Should BYU be renamed Over Slavery? Many argue that BYU should be renamed since slavery was legalized in Utah? Bishop Abraham Smoot also owned slaves and his name is on the Smoot Administration Building. What do BYU alumni Paul Reeve & Christopher Rich think of this proposal?

https://youtu.be/L3pHOIv6DIs

Don’t miss our other conversations with Paul Reeve! https://gospeltangents.com/people/paul-reeve/

Copyright © 2024

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

GT: Okay. Well, it’s only been out what, four days right now?

Paul:  People are starting to actually get their copies, yes. So, I know there’s a peer review process because clearly, the public hasn’t had a chance to push back on you guys. But have you guys gotten any pushback on your book that you can share?

Paul:  Well, I mean, there’s some skepticism on the interpretation of, is An Act in Relation to Service a form of gradual emancipation. Right?

GT: Okay.

Paul:  Oxford has anonymous peer reviewers. Right? And so, I think we had really good peer reviewers who pressed us on some of the claims that we made. And I think we refined our arguments as a result. so I think what is published is more refined than the original draft. And we simply acknowledge they removed 18 words that we believe would’ve passed on the condition of servitude to the next generation, but they don’t replace those 18 words with “therefore you can’t pass on the condition to the next generation,” positive language that would have said, “we’re not passing on the condition.” So it’s left up to us to infer that their intent was that the condition not pass on to the next generation. We actually offer readers a scan of the original draft of the bill where they cross out those 18 words. And then we provide our own transcript. right? So you can read for yourself the original version of the bill with those 18 words included and then with those 18 words removed. What do you think the intent was? If you take out the clause that would’ve passed on the condition to the next generation, we think that means the intent of lawmakers was that it not pass on, and therefore, that creates a gradual form of emancipation. But that’s open for interpretation. right?

GT: Well.

Paul:  They deliberately—well, we don’t know about deliberately. They draft the bill ambiguously and we don’t know if that’s because they’re just not great lawmakers, or if they’re doing it deliberately.

GT: Well, and the question is, are we aware of any children born between say, 1852 and 1862 that slavery was passed onto them? Are you aware of that?

Christopher: So, we tried to look at that, and there’s just not a whole lot of evidence. So, any of the children who were actually born in Utah, by 1862, if we use that as the basic end date, still would have been minors. So, they still would have been living with their parents in the homes of their masters. And we do find evidence that they are there. There is some evidence that some children were sold. Now, those children weren’t born in Utah. So, you can make the argument that the law didn’t cover them, but it was a very small number of children. By the 1860s, I think it was roughly 10. So, we try to make a case of, based on the language of the law, this is what should have happened, but we don’t know for sure what would have happened in practice had the law continued on for another 10, or 15, or 20 years.

GT:  So it’s just too short of a timeframe.

Paul: Correct.

GT: Okay.

Paul:  And we make the point that if you are a child, you arrive in Utah territory, you can die enslaved in Utah territory. Right? This only applied to those who would be born in Utah territory after arrival.

GT: Right.

Paul:  That’s how the law is written. So, if you’re born in 1852, you’re only 10 years old by 1862. You’re still living with your parents. And how do historians know what your legal status might have been?

GT: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Any other pushback?

Christopher: Over the years, there has been more pushback. When we first brought this idea forward…

GT: I remember that session in San Antonio.

Christopher: See, back in 2012, when we brought this idea up really for the first time in, we were

GT: You got some serious pushback in MHA at San Antonio.

Christopher: There was a lot of pushback against this. And that’s reasonable. I mean, these are hard ideas. They’re complicated ideas. I would say that as time has gone on, it has felt like more people are, even while there is pushback against individual parts of our analysis about the gradual emancipation and so forth. I think there has been a more openness to those ideas. At least that’s been my experience.

Paul:  Well, I think people can read the evidence for themselves. So, we have released all of the documents, all of the speeches.

GT: Give us the website.

