public lands.[23][36]

My cogitations, like Daniel's have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence 'holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.

— History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 8, p.197 - p.198

Smith was killed in 1844, the year of his presidential bid, resulting in a schism among his followers. After the schism, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (later known as the Community of Christ), one of the resulting sects, embraced abolitionist ideals. Its leader following the schism, Joseph Smith III, was a "devotee" of Abraham Lincoln and supported the Republicans' charge to end slavery.[7]

Under Brigham Young, the LDS Church continued to teach that slavery was ordained of God. After he helped institute slavery in the Utah Territory, Young taught "inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery".[37]^:26 He argued that blacks needed to serve masters because they were not capable of ruling themselves,[38] When blacks were treated right, Young contended that they were much better off as slaves than if they were free.[37]^:28 Because of these benefits, Young argued that slavery brought the "true liberty" which God had designed.[8]^:110 He taught that because slavery was decreed of God, man was not able to remove it.[37]^:27 He criticized the Northerners for their attempts to free the slaves contrary to the will of God and accused them of worshipping blacks. He opposed the American Civil War, calling it useless and saying that the "for the cause of human improvement is not in the least advanced by the dreadful war which now convulses our unhappy country."[9] After President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Young prophesied that the attempts to free the slave would eventually fail.[39]

Slave owners complained that the Mormons were interfering with slaves, but the LDS Church denied such claims.[40]^:27 In 1835, the Church issued an official statement that, because the United States government allowed slavery, the Church would not "interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men."[31] This was later adopted as scripture.(D&C Section 134:12) This policy was changed in 1836, when Smith wrote that slaves should not be taught the gospel at all until after their masters were converted.[31]^:14

Church leaders taught that slaves should not be mistreated. In March 1842, Smith began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule?" [41]

Under Brigham Young, the Church also opposed mistreatment of slaves. Young urged moderation, not to treat Africans as beasts of the field, nor to elevate them to equality with the whites, which was against God's will.[8]^:109 He criticized the Southerners for their abuse of slaves, and taught that mistreating slaves should be against the law: "If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."[6] Later, as Utah sovereignty became a larger political issue, Young changed his stance on the role of the federal government in preventing abuse, arguing against federal meddling in a State's sovereignty by stating "even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it."[42]

When church leaders asked for men from the members of Mississippi to help with the westward emigration, they sent four slaves with John Brown who was given the task to "take charge of them." Two of the slaves died, but Green Flake later joined the company, making it a total of three slaves arriving in Utah.[52] More slaves arrived as property of members in later companies. By 1850, 100 blacks had arrived, the majority of whom were slaves.[53] Some slaves escaped during the trek west, including one large contingent that escaped the Redd family during the night in Kansas,[54] but six of the slaves were not able to escape and continued with the family to Utah Territory.[55] When William Dennis stopped in Tabor, Iowa, members of the Underground Railroad helped five of his slaves escape, and despite a manhunt, they were able to reach freedom in Canada.[56][32]^:39

Mormons arrived in Utah in the middle of the Mexican–American War; they ignored the Mexican ban on slavery. Instead, they recognized slavery as custom and consistent with the Mormon view on blacks.[57]

After the Compromise of 1850, Congress granted the Utah Territory the right to decide whether it would allow slavery based on popular sovereignty. Many prominent members of the church were slave owners, including Abraham O. Smoot and Charles C. Rich.[58]

Apostle Charles C. Rich, a prominent Mormon slave owner

The territory did not pass any laws defining the legality of slavery, and the LDS Church tried to remain neutral. In 1851, apostle Orson Hyde said that because many church members were coming from the South with slaves, that the church's position on the matter needed to be defined. He went on to say that there was no law in Utah prohibiting or authorizing slavery and that the decisions on the topic were to remain between slaves and their masters. He also clarified that individuals' choices on the matter were not in any way a reflection of the church as a whole or its doctrine.[59][60]^:2

Once in Utah, Mormons continued to buy and sell slaves as property. Church members used their slaves to perform labor required for tithing, and sometimes donated them to the church as property.[52][32]^:34 Both Young and Heber C. Kimball used the slave labor that had been donated in tithing before granting freedom to the people.[52][32]^:52

Biddy Mason was one of 14 blacks who sued for freedom after being illegally held captive in San Bernardino

In 1851, a company of 437 Mormons under direction of Amasa M. Lyman and Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles settled at what is now San Bernardino, California. This first company took 26 slaves,[61] and more slaves were brought over as San Bernardino continued to grow.[62] Since California was a free state, the slaves should have been freed when they entered. However, slavery was openly tolerated in San Bernardino.[63] Many slaves wanted to be free,[64] but were still under the control of their masters and ignorant of the laws and their rights. Judge Benjamin Hayes freed 14 slaves who had belonged to Robert Smith.[65] Other slaves were freed by their masters.[61]

As historian Max Perry Mueller has written, the Mormons participated extensively in the Indian slave trade as part of their efforts to convert and control Utah's Native American population.[66] Mormons also were confronted in Utah with the practice of the Indian slave trade among regional tribes; it was very prevalent in the area. Tribes often took captives from enemies in raids or warfare, and used them as slaves or sold them. As the Mormons began expanding into Indian territory, they often had conflicts with the local residents. After expanding into Utah Valley, Young issued the extermination order against the Timpanogos, resulting in the Battle at Fort Utah. The Mormons took many Timpanogos women and children into slavery. Some were able to escape, but many died in slavery.[67] After expanding into Parowan, Mormons attacked a group of Indians, killing around 25 men and taking the women and children as slaves.[68]^:274

A statue of Chief Walkara, a Mormon slave trader.

