Christopher Rich and Paul Reeve discuss their new book (with co-author LaJean Carruth), “This Abominable Slavery,” which examines Utah’s history with slavery. Many have claimed that Brigham Young steered Utah to be a slave state, but Paul & Chris clarify that Brigham Young never advocated Utah to be a slave state. For comparison purposes, Utah had just about 100 slaves, compared to “free state” California’s 1,500. We’ll discuss the distinction between servitude and slavery, noting that Utah’s laws aimed to elevate the status of enslaved individuals by granting them some rights, such as the right to consent and the requirement for education.
Discussion on Utah’s Statehood and Slavery
Paul Reeve explains the book’s title, which is a quote from Orson Pratt, and its focus on newly transcribed speeches from the 1852 legislative session and the 1856 Utah constitutional convention. The book provides a new source base that no prior scholars had access to, and explores Utah’s answer to pressing national questions about slavery.
Christopher Rich clarifies that Utah was not a slave territory and that California had more slaves than Utah. We discuss the myth that Utah needed to be a slave state to balance power in Congress. Brigham always advocated for Utah to be a free state. But the 1840s, Congress approved the principle of popular sovereignty which allowed voters in each new state to choose whether to become a free state or a slave state. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 clarified that neither Congress nor territorial legislatures could bar slavery in US territories.
Utah’s Legislative Debates on Slavery
Christopher Rich explains that Brigham Young always wanted Utah to be a free state, but Almon Babbitt did try to mislead some in Congress about Utah being pro-slavery. When Young found this out, he reprimanded both Babbit and apostle George Smith. Paul Reeve adds that Utah’s 1849 and 1856 statehood proposals were neutral on the question of slavery. The 1856 constitutional convention rejected a proposal for Utah to apply as a slave state.
The Act in Relation to Service and Gradual Emancipation
Paul Reeve explains that the 1852 legislative session addressed the question of whether human beings could be held as property. The Act in Relation to Service elevated enslaved individuals above the condition of property by granting them some rights. The bill was amended to remove words that would have passed the condition of servitude to the next generation. The act was seen as a conservative form of gradual emancipation.
Debate on Servitude vs. Slavery
Christopher Rich explains the difference between servitude and slavery, noting that servitude allowed for some consent and rights. Paul Reeve discusses Orson Pratt’s opposition to the Act in Relation to Service, calling it “this abominable slavery.” The legislature debated the definitions of servitude and slavery, with Brigham Young and Orson Pratt holding different views. The act granted some rights to enslaved individuals, such as the right to consent to being sold and the right to education.
Native American Indenture and Education Requirements
Paul Reeve discusses the Native American indenture bill, which required education for Native American children. The book includes cases of Native American children being registered as servants, with claims of voluntary consent. The act in relation to service also required education for African American children, something southern states opposed. The act included Euro-American immigrants in its provisions, treating them as servants if they arrived using perpetual immigrating funds.
Comparisons with Other States and Territories
Christopher Rich explains how other states and territories, like Illinois and Indiana, had laws similar to Utah’s Act in Relation to Service. California’s laws allowed enslavers to maintain labor through indentured servitude. Oregon passed a law banning black people from entering the territory (free or slave.) Utah welcomed everyone, including free African Americans, unlike Oregon.
Free African Americans in Utah
Paul Reeve mentions Jane Manning James and her family, were among the first free black Latter-Day Saints to migrate to Utah. Other free black Latter-Day Saints migrated to Utah. Some enslaved African Americans were baptized Latter-day Saints before being freed.
Debate Over the 1852 Legislative Session
Dr. Paul Reeve and Dr. Christopher Rich discuss the 1852 legislative session in Utah, where an act in relation to service was passed. Orson Pratt argued against the bill, calling it “abominable slavery,” while Brigham Young created a race-based ban for priesthood, suggesting black people were cursed descendants of Cain. Brigham Young’s theological justification for barring people of black African descent from priesthood ordination was based on the curse of Cain and Ham/Canaan. Orson Pratt rejected Brigham Young’s justification, arguing that there was no proof that Africans were descendants of Cain and that the restriction violated the second article of faith.