Paul:  So www.thisabominableslavery.org. And anyone can go there. They can read Brigham Young’s 5^th of February 1852 speech for themselves, all of the documents related to, or most of the documents related to the book are freely available, publicly available, and with the cooperation of the Church History Department. So, people can read the evidence for themselves, and also understand that new evidence has come to light. Right? And so, the notion that Euro-Americans are included in this service bill is something new that prior scholars had missed. But the debate makes it clear that that’s what they’re talking about because they say that when they’re debating. Right? That’s a part of what they’re talking about.

GT: Oh, wow.

Paul:  And if you arrive indebted to the person that provided you passage to America, and you die before you pay it off, can your debt then be passed on to your children? That’s also part of what they’re debating.

GT: Wow.

Paul:  So they’re talking explicitly about Euro-Americans, right? , so prior scholars didn’t have access to that. Tight?

GT: Thanks to LaJean. Big shout-out to LaJean.

Paul:  Exactly. We think that, there’s evidence at least to support our claims, and there might be people who have questions one way or the other. But nonetheless, that’s what scholarship is. Right? You put it out into the public, and people respond. We think the evidence is there. Right? I think a part of the issue is people might think we’re saying slavery didn’t exist in Utah territory. We’re not saying that. We’re not saying that. We fully recognize enslaved people arrived July 22^nd, 1847. Right? We talk about this legal effort and also acknowledge from the perspective of the enslaved…

GT:  It didn’t make much difference.

Christopher: It probably didn’t make much difference. Right? So we’re not denying any of that. And so, the way that the question might be asked was Utah a slave territory. Right? Utah is not a state through any of this. And the new evidence suggests that Brigham Young is really clear, for any application for statehood, will not be as a slave state.

GT: That’s really interesting and important to know.

Paul:  But everyone needs to remember Utah remains a territory through this period. It’s never a state. Okay? So as a territory, the law that is passed gives those who have enslaved people in Utah the ability to continue to hold them yet gives them some rights to protect the enslaved.

GT: Elevates from slavery to servitude.

Paul:  Yeah, yeah. But they’re not free.

GT: Right.

Paul:  But they’re not free. And we have this new, firm piece of evidence from the 1856 Constitutional Convention that the effort to apply explicitly as a slave state is soundly voted down. And Brigham Young supports that. He makes it clear. He’s upset with George A. Smith. George A. Smith is the only apostle who votes in favor of the proposal to send this to DC as a slave constitution. And Brigham Young finds out about it and calls George A. Smith on the carpet, says, “I’m not going to send you with this constitution if you’re in favor of slavery.”

GT: Oh, wow.

Paul: So we had Brigham Young’s interview with Horace Greeley in 1859 where he says, no. Utah won’t go into the union as a slave state. And some historians have argued, well, that’s Brigham Young just playing this public relations game. We have now his evidence from 1856, where he’s clear that he does not support an application as a slave state.

Christopher: Well, and really, throughout this entire period, Brigham Young is remarkably consistent in his views toward slavery. While he does sometimes use ambiguous language, and we are very forthright that sometimes he uses ambiguous language, he is very clear that one person should not be able to own another as property. He believes that that is both legally and morally wrong. But the question is how do we deal legally with enslaved people now that they are here? And he’s trying to do this in a context of national controversy over slavery. He wants Deseret admitted to the union as a state, and the advice that he is receiving from many people, including Thomas Kane is you do not want to deal with this issue. Slavery could sink you. You don’t want to come out openly one way or the other.

GT: Just be neutral.

Christopher:  Be neutral, says it multiple times. At the same time, Brigham Young is trying to ensure that there is no split within the Latter-day Saint church and community over this question. In the 1830s and ‘40s, three major American denominations, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, all split over the question of slavery. Brigham Young wants to ensure that that does not happen. So, Brigham Young seems to be walking on this tightrope where, on the one hand, he does not want to legalize chattel slavery in Utah. He does not want to hold people in property, but sees real problems with immediate abolition at the same time. And so, he’s trying to come up with this more moderate solution to the problem.