At the encouragement of Mormon leaders, their pioneers started participating in the Indian slave trade.[15][69][10] Chief Walkara, one of the main slave traders in the region, was baptized in the church. In 1851, Apostle George A. Smith gave Chief Peteetneet and Walkara talking papers that certified "it is my desire that they should be treated as friends, and as they wish to Trade horses, Buckskins and Piede children, we hope them success and prosperity and good bargains."[70]

As in other regions in the Southwest, the Mormons justified enslaving Indians in order to teach them Christianity and achieve their salvation. Mormon theology teaches that Indians are descendants in part from the Lamanites, an ancient group of people described in the Book of Mormon that had fallen into apostasy and had been cursed. When Young visited the members in Parowan, he encouraged them to "buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could". He argued that by doing so, they could educate them and teach them the Gospel, and in a few generations the Lamanites would become "white and delightsome", as prophesied in Nephi.[71]

The Mormons strongly opposed the New Mexican slave trade.[72] Young sought to put an end to the Mexican slave trade.[73] Many of Walkara's band were upset by the interruption with the Mexican slave trade. In one graphic incident, Ute Indian Chief Arrapine, a brother of Walkara, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying certain children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. In his book, Forty Years Among the Indians, Daniel Jones wrote, "[s]everal of us were present when he took one of these children by the heels and dashed its brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body towards us, telling us we had no hearts, or we would have bought it and saved its life."[74]

Brigham Young promoted slavery as a consequence of the Curse of Ham.

One of the Mexican slave traders, Don Pedro Leon Lujan, was charged with trading with the Indians without a license, including Indian slaves. His property was seized and his slaves distributed to Mormon families in Manti. He sued the government, charging that he received unequal treatment because he wasn't Mormon. The courts sided against him, but noted that Indian slavery had never been officially legalized in Utah.[75]

On January 5, 1852, Young, who was also Territorial Governor of Utah, addressed the joint session of the Utah Territorial Legislature. He discussed the ongoing trial of Don Pedro Leon Lujan and the importance of explicitly indicating the true policy for slavery in Utah. He explained that although he didn't think people should be treated as property, he felt because Indians were so low and degraded, that transferring them to "the more favored portions of the human race", would be a benefit and relief. He said this was superior to drudgery of Mexican slavery, because the Mexicans were "scarcely superior" to the Indians. He argued that it is proper for persons thus purchased to owe a debt to the man or woman who saved them,[76] and that it was "necessary that some law should provide for the suitable regulations under which all such indebtedness should be defrayed". He argued that this type of service was necessary and honorable to improve the condition of Indians.[77]

He also supported African slavery and said that "Inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery."[78] He argued that the blacks had the Curse of Ham placed on them which made them servants of servants and that he was not authorized to remove it. He also argued that blacks needed to serve masters because they are not capable of ruling themselves, and that when treated right, blacks were much better off as slaves than if they were free.[78] However, he urged moderation, not to treat Africans as beasts of the field, nor to elevate them to equality with the whites, which he believed was against the will of God.[8]^:109 He said that this was the principle of true liberty according to the designs of God.[8]^:110 On January 27, Orson Pratt objected to Young's remarks, saying it was not man's duty to enforce Cain's curse, and that slavery had not been authorized by God.[79] Young responded that the Lord had revealed these instructions to him.[80] After this, the Utah legislature passed an Act in Relation to Service, which officially legalized slavery in Utah Territory, and a month later passed an Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners, which specifically dealt with Indian slavery.

The acts had a few special provisions unique to slavery in Utah, reflecting Mormon beliefs. Masters were required by law to correct and punish their slaves, which particularly worried Republicans in Congress.[15] Black slaves brought into the Territory had to come "of their own free will and choice"; and they could not be sold or taken from the Territory against their will. Indian slaves just had to be in possession of a white person, which Republicans in Congress complained was too broad.[15] Indian slavery was limited to twenty years, while black slavery was limited to not be longer "than will satisfy the debt due his [master]." Several unique provisions were included which terminated the owner's contract in the event that the master neglected to feed, clothe, shelter, or otherwise abused the slave, or attempted to take them from the Territory against their will. Black slaves, but not Indian slaves, were freed if the master had sexual intercourse with them. Some schooling was also required for slaves, with blacks requiring less schooling than Indians. Despite the unique provisions in Utah, many black slaves received the same treatment as in the South. According to former slave Alexander Bankhead, the slaves were "far from being happy" and longed for their freedom.[52][54]

