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

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,584
Caribbean
#61
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.
Asking all those questions is a shaky basis for concluding someone else "got it wrong." Also, are you referring to any particular southerner?

Here is an excerpt from a specific and IMO, significant southerner on the idea of white superiority, black inferiority, and what one might call Biblical predestination - while referring to the possibility of a curse..
"He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system....It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made one star to differ from another star in glory.
--Alexander Stephens, A Constitutional View, quoting his own Cornerstone Speech

To me, the key points are these. The Bible does not clarify what power Noah has in laying a curse, exactly which (grand and great-grand) sons such curse might or might not apply to, and how many generations it might last. It also does not provide text that is dispositive to this category of inference.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,408
Benin City, Nigeria
#62
I am looking forward to your demonstration of that.
You seem to not even comprehend what is written in the original source material so I doubt that I could demonstrate to you why your argument was incorrect to your satisfaction. Arguing with someone who is building up elaborate arguments without possessing even a rudimentary understanding of the original source is not a productive use of time.
 

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,601
Sector N after curfew
#63
Not to mention that after Sherman's lies didn't work, he just had his men open fire on the hordes of homeless ex-slaves following his army. Is that the kind of warm welcome they were fleeing into?

In reading through this thread I note that nobody questioned this incident, which is unknown to me. Can you cite a source?
 
Oct 2018
306
Adelaide south Australia
#64
Asking all those questions is a shaky basis for concluding someone else "got it wrong." Also, are you referring to any particular southerner?

My point is based on a mistake. For some reason, I formed the idea that Ham married a Cushite (black) woman. He didn't, it was Moses.

But, a simple idea. The Southern establishment, for want of a better term were either right or they were not. It has been my long held understanding that referring to slaves as' the Children of Ham' [because they were black] was a widespread practice in the antebellum South, used to provide biblical authority for slavery.

You're quite right, the bible does not mention skin colour. specifically. However, see below: (second refrerence)

First reference an article in the New York times
From Noah's Curse to Slavery's Rationale
By FELICIA R. LEENOV. 1, 2003
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • More
  • Save
As stories go, this one has all the elements of good soap opera: nudity, sex and dysfunctional families.
For many scholars, though, the enigmatic tale in Genesis 9 describing how Noah cursed the descendants of his son Ham with servitude remains a way to explore the complex origins of the concept of race: how and why did people begin to see themselves as racially divided?
In the biblical account, Noah and his family are not described in racial terms. But as the story echoed through the centuries and around the world, variously interpreted by Islamic, Christian and Jewish scholars, Ham came to be widely portrayed as black; blackness, servitude and the idea of racial hierarchy became inextricably linked.
By the 19th century, many historians agree, the belief that African-Americans were descendants of Ham was a primary justification for slavery among Southern Christians. (more)----

From Noah's Curse to Slavery's Rationale

00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Ham,[a] according to the Table of Nations in the Book of Genesis, was a son of Noah and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.[1][2]

Ham's descendants are interpreted by Flavius Josephus and others as having populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalm 78:51; 105:23,27; 106:22; 1 Chronicles 4:40.

Ham (son of Noah) - Wikipedia

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham
By Tony Evans | January 18, 2010
Because Ham was the father of black people, and because he and his descendants were cursed to be slaves because of his sin against Noah, some Christians said, "Africans and their descendants are destined to be servants, and should accept their status as slaves in fulfillment of biblical prophecy." (4)


Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
 

Viperlord

Ad Honorem
Aug 2010
8,062
VA
#65
In reading through this thread I note that nobody questioned this incident, which is unknown to me. Can you cite a source?
It's a distortion of the truth. Nobody on the Union side opened fire on any ex-slaves following the army during the March. During a river crossing however, Union commander Jefferson C. Davis (Yes that really was his name) removed his pontoon bridge and did not allow the slaves following the army to cross after them. They were then recaptured or killed by Confederate cavalry. Sherman didn't know about it beforehand, but had no problem with Davis' action because he was having trouble feeding his own army at that point. Davis was a viciously racist conservative Democrat, who had also murdered a fellow Union general named William Nelson earlier in the war.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,584
Caribbean
#66
Asking all those questions is a shaky basis for concluding someone else "got it wrong." Also, are you referring to any particular southerner?
My point is based on a mistake. For some reason, I formed the idea that Ham married a Cushite (black) woman. He didn't, it was Moses.
But, a simple idea. The Southern establishment, for want of a better term were either right or they were not. It has been my long held understanding that referring to slaves as' the Children of Ham' [because they were black] was a widespread practice in the antebellum South, used to provide biblical authority for slavery.
You're quite right, the bible does not mention skin colour. specifically. However, see below: (second refrerence)
It is hard to quantify whether Biblical justifications for slavery was a "widespread practice" or more of a common belief. The most (in)famous examples are probably Calhoun's "positive good" speech of 1837 and JH Hammond's "mudsills" speech in 1858. That's two speeches 20 years apart. I think of them as being more busy having their "honor" and "chivalry" offended, than producing volumes of philosophy.

