Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
MLK entered Crozer in 1948. It was an integrated Theological Seminary. His grades the first year were mediocre. By his third year he was a straight A student. He was voted class President by a mostly white student body. He was valedictorian.
In 1951, the year of Kings graduation from Crozer, Dean Charles Battan praised him as one of our most outstanding students and someone who exhibited fine preparation, an excellent mind, and a thorough grasp of the material (Papers 1:390391).
King graduated from Crozer with honors as class valedictorian, and was also the recipient of the Pearl Plafker award for scholarship.
Course Grade
American Christianity A
Religious development of personality A
The minister's use of the radio A
Philosophy of religion A
Theological integration A
Advanced philosophy of religion A
Christian social philosophy ll A
Christianity and society A
The Crozer Years
In our first conversation I said that I had given the Founding Fathers a pass on Slave trading and ownership in lieu of their contributions to humanity. Plagiarism being a much less egregious affront to the ideals of Liberty I think history will find it even easier to view MLK's scholarly sins with, shall we say, a benign contempt. For myself I am not happy with it but I can live with the facts.
So you served in combat zones, while King was stalked.
MLK complained that the poor and underprivileged (rather than the college student) was more likely to fight in Vietnam, and he was right.
I doubt very much you were unprotected in a sniper's sights no more than twenty yards distant.
You still have time to weight your life correctly, my friend. You have been very blessed.
He claimed that blacks were disproportionally in combat. This is a falsehood.
Do you have the exact quote? For information purposes:
"The 1960s marked a major transformation for African-American citizens in the United States. The decade also marked the first major combat deployment of an integrated military to Vietnam.
The Vietnam War saw the highest proportion of African-Americans ever to serve in an American war. There was a marked turnaround from the attitude in previous wars that black men were not fit for combat - during the Vietnam War African-Americans faced a much greater chance of being on the front-line, and consequently a much higher casualty rate. In 1965 alone African-Americans represented almost 25 percent of those killed in action."
African-Americans In Combat | History Detectives | PBS
My believe that Martin Luther King was one of the greatest Americans of the 2oth or any other century is unshaken. I was a young middle class white boy while he was waging peace for the dignity of all people. I saw him martyred to that struggle. He will never be forgotten or diminished.
You've got some distasteful moral arithmetic going on there. Those twists and turns of logic must have been painful. Abolitionism was a well established movement at that time. America could have chosen to do the right thing. It didn't. Period.
You've got some distasteful moral arithmetic going on there. Those twists and turns of logic must have been painful. Abolitionism was a well established movement at that time. America could have chosen to do the right thing. It didn't. Period.
Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.
Slavery as an objective practice?
You seem to be referring to an Economic theory I'm not familiar with. Sounds like some sort of cultural relativism that I do find very objectionable. Slavery is an absolute evil that cannot be defended by any philosophy.
Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.
Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.
By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.
The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.
The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.
Slavery as an objective practice?
You seem to be referring to an Economic theory I'm not familiar with. Sounds like some sort of cultural relativism that I do find very objectionable. Slavery is an absolute evil that cannot be defended by any philosophy.
Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.
By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.
The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.
The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.
Not large, perhaps, but not without effect. The gag rule debates in the 1830s and 1840s were quite important. The Liberty Party was a direct precursor to the Free Soil Party, which was a precursor to the Republicans. It was only thirty years from the founding of Garrison's The Liberator (for which Garrison was almost lynched) until the election of a president of a party that was defined by it's commitment to opposing the expansion of slavery, and hence, ultimately to opposing slavery itself. There were certainly other factors than abolitionism in the rise of Republicanism, but the abolitionists were a significant part of the story (I'd say a necessary but not sufficient one).