Justin Smith Morrill attacked the Mormon belief in slavery

Mormons continued taking Indian children from their families long after the slave traders left and even began to actively solicit children from Paiute parents. They also began selling Indian slaves to each other.[81]^:56 By 1853, each of the hundred households in Parowan had one or more Paiute children.[81]^:57 Indian slaves were used for both domestic and manual labor.[82]^:240 In 1857, Representative Justin Smith Morrill estimated that there were 400 Indian slaves in Utah.[15] Richard Kitchen has identified at least 400 Indian slaves taken into Mormon homes, but estimates even more went unrecorded because of the high mortality rate of Indian slaves. Many of them tried to escape.[68]

Brigham Young opposed slaves who wanted to escape their masters. This was enforced by Utah laws.[83] When Dan, a slave, tried to escape his master, William Camp, the courts upheld that Dan was Camp's property and could not escape. Dan was later sold to Thomas Williams for $800 and then to William Hooper.[52]

The Mormon position of slavery was often criticized and condemned by anti-slavery groups.[32]^:19 In 1856, the key plank of the Republican Party's platform was "to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery".[84] While considering appropriations for Utah Territory, Representative Justin Smith Morrill criticized the LDS Church for its laws on slavery. He said that under the Mormon patriarchy, slavery took a new shape. He criticized the use of the term servants instead of slaves and the requirement for Mormon masters to "correct and punish" their "servants". He expressed concern that Mormons might be trying to increase the number of slaves in the state.[15] Horace Greeley also criticized the Mormon position on slavery and general apathy towards the welfare of black people.[47]

When the American Civil War broke out, there is some indication that some Mormon slave owners returned to southern states because they were worried that they would lose their slaves.[54] On June 19, 1862 Congress prohibited slavery in all US territories, and on January 1, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The slaves of the Mormons were incredibly joyful when the news reached that they were free, and many left Utah for other states, particularly California.[52][54]

After the slaves were freed, Young gave several discourses on slavery. He characterized himself as neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man.[6] He criticized both the South for their abuse of slaves and the North for their alleged worshipping of blacks. He opposed the American Civil War, calling it useless and that the "cause of human improvement is not in the least advanced" by fighting such a war. He predicted the Emancipation Proclamation would fail.[85]

Leaders of the church have had varying opinions on slavery, and many Mormon historians have discussed the issue.

Harris and Bringhurst noted that early Mormons wanted to stay neutral or aloof of slavery as a political issue, probably because of the strong Mormon presence in Missouri, which was then a slave state. In 1833, Joseph Smith stated that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another," but most historians agree that this statement referred to debt and other types of economic bondage. In 1835, Joseph Smith wrote that missionaries should not baptize slaves against the will of their masters. According to Harris and Bringhurst, Joseph Smith made these statements to distance the church from abolitionism, and not to align with pro-slavery positions, but it came across as supporting slavery. Church headquarters were in Ohio, where abolitionism and anti-abolitionism were polarized many citizens. After members of the church were expelled from Missouri to Illinois, Smith changed to an antislavery position, which he held until his death in 1844. More new converts were from free states and a handful of black people joined the church, which may have contributed to Smith's change in position.[12]^:15–19

John G. Turner writes that Brigham Young's stance on slavery was contradictory. In 1851 he opposed abolitionism, seeing it as politically radical, yet he did not want to "lay a foundation" for slavery. In an 1852 speech, Young was against slavery, but also against equal rights for blacks. Two weeks after the speech, Young pushed to have slavery formally recognized in the Utah territory, stating that he was for slavery, and said that a belief in slavery naturally followed from believing in God's priesthood and decrees. Young mimicked proslavery apologetics when he argued that slaves were better off than European workers and that slavery was mutually beneficial to slave and master. Young feared that abolishing slavery would result in blacks ruling over whites. At the end of 1852, Young commented that he was glad the black population was small. Young was generous with the black servants and slaves in his life, but that did not change their lack of rights. According to Turner, Young's position on slavery is unsurprising given the racial context of the time, as discrimination was common in white American Protestant groups. Turner does note that Young's theological justification for racial discrimination set a discriminatory precedent that his successors believed they ought to perpetuate.[86]^:225–229

According to W. Paul Reeve, Brigham Young was the driving force behind the 1852 legislation to solidify slavery in the Utah territory, and that the common fear of "interracial mixing" motivated Young. Reeve also states that Mormons were surprised by the Native American slave trade from the Utes. The slave traders would insist that the Mormons buy slaves, sometimes killing a child to motivate their purchase. The 1852 law tried to change slavery into indentured servitude, requiring Mormons with Native American children to register them with their local judge and provide some education for them; the law did not work well in practice. Reeve explains that while Joseph Smith saw a potential for black equality, Young believed that blacks were inferior to whites by divine design.[16]^:143–145