The Difference Between White Christian Leaders vs. Black Christian Leaders

[The Liturgist]

"The Social Gospel" is more of a catch-all term for American Protestants that didn't accept the theology of Fundamentalist Dispensationalism and Revivalism. In truth, African American pastors who aren't associated with Pentecostalism tend to be more like white mainline Protestants, they emphasize the importance of a personal faith, communal rites, and just and peaceful dealings in the world, without giving overwhelming emphasis to one or the others. Many African-American pastors go to the same seminaries as their white counterparts in the Protestant mainline, in fact.

One area that Black Protestants tend to differ from white mainline Protestants- African-Americans continue to value the Church as an institution, and attendance has not declined, unlike among white mainline Protestant churches, which have declined dramatically.

This is also probably at least in part due to the fact that most of the historically Black churches are less motivated by a far left secularist agenda.

 

[The Liturgist]

And it depends on the time in America. White Christian preachers were almost totally silent during the kidnapping and enslavement of Africans here in America,

False. The whole reason slavery was limited to the Southern US was because of the insistence of the Northern states, where preachers from denominations such as the Congregationalists persuaded the majority of the populace to oppose it. Likewise it was due to the effort of abolitionist Christians in Great Britain that the slave trade in the UK was abolished in 1806.

as well as the genocide of Natives.

Also false. Northern churches were not complicit in this, and instead rather sought to minister and convert the indigenous population. This is also true of the Roman Catholic Church. In Alaska, the Russian Orthodox Church, now the Orthodox Church in America, successfully converted the Aleut and Sitka people to Holy Orthodoxy and was instrumental in ensuring they were not the victims of genocide.

During the Civil War not much from white preachers or white Christians about the ungodly practices.

Nonsense, the Civil War and the Emancipation came about as a result of agitation by Northern churches, particularly the Congregationalists, the Northern Methodists and related groups.

In the 40s, 50s, and 60s when blacks were heavily oppressed, white Southern preachers sounded different talking about love and hate, than from black Christian preachers anywhere else in America.

Some white Southern preachers, not all. Martin Luther King had a number of white allies who joined in his campaign.

There was a time in America blacks couldn't just walk into a white church,

This is also false. While it may have been inadvisable for an African American to enter a Southern Baptist church in the 1920s-50s, the extent to which African Americans were welcome varied depending on denomination and locale. Nowadays there are of course a great many blacks in the SBC, and that denomination has renounced its pro-slavery beginnings and even have moved to call themselves Great Commission Baptists in repudiation of the original reason for their founding.

but don't believe there was ever a time when a white person couldn't walk into a black church.

I am not entirely sure this is the case. It is widely known that during the period of segregation, the African Americans, on the basis of fairness, did often react negatively to encroachment in those facilities set aside for their use, and it was reasonable for them to do so, lest they be deprived of even more.

Is there any evidence of a white conservative Christian leader preaching about the evils of slavery in the South during slavery?.

Yes. Look up Charles Finney, Theodore Weld, and in the UK, John Newton, just to name a few, for there were thousands. Indeed the original reason why the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches split into Northern and Southern halves was due to the Abolitionist stance of the vast majority of Northern Christians.

One huge difference is white Christian leaders belonged to racist churches like the Westboro Baptist Church.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a grotesque thing, although for all its evils, I have never heard it being described as racist, although if it is also racist that would not surprise me. However, the accusation that white Christian leaders as a group belonged to such churches is an inflammatory falsehood.

Whites have done this to black churches and synagogues of worship since the birth of the Nation. There was a white conservative Christian leader in Phoenix telling his church he prays for President Obama's death. Pastor Greg Locke attacked Joe Biden and called the Pope the biggest pedophile on the planet. I just can't imagine a black Christian leader spewing this type of garbage. And there is a difference in white and black conservative Christian leaders and white and black progressive Christian leaders. Lastly, in the 1960s Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones and other white conservative Christian leaders thought standing up for social justice and equity wasn't the job of Christians like Martin Luther King.

There are undeniably racist white preachers, but they are, like their black counterparts such as Louis Farrakhan, thankfully very much in the minority.

They wanted to keep laws of segregation in place. they wanted to galvanize white conservative Christians as a new voting bloc to pass or keep racist laws they liked. They found they could use abortion that way
There’s a straight line from US racial segregation to the anti-abortion movement.

