Article re: Child Slavery in Early Utah

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, as a prophet of God he should have raised above the dust, but he failed to do that, and, as a result, he was on the wrong side of history. 

"The wrong side of history?"  What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, as a prophet of God he should have raised above the dust, but he failed to do that, and, as a result, he was on the wrong side of history. 

Who cares about being on the wrong side of history. History gets stuff wrong all the time. 

What matters is whether we were on the right or wrong side of morality.  And God, not society, is the judge of that. 😊

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Who cares about being on the wrong side of history. History gets stuff wrong all the time. 

What matters is whether we were on the right or wrong side of morality.  And God, not society, is the judge of that. 😊

Amen, sister.  From my sig line:

Quote

"'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right.  'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." -- Evette Carter

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

When Brigham said "buy up the Lamanite children" he's not calling for some horrific thing to acquire a labor force for building temples, I think he's speaking of liberation and rescue.  

The only problem is that they didn't actually set them free.  They didn't attempt to reunite them with their families as they should have, and as they probably would have if they were white children being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Instead they kept them as indentured servants.  No matter how well they treated them, that is not liberation.  If anything it only furthered the slave trade because where there is no demand, the supply will dry up.  In other words, their continued purchasing only further encouraged kidnapping. 

Some may accuse me of presentism as I throw around words such as ethnocentrism and racism, but that is what it was. If they were white/European kids being kidnapped and sold into slavery things would have been very different.  There would have been no purchasing of white baby slaves to save their protestant souls with baptism. There would have been no indentured servants out of so called mercy.   No, every effort would have been made to reunite those poor traumatized children to their homes, families, and way of life. 

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

The Daniel Jones quote is demonic - why didn't the men immediately attack and take the lives of these murderers?  

That is demonic, and that is an excellent question.  The only reason they didn't attack is because they were Native American children and not white children being brutally murdered.  The whole thing makes me sick to think about.  It is hard for me to understand how an entire people could have their consciences seared to such a degree.  It makes me wonder what I am blind to today, when in 100 years people will look back in sickness wondering "how could they have their conscience seared to such a degree".

I just wonder how this will all pan out in final judgment.  Was their conscience not pricked (hard to imagine), or did they avoid their conscience to follow what was culturally acceptable at the time?  Will the "presentism" card hold any weight before the Almighty Judge?   

[Ouagadougou]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The wrong side of history?"  What does that mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Slavery is wrong and immoral and BY was in favor of it--when he should have been against it, especially as the prophet and mouthpiece for the Lord.  In other words, there is no real excuse for his actions other than he was 100% wrong, IMO.

[Ouagadougou]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Who cares about being on the wrong side of history. History gets stuff wrong all the time. 

What matters is whether we were on the right or wrong side of morality.  And God, not society, is the judge of that. 😊

Ok.  He was on the wrong side of morality then...

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Slavery is wrong and immoral and BY was in favor of it--when he should have been against it, especially as the prophet and mouthpiece for the Lord.  In other words, there is no real excuse for his actions other than he was 100% wrong, IMO.

Who here has suggested that there is a "real excuse" for people of yesteryear who rationalized slavery?

We can seek to understand.  And contextualize.  But nobody here is "excusing" past rationalizations for slavery.

Again, what does "the wrong side of history" mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The only reason they didn't attack is because they were Native American children and not white children being brutally murdered.  

Sadly, you are probably right.  In science they call it the 'racial empathy gap.'   It's almost always subconscious but still...

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Who here has suggested that there is a "real excuse" for people of yesteryear who rationalized slavery?

We can seek to understand.  And contextualize.  But nobody here is "excusing" past rationalizations for slavery.

Again, what does "the wrong side of history" mean?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wrong side of morality.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Quote

Again, what does "the wrong side of history" mean?

Wrong side of morality.

Really?  How is history the arbiter of morality?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ouagadougou]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  How is history the arbiter of morality?

Thanks,

-Smac

Slavery has morally wrong...BY was for slavery...he was on the wrong side of morality, history, God...whatever you want to call it.  

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Slavery has morally wrong...

I agree.  But not because "history" decreed it so.

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

BY was for slavery...he was on the wrong side of morality, history, God...whatever you want to call it.  

I'm not going to reduce the merits and worth of the man's life to his perspectives on slavery.

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a very interesting article: 

This is interesting.  It seems like slavery is, in the public consciousness, the sin of white folks.  And yet 19th-century slavery in the American West heavily involved Native Americans capturing other Native Americans and selling them to Mexicans.

