Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Los Angeles Times: California's Forgotten (Mormon) Slave History


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can I use that as a defense when you say something about the evils of the inquisition?

I don't say anything about the evils of the inquisition.  Why would I?

It happened centuries ago and has nothing to do with the modern Catholic Church.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Are you sure about that? California became a state in 1850. Brigham Young approved some settlements earlier in Northern California but they weren't considered a part of Deseret (which was never a state). I'm pretty sure that the "slaves" of San Bernardino were actually free (even if they didn't know it).

The Pioneers of '47 actually left the USA, and Brother Brigham had them settling a lengthy corridor (now called the "Mormon Corridor") even before 1850.  Despite the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, things remained in flux for years.  Mormons infested Gold Rush country.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yea, they probably were more upset that he had sex with a black woman, then that he probably raped her. My feelings are raw right now after watching "Harriet" and often young slave girls were raped by their masters. It's sick, and I'm so livid over inhumane people owning humans. 

Most likely true, Tacenda.  

Link to comment
On 1/20/2020 at 6:06 PM, Calm said:

That seems unlikely given their legal status.  Could a prisoner declare himself free if he believe he had served enough.  Someone else with legal authority could do so if the slave or another reported mistreatment.

Maybe you mean they would be given the choice by someone in authority, like a child given the choice of which parent to live with in a divorce?

Here is a quote from the Wiki article on slavery in Utah - the article appears to be a bit of a hack job as far as tone, but with a few redeeming facts.  "However, there were several unique characteristics to Utah slavery laws. The slave could be released for abuse or sexual relationships." 

Did the slave declare themselves free or the state due to unacceptable behavior of a slave owner? The state my guess. 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yea, they probably were more upset that he had sex with a black woman, then that he probably raped her. My feelings are raw right now after watching "Harriet" and often young slave girls were raped by their masters. It's sick, and I'm so livid over inhumane people owning humans. 

You are capable of being sick from people pretending to suffer and yet you deny the ability of Saints at that time to feel the same way when seeing the reality?  Why is it so hard for you to imagine that even people with messed up ideas about superiority or twisted beliefs that 'blood' should not be mixed, can still care about another human being enough to want to protect them from physical harm.

That is rather sick to condemn an entire generation based on your own feelings...but we should give you a pass because you are all emotional and in pain because you watched a dramatization that led you to care so deeply while many of those you condemn probably had seen it or similar outrages actually happening to their families and friends and had to live their entire lives with those memories.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...