That is utterly false. The Pro Life movement has a very large number of African American supporters, and it is also worth noting that Planned Parenthood was originally founded to promote eugenics along explicitly racist lines, with a view to reducing the Black population, and that Black infants and mothers have been disproportionately the victims of abortion.

Of course the bible does not make distinctions between the races in regard to its teaching, but our country's history plays a role, and being conservative or progressive does also. Different Christians may differ on eschatology and a few other things, but it worries me to see the lack of love.

It worries me too.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is also probably at least in part due to the fact that most of the historically Black churches are less motivated by a far left secularist agenda.

I don't think that is the reason. Pastors at historic black churches go to the same seminaries, more or less, as their white, mainline Protestant counterparts, and they vote Democratic even more than their white counterparts.

 

[xser88]

I would post video of Jeremiah Wright but I would be banned from the forum

If you're suggesting Jeremiah Wright made racist comments, maybe you could quote him.

 

[RDKirk]

Indeed so, I was shocked by it, given the major role Northern Protestant churches played in advocating for the emancipation of the slaves and in the election of Abraham Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform, which led to the secession of the Confederate states. Claiming that all churches with predominantly European American congregations were complicit in it, and also in segregation, is patently absurd, considering the large number of white pastors who closely collaborated with the ministry of the hero Arthur Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Nothing absurd about it. Read about how and why the African Methodist Episcopal Church came to be. It's not as though even northern churches embraced black Christians, and segregation in the North was strictly enforced as well.

You're talking about minor salients in the face of a supposedly nearly fully Christianized America.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And yet, you can number those on one hand.

And I'm well reminded of why my childhood denomination, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, broke away from the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The African Methodist Episcopal Church was founded in 1816 - long before the abolition movement gained momentum in the United States. I am quite surprised that you seem to be unfamiliar with its history. Here is a great Wikipedia entry for it - African Methodist Episcopal Church - Wikipedia Actually, it is really rather late on the scene, as far as black denominations went. The African Baptist Church was begun in 1773, three years prior to the American Revolution. Here is the Wikipedia article for it - First African Baptist Church (Savannah, Georgia) - Wikipedia.

I would not say that the abolition movement in the 1850's consisted of only a handful of individuals. You are quite mistaken. The leaders are well known as well as many of the multitudes of supporters. It is a grave disservice to discount the tens of thousands of lives in the Union Army which were sacrificed for the emancipation of black slaves in the South. It is so simple to reduce history to a basic narrative which eliminates all those who were actively engaged in a massive turning point of culture and to dismiss it as being irrelevant.

On another point, the purpose of the Church of God has never been to rectify social injustices. Two hundred years hence I can easily see folks such as yourself dismissing the struggle to end abortion as a form of birth control and racial genocide as having had no serious interest on the part of pro-life folks.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed so, I was shocked by it, given the major role Northern Protestant churches played in advocating for the emancipation of the slaves and in the election of Abraham Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform, which led to the secession of the Confederate states. Claiming that all churches with predominantly European American congregations were complicit in it, and also in segregation, is patently absurd, considering the large number of white pastors who closely collaborated with the ministry of the hero Arthur Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Thank you.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nothing absurd about it. Read about how and why the African Methodist Episcopal Church came to be. It's not as though even northern churches embraced black Christians, and segregation in the North was strictly enforced as well.

You're talking about minor salients in the face of a supposedly nearly fully Christianized America.

I am fully aware of the history of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, but just because some of the early Methodists were racists does not erase the fact that it was the Northern churches that advocated against slavery, and later against abolition. Also the Roman Catholic Church did play a role in it, although less than it would have had the US been a predominantly Catholic country (since the Roman Catholics were themselves the victims of persecution at the hands of the KKK - several Roman Catholic religious orders actively recruited African Americans.

 

[RDKirk]

The African Methodist Episcopal Church was founded in 1816 - long before the abolition movement gained momentum in the United States. I am quite surprised that you seem to be unfamiliar with its history. Here is a great Wikipedia entry for it - African Methodist Episcopal Church - Wikipedia Actually, it is really rather late on the scene, as far as black denominations went. The African Baptist Church was begun in 1773, three years prior to the American Revolution. Here is the Wikipedia article for it - First African Baptist Church (Savannah, Georgia) - Wikipedia.

