I replied they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically.
Change their situation with the Whites and they would be like them. They have souls and are subjects of salvation.
Go into Cincinnati, or any City and find an educated negro, who rides in his Carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.
The slaves in Washington are more refined than the Presidents, and the black boys will take the shine off of those they brush and wait on.
Elder Hyde remarked “put them on the level, and they will rise above me”.
I replied if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, “
A topical quote for today.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m far from a JS scholar, but nothing I’ve seen suggests that the man was a bigot. He was, however, clearly a martyr, even before he was killed. Note the rest of that passage:
“I replied if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer and many others, who said I was a fallen prophet and they were capable of leading the people, altho’ I never attempted to oppress them, but had been always lifting them up. Had I any thing to do with [HC 5:217] the negro, I would—— confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.”
Poor Joseph.
I’m far from a JS scholar, but nothing I’ve ever learned suggested to me that the man was a bigot. A self-pitying martyr long before his actual death, however, he could be. Note the rest of that passage:
“I replied if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer and many others, who said I was a fallen prophet and they were capable of leading the people, altho’ I never attempted to oppress them, but had been always lifting them up. Had I any thing to do with [HC 5:217] the negro, I would—— confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.”
Poor Joseph.
Sorry for the duplicate post. I was not logged in the first time and thought the post had failed.
1. We can find a few quotes about African Americans from early Church leaders that make them sound enlightened.
2. We can find MANY quotes about African Americans from early Church leaders that make them sound very racist.
3. We can see that over time US society has changed its attitude towards African Americans.
4. We can see that over time the Church has changed its statements, practices, and perhaps even doctrine towards African Americans.
Unfortunately, #2 is much more common than #1.
Unfortunately, #4 has always followed, never lead, #3.
For Joseph Smith he matured over time.
“His views matured until his death.
“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.”[32]
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.[20]””
That was his last word on the subject.
Which did not help him in Missouri.
There are several nations connected to the history of slavery in the Western Hemisphere. If you are thinking “What is he talking about?” here’s the facts:
To begin with (logically), the African nations, whose tribal kings/chiefs sold their own people into slavery are accountable.
Portugal was the first nation to purchase the slaves.
The Dutch were the first ones to brings slaves to North America
England allowed slavery to continue in their colonies.
America allowed slavery to continue in their states; and northern states had slaveholders as well as southern.
Native Americans owned slaves, and reportedly were the most brutal towards them.
The public has seen only one of the above sources receive condemnation for the slavery issue and is ill-informed.
Why would Mark get so many downvotes for simply stating facts? He makes a good point. Slavery was primarily a European sin, and the Europeans brought it to North America, and before a century had passed after the colonists signed the Declaration of Independence, they also fought a bloody war to end it.
jaredsbrother –
You can say they again…
Crap – That not they.
Serves me right.
Bringing up how other people also had slaves is always going to sound like justifying and excusing slavery in a conversation like this. In a world history class or something, of course addressing the international nature of slavery is important, but in this context, it just sounds like a cop out.
I frequently criticize the Church for things. It’s not because I’ve done some kind of comprehensive study of all the ills in the world and concluded that the Church is the worst. It’s because I’m a member of the Church, and my family are members, and it’s my culture. Responding to my concerns with “Yeah, well the Catholic Church and the Lutherans and the Baptists have problems too!” is not helpful. Similarly, Black people in America complain about America and its history with slavery because they’re here, and they’re still dealing with its consequences, and it’s part of their life whether they want it to be or not, and “What about Portugal!” is just a deflection.
@Stephen, I’d love to learn more about the idea that Joseph matured on the issue over the course of his life. I’ve always thought of him as someone who made some good statements and some bad statements, all rather inconsistently, with little rhyme or reason other than, perhaps, expediency given whatever state he was in at the time. But I’ve never thought to map his various statements chronologically and see if a shift or change is detectable over time.