So where do the members of the Church fit in?  Wel...

Today, presentism and notions about "cultural imperialism" will compel some to vilify the literal purchasing of Native American child slaves from their masters (who were also Native American) with the intention of "civilizing" (converting) the children, both religiously and, I suspect, culturally.

I have a hard time condemning this.  It seems that these folks were doing what they thought was best under the circumstances.  And frankly, they probably were.  Nevertheless, there were unintended consequences:

Yeesh.  How awful.  Evil.  

Again, the popular narrative in our culture about slavery in America is that it is the sin of white folks.  But the sin was a lot more widespread than that.

Another unintended consequence:

The settlement of the American West was a very difficult thing.  These sorts of conflicts and moral quandaries were, I think, inevitable.  I think there were a lot of good intentions in play, but the reality of it all was messy and, in retrospect, disconcerting.  That's easy to say in 2018, as I sit in a nice warm building and type away on a laptop, as opposed to those trying to eke out an existence in 19th-century Utah Territory.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

My thoughts on the matter probably won't be extremely popular. As Bluebell said, as a prophet of God BY should have known better. This is why I do not follow earthly leaders wherever they go - so far with the exception of Yeshua. I follow what is right and good, and imho, almost immediately after Joseph's death, the Church began to go astray. Joseph plainly taught against slavery. BY turned the Church around to just the opposite, and I believe made something permissive under Joseph Smith - black's holding the priesthood - impermissive. As honorable black priesthood holders came out to Utah, they received the cold shoulder. I think BY was influenced by the reports of the indiscretions of one man who happened to be black. As governor he legalized slavery within the Utah territory. I view it as God allowing the Church to stumble on itself. 

Slavery was introduced into European society by the Early Romans, and their Arian conquerors did away with it, only to bring it back under Protestantism, which was the same strain which introduced it into the Americas, because they did not understand their OT. God disallowed the selling of people. Mosaic so called slavery was indentured servitude, or a contract for a period of years. Nor was slavery solely a European practice. Islam has practiced slavery since its inception despite its attempts to point the finger at Europeans, and their continue to be reports of Islamic slavery into recent decades. It is unfortunate that the Church was so influenced by Protestantism, but I think that is what it was - plain and simple. The Church's treatment of the Utes was impatient and wrong. You don't kill a man for killing a cow. At least not the first time it happens. Usually, the Natives didn't even know why the Mormon settlers were attacking them. IMHO in many ways the LDS settlers were no better than other Protestant or non-religious frontiersmen. In many ways the Church was only furthering the subjugation of the Natives which began in earnest under Pres. Jackson, just as prophesied by the BoM. Of course I am probably mispeaking against the majority of the thousands of settlers who came to Utah, but it doesn't seem to me BY spoke out against it. Then again it is easy to judge from my 21st century perspective, but that is how I see it.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

My thoughts on the matter probably won't be extremely popular. As Bluebell said, as a prophet of God BY should have known better.

And Jonah, as a prophet of God, should have not harbored prejudices against the people of Ninevah?

And Moses perhaps should not have killed the Egyptian?

And Moses should not have struck the rock at Meribah?

And Joseph Smith should not have done . . . a number of things?

And Lehi should not have murmured against God?

"Should have" doesn't do much for me.  It smacks of presentism.  It seems to contravene Mormon 9:31 ("Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.").

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is why I do not follow earthly leaders wherever they go - so far with the exception of Yeshua.

Not sure what this means.  We are commanded to follow the counsel of prophets.  I mean, speaking authoritatively on behalf of God is their raison d'etre.

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I follow what is right and good, and imho, almost immediately after Joseph's death, the Church began to go astray.

I am persuaded that the Church is in communion with God.  We're not perfect, but I believe Pres. Nelson bears the prophetic mantle.

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Joseph plainly taught against slavery. BY turned the Church around to just the opposite, and I believe made something permissive under Joseph Smith - black's holding the priesthood - impermissive.

The Priesthood Ban may well have been non-revelatory.  I lean toward that explanation myself, though I'm open to correction.  It's not a vital thing for me, since the removal of the ban was plainly revelatory.

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

As honorable black priesthood holders came out to Utah, they received the cold shoulder. I think BY was influenced by the reports of the indiscretions of one man who happened to be black. 