Orson Pratt’s Stance on Slavery and Priesthood Ban
Orson Pratt advocated against slavery and for black voting rights, which is extremely surprising for any politician to advocate for in 1852. In 1853, Orson Pratt published an article in the Latter-day Saint newspaper called “The Seer,” suggesting that people of black African descent might have exercised poor agency in the pre-mortal realm, justifying the racial priesthood restriction. Brigham Young responded adamantly to Orson Pratt’s proposal, insisting that black people were cursed descendants of Cain. Orson Pratt never returned to this explanation of a premortal poor choice, and it remained a one-off for Pratt’s justification for the racial priesthood restriction. Others picked up the explanation, however.
Competing Explanations for Racial Priesthood Restriction
The debate between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young established two competing explanations for the racial priesthood restriction. Brigham Young’s explanation was based on the curse of Cain and Ham/Canaan, while Orson Pratt’s was based on premortal agency. These explanations continued to exist and were used to justify the racial priesthood restriction into the 20th century. Other leaders like John Taylor and B.H. Roberts grappled with these explanations, with some finding no substantial rationale for Brigham Young’s explanation.
Brigham Young’s Theological Justification
Brigham Young’s theological justification for barring people of black African descent from priesthood ordination was based on the curse of Cain. While Young allowed other races to receive priesthood, he argued these other groups like Pacific Islanders, people from Asia, Mexicans, and Native Americans, should not be allowed to vote. Brigham Young’s justification was a theological twist on ongoing debates about the place of African Americans in society. The debate continued in the Utah legislature, with Brigham Young’s interpretation of the curse of Cain providing a theological basis for the restriction.
Legalization of Servitude vs. Slavery
The 1852 Act in Relation to Service was not legalizing chattel slavery but elevated slaves to a form of servitude. Brigham Young argued that the law was a step towards freedom, allowing African Americans to be free if their contract with their master was broken. The law provided some rights to elevate enslaved people above mere property, but it did not necessarily improve their day-to-day lives. From the perspective of the enslaved, the law did not make much difference, and they continued to experience servitude similar to slavery.
Impact of the Dred Scott Decision
The Dred Scott decision in 1857 ruled that neither a territorial legislature nor Congress could bar slavery in a US territory before it became a state. Despite this, it appears Utah continued to use the Act in Relation to Service, ignoring the Dred Scott decision, although records are sparse and this cannot be confirmed definitively. Brigham Young maintained that Utah would be a free state when it entered the union, distinguishing between servitude and slavery. The Utah War and other issues diverted attention of Utah leaders from the Dred Scott decision.
End of Slavery in Utah Territory
In 1862, Congress passed an act in relation to freedom, criminalizing slavery and involuntary servitude in all US territories. Abraham Lincoln signed the law, and it was published in the Deseret News, but with little fanfare. The legal end to slavery in Utah territory was firm, but its practical implementation remained unclear.
Utah’s Slavery Laws and Their Implications
Paul explains the significance of the Republican Party’s 1856 pledge to prohibit slavery and polygamy in territories. The Morrill Act of 1862 is discussed, which criminalized slavery and involuntary servitude in U.S. territories, including Utah. Paul mentions that Abraham Lincoln signed the act into law on June 20, 1862, but its impact on Utah’s enslaved population is unclear. Christopher adds that by 1866, the “An Act in Relation to Service” no longer appeared in territorial laws. The debate over voluntary versus involuntary servitude is highlighted, with questions about how enslaved people were informed of their freedom. Paul and Christopher emphasize the complexity and nuances of these legal and social issues.
Native American Indenture and Legal Compilations
Paul notes that the “Act for the Further Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners” remained in Utah’s legal compilations until 1876. Christopher mentions that Native American children were still being indentured in Latter Day Saint homes up to the turn of the 20th century. The discussion shifts to the broader implications of these laws and their enforcement, including the challenges faced by enslaved and indentured people. Paul exploreS the open questions about how these laws were understood and applied in practice.
Juneteenth and Emancipation Proclamation
Paul compares Utah’s situation to Juneteenth in Texas, where enslaved people learned of their freedom only after the end of the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation had limited application to Utah due to its status as a territory and the fact that Utah was not under rebellion as the southern states were during the Civil War. Paul discusses the economic challenges faced by freed enslaved people, including the promise of compensation that was often not fulfilled. Christopher adds that similar issues played out in other territories, such as New Mexico, where peonage laws were debated and eventually outlawed. Paul and Christopher discuss the historical context of Utah’s slavery laws, including the national debate over slavery and the efforts to avoid it in Utah. Christopher notes that Brigham Young’s views on slavery were consistent over time, despite using ambiguous language. Paul emphasizes the importance of understanding both the legislative intent and the practical impact of these laws on enslaved and indentured people.