I would not say that the abolition movement in the 1850's consisted of only a handful of individuals. You are quite mistaken. The leaders are well known as well as many of the multitudes of supporters. It is a grave disservice to discount the tens of thousands of lives in the Union Army which were sacrificed for the emancipation of black slaves in the South. It is so simple to reduce history to a basic narrative which eliminates all those who were actively engaged in a massive turning point of culture and to dismiss it as being irrelevant.

On another point, the purpose of the Church of God has never been to rectify social injustices. Two hundred years hence I can easily see folks such as yourself dismissing the struggle to end abortion as a form of birth control and racial genocide as having had no serious interest on the part of pro-life folks.

I grew up in the AME church. I was a youth leader at the global conference level, and well acquainted with its history.

And, no, that was not "long before" the abolition movement--which actually had begun by the mid 1600s. Without a doubt, Abolition originated within Christianity, and I've argued that point a number of times even within these forums. Interestingly...I've had to argue even against Fundamentalist Christians that Abolition began within Christianity.

But you miss my point: Given the incredible influence of the Church--or at least people calling themselves Christian--across the whole of the United States, how could slavery even persist to needing a war to abolish it?

The US was certainly at least as Christian as Great Britain...yet they gave up slavery without a war. Christians around the world were rolling back slavery. By 1776, Americans knew slavery was a sin, both in the North and in the South. Slaveholders in the 1700s admitted it. Jefferson admitted it. They missed writing abolition language into the Constition by >this much.<

And then in the early 1800s...something changed. Something fell over the American south and for the first time in Christian history, they cobbled together a Christian theological justification for slavery itself. Understand, that had never been done before. The Church had never before called slavery "just." The Church had tolerated slavery as a right of kings under Romans 13, but the Church had always regarded slavery as at least a vice, along with prostitution and such. Nobody had ever before used the Word of God to rationalize or justify slavery.

And you miss my point.

As "Christian" as the United States was, as often as the scripture was preached from the pulpits across the nation, if Jesus is real, if the Holy Spirit abided in all those people sitting in those pews...how could segregation, much less slavery, even occur?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I grew up in the AME church. I was a youth leader at the global conference level, and well acquainted with its history.

And, no, that was not "long before" the abolition movement--which actually had begun by the mid 1600s. Without a doubt, Abolition originated within Christianity, and I've argued that point a number of times even within these forums. Interestingly...I've had to argue even against Fundamentalist Christians that Abolition began within Christianity.

But you miss my point: Given the incredible influence of the Church--or at least people calling themselves Christian--across the whole of the United States, how could slavery even persist to needing a war to abolish it?

The US was certainly at least as Christian as Great Britain...yet they gave up slavery without a war. Christians around the world were rolling back slavery. By 1776, Americans knew slavery was a sin, both in the North and in the South. Slaveholders in the 1700s admitted it. Jefferson admitted it. They missed writing abolition language into the Constition by >this much.<

And then in the early 1800s...something changed. Something fell over the American south and for the first time in Christian history, they cobbled together a Christian theological justification for slavery itself. Understand, that had never been done before. The Church had never before called slavery "just." The Church had tolerated slavery as a right of kings under Romans 13, but the Church had always regarded slavery as at least a vice, along with prostitution and such. Nobody had ever before used the Word of God to rationalize or justify slavery.

And you miss my point.

As "Christian" as the United States was, as often as the scripture was preached from the pulpits across the nation, if Jesus is real, if the Holy Spirit abided in all those people sitting in those pews...how could segregation, much less slavery, even occur?

As I am certain you know, slavery originated long before the writing of any of the Bible. The Old Testament contains commandments regarding its practice and implementation. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible condemning slavery, or even polygamy, for that matter. Slavery existed in the Roman empire and Paul referenced it in several of his letters. Curiously, in his letter to Philemon, he did not tell Philemon to free his slave, Onesimus, but rather to treat him as a brother in Christ. Slavery is still practiced to this very day in certain countries, especially Islamic countries.

Thus, the concept of the abolition of the institution of slavery is not historically relevant to the Bible and those who claim to believe it. In fact, the Southern slave masters built an extremely solid biblical case for slavery, even as the Royalists built a solid biblical argument for the institution of monarchy at the time of the American Revolution.