I too have wondered whether William McCary's conduct at Winter Quarters played a part in the origins of the ban (I assume you are referencing McCary, or perhaps Joseph Ball?).  Some researchers have suggested as much.  On the other hand, Edward Kimball doesn't even mention him when discussing the origins of the ban, so there's that. 

I don't think "happened to be black" captures the problem.  I think the racism endemic in America at the time may have compounded how Brigham Young viewed his "indiscretions."

I also don't think "indiscretions" is apt, either.  From Wikipedia:

Quote

While in Winter Quarters, McCary began claiming powers of prophesy and transfiguration — he claimed to have the power to appear as various biblical and Book of Mormon figures. In early 1847, McCary was excommunicated from the church for apostasy and expelled from Winter Quarters. Shortly after his expulsion, Hyde preached a sermon against McCary and his claims.

McCary settled a short distance away and began attracting some Winter Quarters followers to his own brand of Mormonism. He instituted plural marriage among his followers, and had himself sealed to several white wives.

McCary didn't complain about milk strippings.  His misconduct was fairly serious (though I suspect his being black ended up being a factor not in his favor).

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

As governor he legalized slavery within the Utah territory. I view it as God allowing the Church to stumble on itself. 

I could go along with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But not because "history" decreed it so.

I'm not going to reduce the merits and worth of the man's life to his perspectives on slavery.

Thanks,

-Smac

IMO, there is a lot more about BY that reduces his merits...

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Jonah, as a prophet of God, should have not harbored prejudices against the people of Ninevah?

And Moses perhaps should not have killed the Egyptian?

And Moses should not have struck the rock at Meribah?

And Joseph Smith should not have done . . . a number of things?

And Lehi should not have murmured against God?

"Should have" doesn't do much for me.  It smacks of presentism.  It seems to contravene Mormon 9:31 ("Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.").

The Church is full of shoulds. Too many to count. All the prophets were imperfect. Your point? Are you supposed to do everything they say, even though they are plainly imperfect, or can you judge and pray for yourself according to the light of Christ in you? My "should have" there is not presentism. It is scriptural sin to sell a man. It is against the commandments of God. As a president of the Church, Brigham should have studied that better. See here among others:

Exodus 21:16  And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:14-15

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not ^asell her at all for money, thou shalt not ^bmake merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Quote

Not sure what this means.  We are commanded to follow the counsel of prophets.  I mean, speaking authoritatively on behalf of God is their raison d'etre.

Yep. So did the Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat. That doesn't mean I am sinning if I reject their counsel. Authority does not equal right or correctness. The Church never has seemed to understand that. Many have been in positions of authority who did evil. As a follower it is up to me to judge. I don't follow blindly. If the fruit is good, I follow.

Quote

I am persuaded that the Church is in communion with God.  We're not perfect, but I believe Pres. Nelson bears the prophetic mantle.

I think this is His Church, and He will lead it where it is supposed to go. This does not mean it hasn't taken irresponsible detours, and I will not defend sin. I have spoken nothing against Pres Nelson. In fact I started a thread to say Good for you Pres. Nelson, you may recall. 

Quote

The Priesthood Ban may well have been non-revelatory.  I lean toward that explanation myself, though I'm open to correction.  It's not a vital thing for me, since the removal of the ban was plainly revelatory.

agreed.

Quote

I too have wondered whether William McCary's conduct at Winter Quarters played a part in the origins of the ban (I assume you are referencing McCary, or perhaps Joseph Ball?).  Some researchers have suggested as much.  On the other hand, Edward Kimball doesn't even mention him when discussing the origins of the ban, so there's that. 

I was speaking of McCary, but was thinking it was his conduct after his excommunication which really flipped the switch. I guess I don't really know though. I have read that got back to BY, and I do tend to think it was a factor or even deciding point in the ban.

Quote

I don't think "happened to be black" captures the problem.  I think the racism endemic in America at the time may have compounded how Brigham Young viewed his "indiscretions."

I also don't think "indiscretions" is apt, either.  From Wikipedia:

McCary didn't complain about milk strippings.  His misconduct was fairly serious (though I suspect his being black ended up being a factor not in his favor).

I could go along with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, in the end I don't think we really know. I am merely stating my opinion.  I think the Church was outraged by McCary's conduct, and BY felt pressured to respond. I think the Lord was also offended by McCary's conduct, so who really knows. However, whites were just as capable of  awful conduct, so I do not believe it should have been a factor. I think BY wanted to do the ban to appease the Church, so I think the Church has to take some blame for it. I don't think it was condoned by the Lord, but I have to confess the Lord has not told me so.

