In this context the issue of EGW's amalgamation text becomes historically interesting. Did it play a part in her tepid interest in black issues after the Civil War? To my knowledge she never expressed much joy about the Civil War amendments to the Constitution nor chagrin about how they were being eroded during the 1880s and 1890s.

Could it be that those who fought for the abolishment of slavery were more concerned about what slavery did to them and the nation than what it did to its victims?

Could it be that EGW and her fellow anti-slavery crusaders were the equivalent of today's PETA, and that slaves were their cause but not their equals?

I would be very interested in hearing from those of you who have studied this period of history.

Okay, what about where Ellen White said "certain species of men" were the result of amalgamation?

Over on the Adventist Peacemaking Blog, Monte Sahlin commented the following about this original post:

This material clearly demonstrates how uncomfortable Ellen White would be with many Adventists sitting in the pews today who have so little understanding of social justice issues and such chauvinistic views of the world. In the U.S. today most would probably deny racist thinking, but you need only overhear opinions about immigrants and Muslims to get a sense that the ground has shifted, but the essential us vs them attitudes are the same. When I hear/read stories about Adventists caught up in events in Rwanda, etc., I get a picture that around the world we have neglected to teach the doctrine of social justice to our people as Ellen White would have wanted us to teach it. In this respect, Adventist evangelists have been largely unfaithful to her vision of the Remnant Church.

Thanks for the great article Doug and that great comment Monte!

Here is how Ellen White assessed the aftermath of the Civil War with regard to race relations, looking back from around 1900:

"Much might have been accomplished by the people of America if adequate efforts in behalf of the freedmen had been put forth by the Government and by the Christian churches immediately after the emancipation of the slaves. Money should have been used freely to care for and educate them at the time they were so greatly in need of help. But the Government, after a little effort, left the Negro to struggle, unaided, with his burden of difficulties. Some of the strong Christian churches began a good work, but sadly failed to reach more than a comparatively few; and the Seventh-day Adventist Church has failed to act its part..."

This is from Testimonies 9:205.

I don't know that the troubling enigma of the "amalgamation" statement has ever been successfully resolved, but any suggestion that Ellen White was referring to people of African descent in this ambiguous statement would have to be weighed against page after page of sentiments such a the following:

"We have no time to build up walls of distinction between the white and the black race. The white people who embrace the truth in the Southern field, if converted to God, will discern the fact that the plan of redemption embraces every soul that God has created. The walls of sectarianism and caste and race will fall down when the true missionary spirit enters the hearts of men. Prejudice is melted away by the love of God. All will realize that they are to become laborers together with God. Both the Ethiopian and the white race are God's purchased possession . . ."

The Southern Work [full text available at EGW Estate] is a good place to start in investigating Ellen White's views and admonitions on race relations.

Doug
In the 1900 statement EGW expresses regret that not much interest had been taken in the freed blacks, either by SDAs or others. But she does not explain WHY that was. Given the fact that she had thrown her moral support behind the abolishionist cause, one would have expected her to follow up with concrete assistance to the victims of slavery. Who, more than the freed slaves, could better lay claim to Christian charity?

My impression is still the following:

1. Freeing the slaves was a cause driven more by concern for white people's conscience than for the misery of slaves.

2. Slaves were their cause, but not their equals.

3. The amalgamation statements were only edited out of the Conflict series in the 1890s. That's also when EGW begins to show more concern for the situation of black Americans (albeit, leaving any improvement in their situation a hostage to the goodwill of white Americans).

It seems that there were quite a few people of that time who were abolitionists but also didn't quite see the races as equal. Like Lincoln.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the 2 races living together on terms of social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion that I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position that the Negro should be denied everything.

". . . Notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."-Abraham Lincoln, debating with Douglas in Illinois, 1858

Another interesting perspective, of the American opinion of the African American, is the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857. In it, the Court said, the Negro was not a citizen of the United States, could not become a citizen, and had no right to appear in a Federal Court. It goes on to say the Negro was inferior to the white man by nature and most of America both North and South believe it, that is why most states, both north and south forbid them to marry. As a result of this case the 14th amendment was added to the Constitution. Making ever one born or naturalized a citizen of the United States and the state where they were born.

Another thing in those days other people were considered inferior, Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Italians and the Irish. One English historian writes, the English consider marrying an Irish person the same way people in America consider marrying a Negro. Even during World War ll the Japanese thought they were superior to everyone, and of course the German that they were the super race.

Doug thanks for your post. It is the same conclusion I came too while studying the issue of the word amalgamation. It is also pertinent to the issue of how the races arose. Whatever other people in her day thought about inferior races, she never says God showed her it was true. Today we know it is not possible to cross an animal with a human and produce a viable off spring. The genes do not match up. I am sure a number of people have tried, because it is obvious a hybrid between a gorilla and a man would make a great soldier.

Aage,

I think there is much truth in all three of your points. If abolitionists or Abraham Lincoln or Ellen G. White are presented as the embodiment of altruism, virtue and enlightenment, it becomes particularly important to draw attention to flaws, inconsistencies, mixed motives, and so forth.

But, having exposed the icons as human and debunked the myths, have we arrived what is most significant about their historical legacy? Do the flaws of abolitionists invalidate their achievement? Would it have been better if they hadn't acted on their troubled consciences because they harbored paternalistic attitudes? Should Ellen White's legacy on race relations be measured by the elements of inconsistency, change, and imperfection or should these be viewed in the context of her overall work, in turn viewed in the context of her times and cultural environment?

Doug
I agree with what you say. It's far better to do something than nothing, and EGW deserves credit for having enlisted on the right side in the struggle over slavery. My comments were driven by the question as to whether her amalgamation beliefs explain why she did not take any further interest in the fate of the freed slaves. I still don't know the answer to that question.

Here's an interesting excerpt I found a reference to in the Document Files at the Ellen G White Research Center at Andrews back in 1979. I had misplaced it until now, when I finally found the folder where I had stored the handwritten note I had taken back then. It throws yet another perspective on how Ellen White viewed things:

"Slavery will again be revived in the Southern states; for the spirit of slavery still lives."

Manuscript 22a, 1895 (I think beginning on page 3)

Has anyone seen this before or have the wider passage? Was this a prediction by Ellen White? To what extent has this passage been discussed?

Bruce

Whether abolitionists or Lincoln were imperfect and should be judged on their good deeds, is EGW to be equated with these? Certainly, the SDA church considers her much more important and even a prophet. If she was a prophet, how much allowance should be given to her messages, many of which were not true nor consistent and changed over the years? Take her off her pedestal and she can then be truly evaluated: no lesser, no better than her contemporaries.

Is in't it time we realised that any organisation will only publish that which protects its image to self propergate, that where interpretation is involved, dynamic texts will continue to make sense for a while and old interpretations will be discarded as new ones take hold? Where does that live the notion of prophesy? I personally think prophet(esses) are sustained by interpretation done by those who need to self preserve and by God there are many of those in religion.