I believe the primary problem that led to both the American Revolution as well as the Civil War was the abuse of power. Following the signing of the Magna Carta by King John democracy gradually evolved in England in the power of the Parliament. In its current condition in England Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, possesses virtually all of the power and King Charles III is merely a figurehead. However, at the time of the American Revolution King George III retained some power, but Parliament was wrestling with how to effectively administer its colonies to the great financial benefit and glory of England.

In the American Civil War (not to be confused with the English Civil War), it was patently obvious that slavery had become racially based and that slave owners, with some rare exceptions, were taking extreme advantages of their slaves for their personal financial benefit and glory. Although abolition sentiment had been lingering in the background for a long time, it did not develop into a full-throated onslaught until the 1850's following England's example. One of the problems with engaging the American population in this issue was providing a motivation to do something about it. A very large proportion of Americans were recent immigrants, such as the Irish, with their own sets of challenges. Overall, it was the older, educated upper classes that took on the issue. In order to engage the populace there had to be a moral impulse for them to act. That impulse was developed via post-millennial eschatology in which the abolition of slavery would herald the coming of the 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on the earth. As a result, the abolitionists achieved their goal at a bloody cost - and the millennium failed to appear.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Fact is that there are some denominations which have denomination specific theology that by their demographic are black.

Within a denomination there should be no difference between race what so ever; especially in Churches that are strong confessionally. We are seeing a lot of Catholic Parishes with ethnic Pastors because in their countries of origin, many more Pastors are available.

Within our communion, Pastors are Pastors:

Installation of Archbishop Joseph Ochola Omolo of the ELCK - LCMS International Mission

Rev. Dr. Joseph Ochola Omolo is installed at the new Archbishop of the ELCK.

international.lcms.org

 

[RDKirk]

As I am certain you know, slavery originated long before the writing of any of the Bible. The Old Testament contains commandments regarding its practice and implementation. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible condemning slavery, or even polygamy, for that matter. Slavery existed in the Roman empire and Paul referenced it in several of his letters. Curiously, in his letter to Philemon, he did not tell Philemon to free his slave, Onesimus, but rather to treat him as a brother in Christ. Slavery is still practiced to this very day in certain countries, especially Islamic countries.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, Paul did instruct Philemon to free Onesimus. He was tactful about it, but his intent was clear. It's people who argue that the New Testament supports slavery who think "...no longer as a slave" means something different from what the words and context clearly say.

Thus, the concept of the abolition of the institution of slavery is not historically relevant to the Bible and those who claim to believe it. In fact, the Southern slave masters built an extremely solid biblical case for slavery, even as the Royalists built a solid biblical argument for the institution of monarchy at the time of the American Revolution.

[/QUOTE]

No, their case for slavery made a mockery of scripture. That's why the rest of the Christian world came to the opposite conclusion.

I believe the primary problem that led to both the American Revolution as well as the Civil War was the abuse of power. Following the signing of the Magna Carta by King John democracy gradually evolved in England in the power of the Parliament. In its current condition in England Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, possesses virtually all of the power and King Charles III is merely a figurehead. However, at the time of the American Revolution King George III retained some power, but Parliament was wrestling with how to effectively administer its colonies to the great financial benefit and glory of England.

In the American Civil War (not to be confused with the English Civil War), it was patently obvious that slavery had become racially based and that slave owners, with some rare exceptions, were taking extreme advantages of their slaves for their personal financial benefit and glory. Although abolition sentiment had been lingering in the background for a long time, it did not develop into a full-throated onslaught until the 1850's following England's example. One of the problems with engaging the American population in this issue was providing a motivation to do something about it. A very large proportion of Americans were recent immigrants, such as the Irish, with their own sets of challenges. Overall, it was the older, educated upper classes that took on the issue. In order to engage the populace there had to be a moral impulse for them to act. That impulse was developed via post-millennial eschatology in which the abolition of slavery would herald the coming of the 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on the earth. As a result, the abolitionists achieved their goal at a bloody cost - and the millennium failed to appear.

And you still miss the point.

Remember that the abolition of slavery in Europe circa the early 1800s was the second time Christianity had rejected it. And up to the 1800s, even the slaveholders were willing to admit slavery was a sin...then they changed their minds.

What--or rather who--enticed them--that rather small number of people in that particular place and time-- to change their minds from the position Christiandom had established a millenium earlier, and then once again?