Thanks

[Calm]

9 hours ago, blueglass said:

The Daniel Jones quote is demonic - why didn't the men immediately attack and take the lives of these murderers?  

 

Probably because it would have started a war which would have resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

[smac97]

I have a great-great grandfather that has an interesting story relevant to this thread.  See here:

Quote

In the fall of 1861 or spring of 1862 an Indian interpreter, named Amos Warren, entered the Ute Camp near the clay-beds, southwest of Springville, Utah. He noticed a group of Ute tribesmen around the body of a dead woman and an 18 month old baby girl sitting on her breast. One of the tribesmen shot an arrow into the neck of the baby where it seemed impossible that it did not cut the jugular vein. The child cried and with it’s tiny hands grabbed and took hold of the arrow. Almost immediately, another tribesman shot an arrow into the baby's leg. Amos, now standing with the circle of men around the baby, caught the arm of a man who was about to shoot the next arrow and asked, "What's going on here?"

The men told him that the toddler was the daughter of the late Chief Tintic, and his wife, the baby's mother, had died. They explained that if the baby was left to live she would inherit the Chief's wealth. Amos, thinking quickly, asked the tribe members if he could take the baby and raise her. He gave the warriors nine dollars worth of robes and blankets and a solemn promise that the child would never return to claim her father’s property.

Amos removed the arrows, bound the wounds, and took the baby to Springville. He came to Mary Ann Darrow Richardson with the little one and said, "Sister Richardson, I have looked over the town to see who would be a mother to this child and can think of no one but you. Will you take her?" He was in hard circumstances, and felt he could not give her what he had paid to get her. Mary Ann told him she had a piece of cloth worth between eight and nine dollars, which was the amount he had put on the robe and things he had paid. She had just finished weaving the cloth, and he gladly took it. The bargain completed, he rode away and she began to nurse the arrow wounds.

How grateful Mary Ann was for this little daughter and every day, as she dressed her wounds, her love increased. Sullie (Mary Ann’s youngest son) says: “Kate had the care and love of a mother as we had; shared our home, wore her homespun dresses, and went to school with us. We loved her as a very dear sister.” Sullie continued, “My earliest recollections are of following a red headed brother and a black-headed sister around, trying to do what they did, to yell as they did, and do what they did. Kate was a very modest girl who, though popular at parties; fruit cutting bees, corn shucking and rag bees, held her aloof from everything that was not ideal in every way. She took her own route to school asking odds of none. She loved our mother and did all she could to show it.”

Kate feared the Indians would come and take her back and kill her so when any Indians came to Springville, Kate would run and hide. At times during her life, she would be seen feeling the scar on her neck from the arrow wound. In 1880, Kate, then 20, went to work at the home of the Lyman S. Wood family in Springville. Living next door was a boarder by the name of Charles Leroy Parrish, 30 years old and a laborer. On July 13, 1881, Kate gave birth to a baby girl named Edith Leroy Richardson in Springville. Charles had promised to marry Kate, but instead ran away and left Kate to raise her daughter alone. As was pointed out in writings of the day, Kate was betrayed by a scoundrel. That's why she did not give Edith the last name of Parrish.

Kate was known for her devotion to children, so when the government provided responsible positions for staff and their children at the reservation schools, she would accept those jobs. Thanks to her education, rare privileges came to Kate and her daughter. For a number of years she was a Matron for girls at the White Rocks Indian School, then at the Teller Institute in Grand Junction, Colorado until 1909, followed by the Hopi Reservation in Arizona until 1914, and then at Ft. Duchesne, Utah. She was refined and attractive and particular with her personal appearance. She taught the girls in the school dormitories to
live on a higher plane by strictly observing decency, cleanliness and neat appearance in dress.

In 1883, Kate Richardson, in an effort to recover the thousands of acres of land owned by her natural father, Chief Tintic, made an application for the lands. But the government stated in a letter that the ownership of the land in question was settled by the Ute Treaty of 1868. Kate's birthright was sold by the tribe who tried to kill her so many years before.

Kate Aldura Richardson died January 30, 1927, at age 67, and is buried in the Randlett Cemetery near Ft. Duchesne, Utah. Edith was present at her mother's death and noted that the scars on her mother's neck and leg were still visible. She said of her mother, “She was a very wonderful person and now it really hurts me that she had so few pleasures. She was most deserving.”