Public Reception
Rick asks about the public reception of the book and any pushback on the authors’ interpretations. Paul mentions that some scholars questioned the interpretation of the “An Act in Relation to Service” as a form of gradual emancipation. The authors have made their research publicly available at https://thisAbominableSlavery.org to allow for further scrutiny and debate. Christopher notes that the evidence for their claims is based on new findings, including the inclusion of Euro-Americans in the service bill.
Brigham Young’s Consistent Anti-Slavery Stance
Paul discusses Brigham Young’s consistent opposition to slavery and his efforts to avoid Utah becoming a slave state. Christopher adds that Brigham Young’s views were shaped by the broader national context and the advice of figures like Thomas Kane. The debate between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt over the legality of slavery is revisited, with Orson Pratt advocating for a free labor ethic. Paul and Christopher emphasize the complexity of these issues and the challenges faced by leaders in the Church.
BYU’s Connection to Slavery and Renaming Debate
Rick raises the issue of whether BYU and the Smoot Administration building should be renamed due to historical connections to slavery . Paul suggests that a plaque acknowledging Abraham Smoot’s enslaved people could be a reasonable step, but he has no influence over whether BYU or the Smoot Administration Building will ever be renamed. Paul doubts it will. Christopher hopes that the book will help readers understand various perspectives and come to their own conclusions. The conversation ends with a discussion about the broader implications of acknowledging historical connections to slavery and the steps that institutions can take to address these issues.
Have you read Paul, Chris, & LaJean’s book? Have you considered that Utah was always trying to be a free state and had to make accomodations to slavery due to Congressional and Supreme Court decisions forcing states and territories to recognize slavery despite being free states? Do you think BYU and/or the Smoot administration building should be renamed? Was Brigham Young mistaken about the priesthood ban? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Several of your recent posts have been interesting to me. When I go the Gospel Tangents website, the links always say “transcript to follow”. I don’t see either a transcript or a link to a transcript. Where am I going wrong in looking for the transcripts?
I’m about a year behind on transcripts. You’ll see them back then. A listener has an idea to get me caught up. I’ll try to put Paul’s transcript up, but I can’t vouch for accuracy since I haven’t had time to review it.
if it works, maybe I’ll be less concerned with accuracy and have better timeliness.
I’m going to go back and read the essay Race and the Priesthood on the Church’s web site. That should clear it all up.
Josh, I know that was a sarcastic comment (as most of yours are), but I hope you know that I was the person who broke the news of Paul’s involvement in writing the Race & Priesthood essay. The Church watered down his 40 page essay and made it more ambiguous, but Paul has been pretty consistent on Brigham’s role in creating the race ban. See my interview that broke the news: https://gospeltangents.com/2017/02/paul-reeve-wrote-the-race-essay/
Yes, Brigham was wrong about the “race ban.”
After 1850, territories could vote to either be slave or free territories. For whatever reason, and no matter how it’s justified today, Utah voted to be a slave territory even if it recognized “some” rights. New Mexico, at the same time, voted to be a free territory even though it recognized that slavery was a part of their history, particularly with Indigenous peoples.
To me, this plays out not so much by reinterpreting what happened then but by what has happened afterward. Looking loosely at the majority of national elections in the past 80 years, Utah aligns with the Confederate states, while New Mexico aligns with the Union states. In other words, Utah is usually red, and New Mexico is usually blue.
No one wants to be racist. Of course, we don’t want to look at our history either and see that our ancestors were racist. It’s not where we’ve been but where we are going that’s important, and that requires change, not justification.
As a side note. My family came from Norway in the 1920s and Sweden in 1900. They had issues in their history as well that I’m sure my ancestors were a part of.
Instereo,
“Utah voted to be a slave territory…”
This myth needs to be busted and was busted in the interview.
Utah had very little difference with the alleged free states of New Mexico and California. All states, free or slave, needed to recognize federal slavery laws, including the Fugutive Slave Act. Brigham always advocated for Utah to be a free state, no different than New Mexico and California. That needs to be recognized. It should also be noted that there were approximately 100 slaves in Utah while the free state of California had 1500. Go figure.
Federal law forced ALL states to recognize some slavery. Brigham did what he could to give slaves more rights than southern slavery states, despite Congressional and Supreme Court actions to the contrary. It is simply unfactual to claim Utah was a slave territory. I recommend you read the book and/or listen to the interview so you can get your facts straight.