The are several bases for inferring that the sons of Ham, were men of color. Some ever think pretty much all the Biblical men were of color.
"Being a son of Cush, Nimrod himself would be classified as a Cushite. According to both scripture and history, Cushites were known for their black skin."
Nimrod: The Grandson of Ham, The First World Leader, and The Builder of Babel
 
Oct 2018
306
Adelaide south Australia
#67
It's a distortion of the truth. Nobody on the Union side opened fire on any ex-slaves following the army during the March. During a river crossing however, Union commander Jefferson C. Davis (Yes that really was his name) removed his pontoon bridge and did not allow the slaves following the army to cross after them. They were then recaptured or killed by Confederate cavalry. Sherman didn't know about it beforehand, but had no problem with Davis' action because he was having trouble feeding his own army at that point. Davis was a viciously racist conservative Democrat, who had also murdered a fellow Union general named William Nelson earlier in the war.

So Jeff Davis killed Willie Nelson? :)

It is hard to quantify whether Biblical justifications for slavery was a "widespread practice" or more of a common belief. The most (in)famous examples are probably Calhoun's "positive good" speech of 1837 and JH Hammond's "mudsills" speech in 1858. That's two speeches 20 years apart. I think of them as being more busy having their "honor" and "chivalry" offended, than producing volumes of philosophy.


I won't quibble over semantics. It is my belief that it was a common belief. (as it remans today in some circles.) I also believe that common belief was used as a justification for slavery, just as I believe the 'the theft of self' argument was used on slaves to stop them running away. However can't prove the frequency of either practice. I may not therefore reasonably claim that either practice was 'widespread' or 'common'.
 
Likes: Viperlord

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,601
Sector N after curfew
#68
It's a distortion of the truth. Nobody on the Union side opened fire on any ex-slaves following the army during the March. During a river crossing however, Union commander Jefferson C. Davis (Yes that really was his name) removed his pontoon bridge and did not allow the slaves following the army to cross after them. They were then recaptured or killed by Confederate cavalry. Sherman didn't know about it beforehand, but had no problem with Davis' action because he was having trouble feeding his own army at that point. Davis was a viciously racist conservative Democrat, who had also murdered a fellow Union general named William Nelson earlier in the war.
I'd heard of the pontoon bridge incident--it's pretty well known to people who've spent time learning about the American Civil War. It's really not that close to what bb22 described though.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,584
Caribbean
#69
It is my belief that it was a common belief. (as it remans today in some circles.) I also believe that common belief was used as a justification for slavery, just as I believe the 'the theft of self' argument was used on slaves to stop them running away. However can't prove the frequency of either practice. I may not therefore reasonably claim that either practice was 'widespread' or 'common'.
I concur. I can add that there is a (high degree, IMO) of racial or tribal consciousness in the Bible, In Gen 11, Noah's son Shem, is father of the Shemites, or in modern spelling Semites, This includes in short order, Eber, from which we get the word Hebrews And a few verses later, in Genesis 14, Abram is a "Hebrew" as distinct from an Amorite, Also, there is acknowledgement that there will be slavery. In Gen 15, even though this line of Abram is ordained by God, he tells Abram that they will be made servants in an alien land.

And as I mentioned, predestination seems within the power of God and his prediction of Hebrew slavery is later fulfilled. And God makes nations rise and fall many times in the Old Testament. So, it is not a stretch at all for people who believe the book to believe that nations are where they are because that is where God wants them to be, or is willing to permit them to be, for a given time period. You can still find this in popular culture in the 1960's, in the movie, Magnificent Seven, when the bad guy says - If God did not want them shorn, he would not have made them sheep.

IMO, the preceding ideas were much more commonly discussed in ante-bellum US, as there was yet the rise of American literature, radio and TV. Of course, that said, you can look at my quote line. Man can rationalize anything.:)
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,500
#70
In reading through this thread I note that nobody questioned this incident, which is unknown to me. Can you cite a source?
That's not what happened. Sherman's forces took slave men between 18 and 40 into his forces. Others, mainly women followed behind. When they crossed a river, they blew up a pontoon bridge they built, leaving most of the followers on the other side. Some of the women swimmed accross the river to avoid being captured by the Confederate cavalry, and some drowned trying.
 

Similar History Discussions