Thus lived and died Kate, the princess daughter of Chief Tintic, and his wife, Copperfield, and her parents via adoption, Charles Edmund and Mary Ann Darrow Richardson.

Here's a picture of Kate Aldura.

An interesting story, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[katherine the great]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Slavery was introduced into European society by the Early Romans

I don't believe that for a minute. Once humans settled down and had territories to defend and expand they went to war and almost surely took captives they used as slaves. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I don't believe that for a minute. Once humans settled down and had territories to defend and expand they went to war and almost surely took captives they used as slaves. 

I do not view Wiki as authoritative, but slavery being pretty much global historically is common knowledge imo.  I would expect once people stopped and thought about it, they would register it that way.

Quote

Slavery was known in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as in almost every other ancient civilization, including Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Babylonia, Ancient Iran, Ancient Greece, India, the Roman Empire, the Arab Islamic Caliphate and Sultanate, Nubia and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.[18] Such institutions were a mixture of debt-slavery, punishment for crime, the enslavement of prisoners of war, child abandonment, and the birth of slave children to slaves.[19]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Edited November 16, 2018 by Calm

[katherine the great]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a very interesting article: 

 

The entire article is worth a read.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This excerpt kind of jumps out at me:

This amounted to a green light for participating in the slave trade. In 1852, the Utah territorial legislature passed a law that allowed the trade, justifying it as a kind gesture toward children who would otherwise be degraded. As a result, Mormons were soon trading horses, food, and other items for Native children. Though they did not tolerate the Mexican trade in slaves, they were willing to participate in the slave trade with Native Americans.

That's kind of unfair. To compare people who "purchase" the children in these circumstances with people who "are willing to participate in the slave trade with Native Americans" is not even remotely apt. I doubt the Mexican slave traders would have placed these children as family members with their clients. I'm sure that abuses existed during these years but in the vast majority of accounts I've read, the NA children adopted by Mormon families were not treated vastly differently than the other children of the family in these circumstances. I had a 3x-great aunt in Southern Utah (white) who was "adopted" by another family at age 3 when her mom died and her dad took a third wife and moved to Arizona. She described her life as a miserable "servant" in this family and she found a husband as soon as she came of age. My husband's ancestor came from Denmark to Utah and worked as an indentured servant for many years. Life was tough all around. These early Utah era Mormons were not paragons of virtue. Most of them were tough, practical, hard working frontier people without the luxury of pampering each other.

Are there any accounts of adult Native Americans being purchased for slave labor? I admit I'm surprised and disappointed to learn that there were 66 African American slaves in Utah in 1850. I was not aware of that. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I don't believe that for a minute. Once humans settled down and had territories to defend and expand they went to war and almost surely took captives they used as slaves. 

Well, since you don't believe it, I suppose the burden is on you to show me wrong. I am not speaking of prisoners of war, but of slavery as in selling people as property for money, silver or gold. I think you will be very hard pressed to find any slave markets in Europe before the Roman Empire, unless you count Greece. Our very word slave comes from the Roman practice of stealing Slavonic peoples for use as servants for life. They got sold in slave markets, etc.

[katherine the great]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, since you don't believe it, I suppose the burden is on you to show me wrong. I am not speaking of prisoners of war, but of slavery as in selling people as property for money, silver or gold. I think you will be very hard pressed to find any slave markets in Europe before the Roman Empire, unless you count Greece. Our very word slave comes from the Roman practice of stealing Slavonic peoples for use as servants for life. They got sold in slave markets, etc.

Well the term you used was "slavery" not the slave trade. 

[Anijen]

Pogi mentioned "indentured Servants"

Although, I agree with almost everything Pogi wrote, I do not think we should even class them as indentured servants. Indentured servitude was entered into voluntarily, contracts were signed and the servitude would eventually end. No matter that some indentured servants were treated badly, it is not the same thing as slavery.
 

 

 

 

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I don't believe that for a minute. Once humans settled down and had territories to defend and expand they went to war and almost surely took captives they used as slaves. 

I believe he was saying that it was the Romans who introduced slavery to the Europeans, not that they invented slavery. But who are the Europeans in this case? The Celts? The pre-Celtic peoples of Europe? I think it would be impossible to show that slavery was unknown or unpracticed by any people on this earth. It has been a universal abomination.