Gospel Tangents:
History is constantly rewritten. Slavery in Utah is a complicated subject. There were votes to recognize it, allow sales of slaves, and apply to be a state yet enter as free. There were different opinions held by high church authorities. Some would square better with today’s attitudes, but others would not.
In today’s world, it seems many embrace or deny parts of history. People have their sources and believe them while not believing someone else’s source. People swear by Fox News and others by NPR, and the two don’t meet or agree. I’ve read many things about this including the following:
https://humanities.utah.edu/news/paul-reeve-abominable-slavery.php
and
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/chapter-1-race-slavery-and-freedom-utah-slaves-and-saints.htm
As I said, it’s all complicated because we want to believe what we want to believe. People do rewrite history, particularly when it comes to slavery. Was the Civil War about Slavery, or was it about State’s Rights? In 1860, it appeared that it was about slavery, then it became preserving the union, but by 1880, somehow, State’s Rights were being thrown around even though it wasn’t in any of the Declaration Documents of the Confederate States.
Finally, I agree whatever the date, the Federal Government had a position on Slavery, and the territory of Utah had to comply. I just wonder why it applied then but now it seems the state is suing the Federal government all the time about what authority it does or does not have.
He was wrong to justify his own racist views with a bad reading of the Old Testament and then build that into the doctrine and practices of the church. All while saying that it was revelation and the will of god.
InStereo, your first paragraph in your latest comment is completely wrong, except for Utah slavery being a complicated subject. Let me quote directly from the interview, part 2.
GT Is it fair to say that Utah legalized slavery in 1852? Because that’s what I’ve heard. Would you say that’s a fair statement?
Christopher 19:31 No. At the very least, it’s complicated. From the perspective of the legislators, they would say no. From the perspective of Brigham Young and the majority of the legislators, they would say, we have legalized servitude. And they would have argued, this is in many ways different from chattel slavery and was intended to be so. And from a purely legal standpoint, that argument has weight from the perspective of 1852. Now, Orson Pratt disagreed, and from the….
GT 20:10 I bet all the slaves disagreed too.
Christopher 20:11 And that was my next point.
…
Paul 22:43 And so, in terms of the point that Chris is making, in terms of perspective, there’s a chapter in the book called Implications. How does this play out in the lives of those who are enslaved and from the perspective of the enslavers? So southern enslavers don’t seem to be satisfied. Right? They think some of their rights have been eroded by this law. Right? And they are asserting their ability to hold their enslaved people in Utah Territory, when they register them, they will use the language of “for life.” Right? So we’re acknowledging that someone who arrives in Utah Territory enslaved could very well die enslaved, according to the law that is passed, but granted some rights to elevate them above the condition of mere property. So your question is kind of a loaded question. It just all depends. Are we talking about chattel slavery? Right? Then we are saying that it doesn’t equate to chattel slavery that is in force in the South.
Paul 23:45 It also is not freedom. And from the perspective of those who are enslaved, we make the point in the book that they don’t wake up. We don’t believe that they wake up the day after this law is passed and say, “Oh, my life is so much better now that I have been legally defined as a servant than it was yesterday.” We have one quote from a formerly enslaved person, Alex Bankhead, who says, “Our condition in Utah territory wasn’t much different than in the south,” in terms of their labor. Right? That’s what’s missing our written pieces of evidence from the perspective of those who are enslaved.
I know your link above was from Paul & Chris’ book, “This Abominable Slavery” and I assume something from an interview. But whatever you’re interpreting as “Utah voted to be a slave territory…” is NOT corrrect, at least from my interview with Paul and Chris.
The Compromise of 1850 established Utah and New Mexico as territories that could decide via popular sovereignty if they would permit slavery. In both states, it was the legislature that decided, I presume, by a vote. Utah chose to allow slavery, and New Mexico chose to prohibit it. The people themselves may not have voted, but somebody did. Besides, if recent history is any indicator, it doesn’t matter what the people think because the legislature, at least in Utah, will override it, change it, or disregard it. It did that with Medical Marijuana, choosing legislative and congressional districts, school vouchers, and the recent Constitutional Amendments A and D that were dismissed by the Supreme Court of Utah for how it was pushed on the people and how their descriptions were written.
