Should BYU Be Renamed Over Slavery? (Paul Reeve/Christopher Rich)

Gospel Tangents Podcast

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. What Do Critics Say? 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.