 

[xser88]

There is not a single verse in the entire Bible condemning slavery

NO, kidnapping, selling and buying humans to enslave them is a sin punishable by death.
Exodus 21:16
"Whoever kidnaps a person, whether he has sold him or whether the victim is still in his possession, is certainly to be put to death.
This would apply to most of our forefathers here in America according to the bible.
Deuteronomy 24:7
"If a man is found kidnapping his relative, a fellow Israeli, and mistreats or sells him, that kidnapper must die. By doing this, you will remove this evil from among you.

In the bible I believe slaves were either prisoners of war, convict labor or collateral for bad debts. One doesn’t need the Bible to know that slavery and trafficking humans is evil. This was an evil in biblical time punished by death.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am fully aware of the history of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, but just because some of the early Methodists were racists does not erase the fact that it was the Northern churches that advocated against slavery, and later against abolition. Also the Roman Catholic Church did play a role in it, although less than it would have had the US been a predominantly Catholic country (since the Roman Catholics were themselves the victims of persecution at the hands of the KKK - several Roman Catholic religious orders actively recruited African Americans.

Some Congregationalists took an abolitionist stance fairly early on.

Catholics supporting or opposing slavery mostly depended on the part of the country they were in. Typically, Catholics either were relatively indifferent or they supported slavery. In fairness, most that were indifferent were so because they had alot of issues on their plate, such as anti-Catholic or anti-Irish sentiments.

It's like today, with similar issues of social justice, how you read the Bible mostly depended on whether you knew about the issue up close as personal, and how much you stood to lose in terms of power.

 

[JSRG]

Remember that the abolition of slavery in Europe circa the early 1800s was the second time Christianity had rejected it. And up to the 1800s, even the slaveholders were willing to admit slavery was a sin...then they changed their minds.

What--or rather who--enticed them--that rather small number of people in that particular place and time-- to change their minds from the position Christiandom had established a millenium earlier, and then once again?

It might've been the same thing that caused slavery to become substantially more lucrative around that time period: The invention of the cotton gin.

 

[xser88]

There is not a single verse in the entire Bible condemning slavery

NO, kidnapping, selling and buying humans to enslave them is a sin punishable by death.
Exodus 21:16
"Whoever kidnaps a person, whether he has sold him or whether the victim is still in his possession, is certainly to be put to death.
This would apply to most of our forefathers here in America according to the bible.
Deuteronomy 24:7
"If a man is found kidnapping his relative, a fellow Israeli, and mistreats or sells him, that kidnapper must die. By doing this, you will remove this evil from among you.

In the bible I believe slaves were either prisoners of war, convict labor or collateral for bad debts. One doesn’t need the Bible to know that slavery and trafficking humans is evil. This was an evil in biblical time punished by death.

You can actually read the sermons preached by abolitionists such as Henry Ward Beecher. Every Monday morning the newspapers printed his sermons, along with those of the famous English preacher, Charles Spurgeon and the Boston minister, Phillips Brooks. If you would take the time and effort you might also read the stirring lectures by William Lloyd Garrison. Harriet Beecher Stowe, her brother Henry Ward Beecher, and William Lloyd Garrison were primary agents in bringing the North into open conflict with the South over the issue of slavery. The Civil War was not fought because some rednecks enjoyed shooting up folks. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe he famously remarked, "So, you are the little lady who started the big war."

The topic is about the difference between white and black Christian leaders here in America. As a whole the white Christians in America failed in standing up to the evils of white supremacy, Genocide, and kidnapping humans to sell and buy them. Yes, there were a few that spoke against it, but nothing like the blacks leaders sacrificing and protesting for civil rights in our country.

 

[BPPLEE]

If you're suggesting Jeremiah Wright made racist comments, maybe you could quote him.

If you’re interested look him up on YouTube. I think the conversation on this thread has shown points on both sides and I don’t feel the need to comment any further

 

[bbbbbbb]

NO, kidnapping, selling and buying humans to enslave them is a sin punishable by death.
Exodus 21:16
"Whoever kidnaps a person, whether he has sold him or whether the victim is still in his possession, is certainly to be put to death.
This would apply to most of our forefathers here in America according to the bible.
Deuteronomy 24:7
"If a man is found kidnapping his relative, a fellow Israeli, and mistreats or sells him, that kidnapper must die. By doing this, you will remove this evil from among you.

In the bible I believe slaves were either prisoners of war, convict labor or collateral for bad debts. One doesn’t need the Bible to know that slavery and trafficking humans is evil. This was an evil in biblical time punished by death.