Slavery was a terrible thing. Calling it servitude doesn’t make it better. Being a slave with rights is still slavery. The South has spent years trying to make us believe that the slaves were happy and that the Civil War hurt those who were slaves the most. Slavery was bad, period. Getting rid of slavery was also bad because the attitudes that allowed people to enslave others were not done away with but became the basis of and justification for racism. Splitting hairs to point out how “wrong” someone is isn’t going to change the fact that slavery was wrong. Mormons moved to Utah, bringing slaves. It was part of Mexico at the time, and slavery was outlawed. Brigham Young justified slavery as part of the Bible, which influenced a lot of people.
I’m glad people are talking about this, but I don’t have to agree with everything said. The bottom line is that slavery was wrong, and the Race Ban was also wrong, yet we have people today who won’t let go and still believe it. I hope there comes a day when we are truly equal in the eyes of the law and don’t need religion to justify things unless it is that equality.
We can agree on “The bottom line is that slavery was wrong, and the Race Ban was also wrong.”
I still don’t understand, however, why you still insists on the direct refutation of your position. Let me quote is one more time:
GT Is it fair to say that Utah legalized slavery in 1852? Because that’s what I’ve heard. Would you say that’s a fair statement?
Christopher 19:31 No.
I guess you can continue to argue your position, without evidence, but I’m done.
Reading through the exchange between Instereo & Rick B above, and trying to understand – does the argument basically come down to whether the “servitude” that the UT legislature passed/defined, should really be considered “slavery” or not?
And Christopher in the book is arguing that “servitude” should NOT actually be considered slavery, and this distinction is considered important because Brigham Young and the Legislature at the time, saw it as different from slavery?
I’m trying to understand, but it’s difficult (from a less informed perspective granted) not to see this as servitude being basically just slavery under a slightly more palatable name (regardless of how the people at the time may have defined it)?
It sounds to me like slavery by a different name. Take a rose and take off a thorn and call it something else. But Juliet was still right that a rose by any other name is still a rose. Same applies to slavery called servitude is still essentially slavery. Sure they changed a couple of details and rebranded. Common tactic and even the church makes minor changes and rebrands something as new and gives it a new name when it is essentially the same. Misistering once home teaching and before that ward teaching. The problems with it still remain in spite of the rebrand. Unless they were free to go get a different job, it is still slavery, you just called it something else and put a bandaid on one of several problems.
So I Googled “Did Utah legalize slavery in 1852?” Here’s what Google returned:
Yes, Utah legalized slavery in 1852 with the passing of the “An Act in Relation to Service”:
Brigham Young, the leader of the Mormon church, urged the legislature to pass the act. Some scholars believe that Young may have supported slavery to preserve the balance of power in Congress. Others believe that Young may have thought that white slaveowners from the South would be more likely to convert to Mormonism and move to Utah if their slaves were treated as property.
This confirmed the evidence that I already read in a number of history books both LDS and non-LDS. People argue about evidence and put each other down and wrong/stupid/blind all the time when someone doesn’t agree with the evidence they have. Just look at the election of 2020. For four years people have been arguing about the election being stolen or done right each with their own evidence.
Granted those that you interviewed may have a different take on slavery in Utah but if it’s so different from what’s commonly accepted you can’t really change another persons mind or persuade them to your point of view by immediately calling them names, saying they’re wrong, stupid or that they don’t have honest intent.
Since we both agree that slavery by any name or race banning were and are wrong, the rest is arguing about gnats flying around body waste.
Saladspoons, your comment was caught in the spam filter, but has now been rescued. I wish I had seen it earlier. You raise some good questions.
does the argument basically come down to whether the “servitude” that the UT legislature passed/defined, should really be considered “slavery” or not?
That’s not the way I would phrase the question, but I suppose that’s one way to look at it. From Brigham Young’s point of view, the answer to your question was that he did not equate slavery with servitude, so yes they are not equivalent terms. To make Brigham’s case, he includes indentured servants from European descent in the bill. One key difference is that European indentured servants were never sold between owners, weren’t subject to the Fugitive Slave Act, were generally white, etc. So by Brigham Young elevating slave status to servant status, requiring slave consent to be sold or transferred, and giving slaves some rights equivalent to indentured servants, then yes, servitude was mildly “better” than slavery because it gave them a few rights they did not previously have that indentured servants had.
On the other hand, Orson Pratt vehemently opposed Brigham and said there wasn’t a practical difference. And Orson is right. Slaves could be held for life, unlike indentured servants. Federal Law would have required escaped slaves to be subject to the Fugitive Slave Act, unlike indentured servants. So yes, Orson was arguing the distinction between servitude and slavery was splitting hairs or a distinction without a difference.