Paul:  And Orson Pratt is pushing for a free labor ethic at the same time. Right? And he’s also a product of this 19^th century culture. And one of the chapters, we just walk readers through this debate between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.

GT: Yeah.

Paul:  And Orson Pratt, obviously is pushing forward, and Brigham Young is reaching back. And we think Orson Pratt, or at least I’ll speak for myself. Orson Pratt has the better argument here. Right? Right? He has made a free labor argument and history has been on his side. Right? And we lay that out in that chapter: what are the ramifications of these two arguments as these two men represent these forces that are at play in the broader American nation? And remember that question that Utah is grappling with: can human beings be held as property? It is a question that the nation itself cannot solve. And it devolves into civil war in 1861 and costs the nation 600,000 lives. And we’re simply placing Utah territory within that context, that broader national context. 1850s is just this decade of sectional divide where the nation is straining the fabric of union to the point that we start killing each other over that question.

GT: Very good. That’s a somber note to end on. But was there anything we missed?

Paul: I think we covered most of it.

GT: Well, I only had it for about three or four days. I got through three chapters. But, it’s a great book from three chapters I’ve read so far have been great. And so, I would recommend it to everybody. Why don’t you show them to us again? Who do you got on the cover there? It looks like I recognize a few people.

Paul:  So Brigham Young. I mean, we all, Brigham Young and Orson Pratt on either side, representing the debate. And then in the middle is Sally Young Kanosh and Green Flake. So we also then tried to represent Native American and African-American enslaved.

GT: Okay.

Paul:  the two pictures here, we chose as close to what they may have looked like in 1852.

GT: Oh, really?

Paul:  So this picture is taken roughly around 1850. And this one, I think 1853. I can’t remember for sure, of Orson Pratt. So, that was our intent was to try to find an 1850s  image of both men.

GT: Oh, that’s very good. Was Orson Pratt the guy that argued, changing topics slightly, against Adam-God and Brigham Young?

Paul:  Correct.

GT: And so, Orson, he was supposed to be the prophet, but he lost his seniority. Right?

Paul:  Correct. He was dropped from the Quorum over his objection to polygamy, interestingly enough.

GT: Oh, wow. And then he announced it.

Paul:  Right. And so, at the end of 1852, he’s the one that Brigham Young turns to publicly announce the practice of polygamy. But yeah, those two butt heads on several occasions. So, remember, when Brigham Young tries to reconstitute the First Presidency at Winter Quarters, Orson Pratt originally objects.

GT: Oh, yeah.

Paul:  So they butt heads there. Then they’re butting heads in 1852 in the legislative session. And then they don’t agree theologically over the Adam-God theory that Brigham Young is proposing, and Orson Pratt doesn’t buy that.

GT: Things were much more lively back then.

Paul:  They were, yeah. And people were more [argumentative.]

Christopher: in the days before correlation.

Paul:  Yes. They were more open about their disagreements, too. Right?

GT: Yeah.

Paul:  Orson Pratt was very open about his disagreements with Brigham Young. Right? They are standing up to each other in the legislative session.

Christopher: But also they would have these disagreements, and then come back together again for different purposes. So, I mean, there are times when Brigham is very harsh towards Orson Pratt, as he could be harsh towards other people as well. Yet, he goes to Orson Pratt to discuss polygamy.

Paul:  Yeah.

Christopher: Like everything else, these were complicated relationships.

Paul:  And I think that’s also interesting that Orson Pratt then becomes a defender of polygamy, right? He changes from his original abhorrence and becomes a defender of polygamy for the rest of his life. Interestingly, there’s only a one-off in terms of his defense of the racial priesthood restriction and never returns to it. Right? So it’s an interesting comparison. It makes me wonder. Right? I wish there was more evidence, but why did he do that 1853 newspaper article and never return to it? I don’t think he was convinced himself of the racial restrictions. He never comes back to defending it. And when he becomes convinced about polygamy, he defends it for the rest of his life.

