Slavery and Sovereignty in Early Territorial Utah
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2007-07-03 A Peculiar Place for the Peculiar Institution: Slavery and Sovereignty in Early Territorial Utah Nathaniel R. Ricks Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Ricks, Nathaniel R., "A Peculiar Place for the Peculiar Institution: Slavery and Sovereignty in Early Territorial Utah" (2007). Theses and Dissertations. 1007. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/1007 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. A PECULIAR PLACE FOR THE PECULIAR INSTITUTION: SLAVERY AND SOVEREIGNTY IN EARLY TERRITORIAL UTAH by Nathaniel R. Ricks A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History Brigham Young University August 2007 Copyright © 2007 Nathaniel R. Ricks All Rights Reserved BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Nathaniel R. Ricks This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory ____________________________ ____________________________________ Date Matthew E. Mason, Chair ____________________________ ____________________________________ Date Jay H. Buckley ____________________________ ____________________________________ Date Susan S. Rugh BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY As chair of the candidate's graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Nathaniel R. Ricks in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style require- ments; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for sub- mission to the university library. __________________________ ____________________________________ Date Matthew E. Mason Chair, Graduate Committee Accepted for the Department ____________________________________ Kendall W. Brown Graduate Coordinator Accepted for the College ____________________________________ Elaine Walton Associate Dean, College of Family, Home and Social Sciences ABSTRACT A PECULIAR PLACE FOR THE PECULIAR INSTITUTION: SLAVERY AND SOVEREIGNTY IN EARLY TERRITORIAL UTAH Nathaniel R. Ricks Department of History Master of Arts Between 1830 and 1844, the Mormons slightly shifted their position on African- American slavery, but maintained the middle ground on the issue overall. When Mormons began gathering to Utah in 1847, Southern converts brought their black slaves with them to the Great Basin. In 1852 the first Utah Territorial legislature passed “An Act in Relation to Service” that legalized slavery in Utah. This action was prompted primarily by the need to regulate slavery and contextualize its practice within the Mormon belief system. Ironically, had Congress known of Utah’s slave population, it may have never granted Utah the power to legislate on slavery. During the debates over the Compromise of 1850, which series of acts created Utah Territory without restriction on slavery, Utah lobbyist John M. Bernhisel hid Utah slavery from members of Congress. Several years later, when Utah’s laws were under review by Congressional committees, the public announcement of polygamy overshadowed information that betrayed slavery’s practice in Utah. The fact that slavery’s practice in Utah was never widely known, especially by members of Congress, delayed for nearly four years the final sectional crisis that would culminate in civil war. Utah may have been a peculiar place for the “peculiar institution” of slavery, but its legalization in the territory, and Congress’ failure to acknowledge it, provide a compelling case study of popular sovereignty in action in the antebellum West. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While many individuals merit thanks for their contributions to this thesis, a few deserve special appreciation. My committee members have been stellar in ushering me through the thesis process: Susan Rugh provided candid feedback and expressed much- needed confidence in my writing abilities; Jay Buckley encouraged me to pursue my interests at a crucial juncture in my graduate career; and Matthew Mason kept me focused and organized while also striving to connect with me on a personal level. Other faculty members have shaped my critical thinking about the issues discussed in this thesis and deserve many thanks: Rodney Bohac, Neil York, Ignacio Garcia, Paul Pixton, Mark Grandstaff, and Michael Murdock. Robert Gudmestad of the University of Memphis and Anna-Lisa Cox, Ph.D. provided excellent critiques of an earlier version of Chapter III. David Amstutz of the University of Nebraska gave me some excellent suggestions on an earlier draft of chapter II. Fellow students have been no less influential, especially Russell Stevenson, a student editor for the history department's journal, and my many graduate compatriots. Most of all, however, my family has been my lodestar. This work is for Jackie, Dallin, and Mia. They have encouraged me throughout this project and make the present much, much more inviting than the past. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY.................................................................1 I. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MORMONISM AND AFRICAN- AMERICAN SLAVERY, 1830-1847...............................................................................18 II. GREAT EXPECTATIONS?: THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 AND UTAH TERRITORY’S PROSPECTS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVERY.....................50 III. “BARBARISM” IN THE GREAT BASIN: AFRICAN-AMERICAN SLAVERY AND UTAH’S FIRST TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE................................................89 IV. THE PROMINENCE OF POLYGAMY: UTAH, SOVEREIGNTY, AND WASHINGTON POLITICS, 1852-1854........................................................................134 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................157 I. MEMBERS OF THE 1851-2 UTAH LEGISLATURE................................157 II. AN ACT IN RELATION TO SERVICE......................................................158 III. A COMPARISON OF EARLY AND FINAL VERSIONS OF UTAH'S SLAVERY ACT.....................................................................................160 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................163 viii INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHY This study began when I came across several articles describing the practice of African-American slavery in antebellum Utah. Like some of historical figures quoted throughout this thesis, I had believed Mormons, and especially Utah Mormons, to have been historically opposed to slavery. A more complex picture emerged while I worked on different incarnations of this final product, however. Mormon converts emigrating to Utah from the South brought with them a number of African-American slaves, and in 1852 Utah’s first Territorial legislature passed legislation protecting slavery. Utah’s civic leaders could legitimately do this, having been granted the power by the Thirty-first Congress as part of the Compromise of 1850. A full two years prior to the Kansas- Nebraska debates of 1854, the Utah legislature legalized slavery in a region that had formerly been the focus of heated debates regarding the “peculiar institution’s” expansion. These facts could have—should have—played conflagrative roles in the national antebellum debates over slavery’s expansion, and yet they did not. Why Utah’s practice and legalization of slavery remained hidden from Washington politicians is one focus of this work. Initially, during the debates over the Compromise of 1850, Mormon lobbyist John M. Bernhisel was able to channel congressional attention away from Utah’s slave population by convincing Washingtonians that Utah’s climate was inhospitable towards the peculiar institution. Two years later, in August 1852, the Mormon church publicly 1 2 affirmed its members’ practice of polygamy before word of its slavery legislation reached Congress. Polygamy immediately became the focus of anti-Mormon hostility, also diverting attention from Utah’s slavery legislation. This had important consequences for national politics. First, for the Mormons, polygamy presented a significant obstacle to gaining statehood. Only after Utah’s residents “Americanized” the territory in a number of ways (sponsoring chapters of both national political parties, for example) and denounced polygamy in 1890, would Utah be granted statehood. Second, Utah’s hidden legalization of slavery kept the 1850 Compromise’s tenuous peace intact. Without slavery as a polarizing issue threatening intraparty unity, the Second Party System was preserved a few years longer until the Kansas-Nebraska debates resurrected sectional controversy over slavery expansion. Within a few years American politics divided along sectional lines.1 The hiding of Utah’s practice of slavery thus appears to have delayed sectional conflict for a few years. The course of history may have been charted differently had Washington politicians been aware of Utah’s laws