So, as Paul Reeve argues in the quote above, it depends on your point of view. From the point of view of Brigham, he did not like slavery. He wanted Utah to become a free state, not a slave state. The argument that Utah wanted to keep slavery legal to offset New Mexico and California as free states and keep the balance of power in Congress is without merit. Young always wanted Utah to become a free state. He never wanted Utah to be a slave state via popular sovereignty. Since it was a territory, federal law ruled that Utah could not ban slavery, just as northern states had to recognize slaves brought into a free state. As I have mentioned before, free state California had 1500 slaves. New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and all other free states had slaves in their states, despite their opposition to slavery. Brigham Young’s position in regulating slavery actually gave slaves more (nominal) rights than most: Slaves couldn’t be sold against their will. Slaves couldn’t be transferred out of state against their will. If an owner violated this, Brigham has been documented as freeing the slaves. That point is not stated in most conversations. So if one wants to argue that Utah legalized slavery in 1852, then they must also say that California with its 1500 slaves legalized slavery, along with New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, etc. All those states had slaves. All those states did some sort of gradual emancipation. By removing the words that slavery went on to the next generation in the Act in Relation to Service, Brigham was following the examples of New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois who all had gradual emancipation statutes.
Now, one can argue as Orson Pratt did, that servitude = slavery. If so, then New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois’ gradual emancipation statues make them slave states as well as Utah. For consistency’s sake, it’s hard to argue that those 3 states (as well as other northern states) were legalizing slavery. It is clear that the legislators in Utah were following the example of these 3 states. As such, it is inappropriate to argue that the legislature of Utah legalized slavery anymore than it is to argue that NY, Penn, and Ill legalized slavery too with their gradual emancipation statutes.
Now from a practical point of view, a black servant with lifetime service in Utah wasn’t treated much differently than a southern slave. However, his/her future offspring were not subject to lifetime slavery in Utah. Of course, that didn’t really play out because a decade later, these black children (born after 1852 in Utah let’s say) would have been freed via the federal Act in Relation to Freedom in 1862 and immediately emancipated. But under Brigham’s law, they would have been raised as free by their servant parents and not subject to sale as property or split from their family.
That’s the distinction that Paul is making. I highly doubt Google has read Paul, Chris, and LaJean’s book. It is a groundbreaking book, and is cutting edge history that is trying to change the conversation about Utah’s slavery past. I think it is just as cutting edge as Lester Bush’s 1973 Dialogue article blaming the priesthood ban on Brigham rather than Joseph. This book is trying to change the myths that we’ve all grown up with.
I used to say Utah legalized slavery in 1852. I no longer do. I hope you all read Paul’s book, because it is a game-changing book designed to change our understanding of slavery and associated priesthood ban. It’s a nuanced argument. It’s messy. But I think it is correct.
Let me address Spoonsalad’s other question that contains 2 points that should be separated.
Christopher in the book is arguing that “servitude” should NOT actually be considered slavery, and this distinction is considered important because Brigham Young and the Legislature at the time, saw it as different from slavery?
This seems to be conflating things a little. You’re asking 2 things in this question, one true and one false. Yes the distinction is considered important by Brigham Young & the legislature because yes they saw it differently from slavery. They saw servitude as an improvement of slavery. Servitude gave slaves rights they did not previously have.
However this statement is not true: “the book is arguing that “servitude” should NOT actually be considered slavery.” It depends on your point of view. Slavery was legal in the U.S. There is no question about that. From the point of view of slaves, passing the law made little difference in their lives. So, from the slave point of view, the book is arguing there was little difference between slavery & servitude.
From BY and the legislature’s point of view, however, they were trying to make life a little better for the slaves & give them rights. It was baby steps better. From the point of slaveholders, the law infringed on their rights. It took away rights from slaveholders. They could no longer sell slaves without the slaves consent. They could no longer pass slavery onto descendants of slaves. They could no longer move slaves without slaves consent. Slaveholders argued that their property rights were being infringed, and that was intentional on BY & the legislator’s part. The legislature was weakening slaveholders’ rights because Brigham was no fan of slavery.
The point is, we should no longer consider Utah as wanting to be a slave state, unless (for consistency’s sake) we argue that nothern states, by recognizing federal law, were also pro-slavery. It seems strange to call California, NY, and Illinois slave states when they clearly were not. Brigham tried to give slaves rights by infringing on slaveholders’ rights. I don’t think that has been appreciated before.