Southerners often compared slavery favorably to the conditions of free labor in the North?

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,414
Benin City, Nigeria
#51
So? The sons of Canaan ARE the sons of Ham.
And did I say that Canaan's descendants are not descendants of Ham? No.

You are being dishonest in pretending not to understand my correction to the erroneous and misinformed argument you put forward earlier and in trying to make it seem as if my argument was something else. Just stop where you're at now and don't dig a deeper hole for yourself on this argument. There is no point in responding simply for the sake of responding after all.
 
Oct 2018
337
Adelaide south Australia
#52
So? The sons of Canaan ARE the sons of Ham. They are not two mutually exclusive sets of sons. And I am aware of no verse that says how the curse will be manifest.

Do we know how many wives Ham is said to have had? It is written in the Bible that Ham married a Cushite woman (modern day Sudan) that suggest that SOME any children with her would be mixed race. Don't thin skin colour is mentioned. But surely ,the skin colour of descents would have returned to 'normal over 4 or 5 generations unless Ham migrated to say, Cush.

As it stands it seems the Southern states slavery apologists got it wrong when referring to their slaves as 'children of Ham', but then, so had a lot of people over a very long period.

Found this on Wikipedia

The Curse of Ham is the curse upon Canaan, Ham's son, that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The curse occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham, the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27).[1] The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over 2,000 years.[2]

The story's original purpose may have been to justify the subjection of the Canaanite people to the Israelites,[3]but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Christians, Muslims and Jews as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery.[4] Nevertheless, most Christians, Muslims and Jews now disagree with such interpretation, because in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed, and race or skin color is never mentioned.[5]


Curse of Ham - Wikipedia
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,414
Benin City, Nigeria
#53
The sons of Canaan ARE the sons of Ham.
Upon re-reading the post I'm starting to wonder if you had actually read the book of Genesis in the Old Testament before commenting. Were you really unaware that Ham is stated to have had other sons besides Canaan? Because unless you actually think Canaan was Ham's only son (which is incorrect) this comment makes no sense as a response to my earlier comment.
 
Likes: Futurist

Viperlord

Ad Honorem
Aug 2010
8,062
VA
#56
frogsofwar said:
Its funny that a political issue settled 150 years ago still continues to garner fierce discussion.
There is an incredibly vast, diverse, and wide field of published scholarship on Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and Southern and American society, race, and politics over the past century and a half. I'd suggest reading some of it.

Apparently, we can't talk about slavery until all the neo-Progressive SJW's
"I, as the only rational-minded person present, demand objectivity!" screams someone who thinks accusing others of supporting social justice is a slur and is using it as such. A useful reminder that claims to neutrality, objectivity, and centrism, despite the virtues of those things, are often just a facade for claiming non-existent authority.

and refuses to approach things objectively, the other side keeps beating a dead horse.
How interesting that you think slavery apologists are not the ones guilty of lacking objectivity.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bboomer

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,865
Sydney
#57
In this discution ,
I take the angle that industrial workers fate in the North was abominable ,
to say that southern slaves had a better life is probably accurate
in the same way that being a prisoner during the Napoleonic time in Britain's hulks is better than being a gulag inmate
it's a distinction without a significance
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,593
Caribbean
#58
And did I say that Canaan's descendants are not descendants of Ham? No.[/QUOTEAnd I didn't say you said it.

You are being dishonest in pretending not to understand my correction to the erroneous and misinformed argument you put forward earlier and in trying to make it seem as if my argument was something else. Just stop where you're at now and don't dig a deeper hole for yourself on this argument. There is no point in responding simply for the sake of responding after all.
I understand your so-called "correction" and pointed out its logical fallacy. IMO, your argument went wrong, as soon as you narrowed the interpretations possibilities to two: your opinion and "myth."
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,414
Benin City, Nigeria
#59
I understand your so-called "correction" and pointed out its logical fallacy. IMO, your argument went wrong, as soon as you narrowed the interpretations possibilities to two: your opinion and "myth."
So basically you're just going to stay in denial. . .

There was no fallacy. Your argument was just incorrect.
 

Similar History Discussions