The topic is about the difference between white and black Christian leaders here in America. As a whole the white Christians in America failed in standing up to the evils of white supremacy, Genocide, and kidnapping humans to sell and buy them. Yes, there were a few that spoke against it, but nothing like the blacks leaders sacrificing and protesting for civil rights in our country.

You are correct that I have been part and parcel to the shift of the thread from the OP. I apologize for that and trust that we will get back to the OP. In this case, history is actually marginal to the topic at hand. The OP addressed the current situation in American preaching, dividing white preachers into several categories and black preachers into two categories. Actually, the two black categories align neatly with two of the white categories. They are preachers of the social gospel and preachers of various forms of health and wealth gospel.

 

[FireDragon76]

I grew up in the AME church. I was a youth leader at the global conference level, and well acquainted with its history.

And, no, that was not "long before" the abolition movement--which actually had begun by the mid 1600s. Without a doubt, Abolition originated within Christianity, and I've argued that point a number of times even within these forums. Interestingly...I've had to argue even against Fundamentalist Christians that Abolition began within Christianity.

But you miss my point: Given the incredible influence of the Church--or at least people calling themselves Christian--across the whole of the United States, how could slavery even persist to needing a war to abolish it?

The US was certainly at least as Christian as Great Britain...yet they gave up slavery without a war. Christians around the world were rolling back slavery. By 1776, Americans knew slavery was a sin, both in the North and in the South. Slaveholders in the 1700s admitted it. Jefferson admitted it. They missed writing abolition language into the Constition by >this much.<

And then in the early 1800s...something changed. Something fell over the American south and for the first time in Christian history, they cobbled together a Christian theological justification for slavery itself. Understand, that had never been done before. The Church had never before called slavery "just." The Church had tolerated slavery as a right of kings under Romans 13, but the Church had always regarded slavery as at least a vice, along with prostitution and such. Nobody had ever before used the Word of God to rationalize or justify slavery.

And you miss my point.

As "Christian" as the United States was, as often as the scripture was preached from the pulpits across the nation, if Jesus is real, if the Holy Spirit abided in all those people sitting in those pews...how could segregation, much less slavery, even occur?

I'll tell you what happened in the 19th century... Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Suddenly slavery became our "way of life" and part of the "natural order". Funny how what is "natural" is always convenient for those in power...

 

[The Liturgist]

The topic is about the difference between white and black Christian leaders here in America. As a whole the white Christians in America failed in standing up to the evils of white supremacy, Genocide, and kidnapping humans to sell and buy them. Yes, there were a few that spoke against it, but nothing like the blacks leaders sacrificing and protesting for civil rights in our country.

That is simply untrue, as I have said. The whole reason that the Civil War and Emancipation happened was due to the agitation of white Northern Protestants against slavery, since the slaves were, unfortunately, tragically, disenfranchised.

This was, it should also be noted, a result of having been kidnapped by more powerful African tribes like the Ashante and then sold to tribes such as the Fante at wholesale prices who in turn traded them with Europeans, who paid largely with firearms, which were then given to the Ashante and similar tribes allowing them to conquer yet more smaller tribes. This resulted in the Gold Coast, present day Ghana, where I have spent much of my life, becoming the Slave Coast, along with Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria and certain other African lands. The Dutch bought their slaves at Elmina, the English at Cape Coast, the Danes at Osu, and so on, and these castles still stand today as nightmarish relics of an inhuman enterprise.

But white Christian pastors, as a matter of historical fact, were among the leaders of the abolitionist movement. For various reasons that do not adversely reflect on their character, the African American slaves were not in a position to rise up and overthrow their oppressors, however, they had an ally in the abolitionist whites, who had been opposed to slavery since the very founding of the US. Indeed as President Lincoln argued in his famed “Fourscore and seven years ago” speech, the founding fathers only intended slavery to remain on a temporary basis before being phased out, but this did not happen due to the rise of King Cotton, which suddenly made slaves extremely valuable assets for purposes of textile production, and thus the trafficking of human beings lasted for nearly six decades longer than in Great Britain.

Also I would note it was an eccentric white Christian military engineer, General Charles Gordon, who stamped out the slave trade in the Sudan in the 1870s; he would later be killed there by Muhammed Ahmed al-Mahdi after the latter laid siege to Khartoum.