GT: Hmm. That’s interesting.

Paul:  Yeah.

GT: So I have one more question, especially since you’re both BYU grads.

Paul:  Uh-oh.

GT: You know where this is going. There’s been some debate about a couple of things: whether BYU should be renamed, because Brigham Young supported slavery, which we’ve talked about. But also, we didn’t spend a lot of time on Abraham Smoot. There’s the Abraham Smoot Administration Building. People think it should be renamed. He was a bishop. He had slaves. What do you think of that controversy?

Paul:  Well, I spoke at the BYU slavery conference. So there’s a group at BYU who studied BYU’s connection to slavery. Right? I think at the very least, just a plaque or some sort of public acknowledgement at the Smoot building that would acknowledge his three enslaved people: Tom, Jerry, and Sally. Just [make] an acknowledgement of them and their lives could go a long way in just being more open about his connection to enslaved people.

GT: Okay. So you’re not in favor of renaming either the building or the university?

Paul:  Oh, I didn’t say that.

GT: Okay.

Paul:  You’re trying to pin me down. I don’t have any say whatsoever at all in terms of those questions.

GT: You have an opinion though.

Paul:  Well, I don’t foresee any reasonable effort at changing the name of the university. I think it will always be Brigham Young University. What I understand on the campus is that buildings no longer will have, will no longer be named after people.

GT: Oh. LaVell Edwards Stadium?

Paul:  Buildings will no longer be named after people. And LaVell Edwards Stadium already exists, and all of the named buildings already exist. But future buildings are not going to be named after people.

GT: Is it because of this reason? I mean, I guess you’re speculating here. Because, oh, we’re going to always find dirt on somebody. So, somebody’s going to offend something.

Paul:  Yeah, I don’t know. You’d have to ask BYU. But I think there are things they can do. So, the BYU Slavery Reconciliation Project is modeled after slavery reconciliation projects that have happened at other universities. So, University of Virginia has a large memorial to enslaved people. Right? Georgetown has gone through a reconciliation process. So, I think there are things that they could do that would acknowledge the enslaved people. If they’re going to leave Abraham Smoot on the administration building, that’s their decision. There are things they could do that would also acknowledge the enslaved people of Abraham Smoot.

Christopher: These have happened at other campuses across the nation where campuses have studied their own connections to the enslaved past and come up with ways that they are openly acknowledging them. And I’m not sure that BYU has come up with a firm proposal. I spoke at the slavery conference about the debate between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.

GT: Okay. Yeah. I wish I’d have known about that. There are too many conferences.

Paul:  Yeah.

GT: Chris, what’s your perspective on Smoot and Brigham Young?

Christopher: My hope is that people will be able to come away, hopefully, after reading the book, understanding various perspectives. And people will be able to come up with their own conclusions. That’s one of the things why we wanted to have our research open to the public on the website is so that people could read through this for themselves. We think we put forward the best interpretation of what happened in the ‘52 legislature from a variety of different perspectives. And my hope is that regardless of what happens anywhere else, is that people will be able to look at these individuals as people that were facing significant problems and whether or not we agree with the conclusions that they came to, to try and be able to understand where they were coming from, both from those people who are in the legislature and from those people who were held in service and to whom these laws applied.

GT: Should the Smoot Building be renamed? I’m not going to let you off the hook there. You can say no comment or whatever.

Christopher: No comment.

GT: Okay. All right. Well, Dr. Chris, or soon-to-be Dr. Chris.

Christopher: Almost, almost. PhD candidate.

GT: and Dr. Paul Reeve, Thank you so much for being here on Gospel Tangents. And go buy the book if you don’t have it. It should sell out just like Matt Harris’s book did.

Paul:  Thank you.

Christopher: Thank you.

GT: Help sell it out. All right. Thanks again for being here on Gospel Tangents.

Paul:  Thanks.

Copyright © 2024

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.