And to John, I forgot to add, the fact that we fought a war to end slavery may be to America’s credit, but the fact that a war was *needed* to end slavery is also a problematic sign of how much more deeply entrenched slavery was here. Britain (mostly) abolished slavery thirty years before America did, and they (mostly) abolished it peacefully; huge numbers of their citizens were not so committed and invested in its practice that they were willing to kill and die over it.
SLC: No, I was not attempting to justify or excuse slavery; to suggest that is offensive. I was surprised to discover some of the facts I mentioned, and thought it might better inform some caught up in the debate.
I’ve told members of the Church “not everyone who didn’t go west was an apostate” and to the RLDS I said “not everyone who followed B.Y. was an apostate”. So now I say “not everyone from the south was in favor of slavery, and not everyone from the north was in favor of emancipation”.
The thumbs-down votes given to Mark Gibson’s comment tells me that some people get angry when confronted with facts that do not fit their world-view. To present the complexity of an issue is not endorsing the side that history blessedly proved wrong, for goodness’ sake. Mark Gibson is right to be offended by snide implications to the contrary.
Any decent understanding of the subject of slavery will show that, while some Individuals and groups were more guilty than others, NONE were (or ARE) guiltless. While we’re at it, let’s blame Eli Whitney, the Northener who invented the cotton gin. His invention revived the Southern States’ economic need for slaves In the cotton industry , when slavery had begun to wane.
The whole issue of U.S. slavery is a lot more complex than some people would like to admit. I highly recommend Chernow’s biography of Grant and Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln.” Just a few Uncomfortable factoids:
1. Abraham Lincoln’s primary goal was to keep the Union together. He said that he was willing to tolerate slavery in the Southern States if that would keep them in the fold. The Southern states were uninterested, and seceded, because Lincoln was personally anti-slavery and was opposed to expanding slavery into the territories and new states. The South realized that as the Union expanded, adding more states, that slave-holding states would become out-numbered. As the Civil War progressed, and the North gained the upper hand, Lincoln became more focused on abolishing slavery. He had shied away from it, in the early stages of the War, because he did not have enough political support for abolition.
2. Many in the North were sympathetic to the South. There were anti-Black riots in NYC during the Civil War. Many Northerners not sympathetic to the South were still hostile to Blacks. The idea of equal rights as we understand it now, was foreign to U.S. politics, back then. Lincoln had to fight really hard to get the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery passed, through a Congress in which there were no Southern members sitting. Lincoln instructed his political lieutenants to pass the Amendment by hook or by crook, and a lot of sleazy patronage was used to win votes:
3. There were regiments of men from several Northern states, that fought with the South—Ohio, Indiana, Illinois. Conversely, many regiments of men from the mountain areas of North Carolina and Tennessee fought for the Union.
5. On a personal note, as I have researched my family history, I have discovered abolitionist preachers, and a great-grandfather, born in West Virginia in 1864, one year after WVA seceded from VA to rejoin the Union, who was named Sheridan Grant Martin. No points for guessing the loyalties of his parents! I have also found a 5GG-father from Upstate New York, who owned two slaves in the 1790s. I married a woman whose Irish side of the family Were oppressed by the British, and whose North Carolinian ancestors had slaves. Our ancestors fought against each other in the Civil War. My ancestor was a Union LTC at Appomattox; hers was an adjutant to Robert E. Lee at his surrender.
4. Grant was opposed to slavery, but his wife came from a Missouri family that had enslaved people. When Grant’s F-in-Law died, Grant “inherited” one slave. He immediately set to work to free the man, a process that took four months to legally accomplish. It was not possible to just wave one’s hand and say, you are free. There were legal procedures that had to be followed in a process called manumission. So much for the claim that Grant was a slave-holder. Technically true, but a crude and lazy distortion of his actual position.
5. Grant comes off as the unsung hero of Abolition, in Chernow’s book.
6. There are several recorded instances freed African-Americans themselves owning slaves.
“Why would Mark get so many downvotes for simply stating facts?” Because when one’s personal beliefs clash with facts, beliefs will almost always win, and many people, in order to convince themselves of the rightness of their beliefs, will insist that beliefs are facts and facts are beliefs.