It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It has also been said that the Southern army had surprisingly liberal attitudes toward blacks and mixed-race people serving in their ranks. There was no difference in pay, for example, unlike the North. It has also been remarked that if it weren't so, they would not have had an army. I think that means they needed the numbers. But what if they weren't white Southerners who had intermarried with Blacks? What if they were simply from North Africa, and had lost their gig selling slaves to Europe or South America, and decided to come here?
Ham meant ‘black,’ ‘dark,’ and ‘hot’ (Peterson, 43). If these etymological assumptions are correct it may indeed imply that the ancient Israelites saw a connection between black Africans and slavery.
Ham[a] (in Hebrew: חָם), according to the Table of Nations in the Book of Genesis, was the second son of Noah[1] and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.[2][3]
Ham's descendants are interpreted by 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.
In the Book of Genesis, the curse of Ham is described as a curse which was imposed upon Ham's son Canaan by the patriarch Noah. It occurs in the context of Noah's drunkenness and it is provoked by a shameful act that was perpetrated by Noah's son Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father".[1][2] The exact nature of Ham's transgression and the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned have been debated for over 2,000 years.[3]
The story's original purpose may have been to justify the biblical subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] or a land claim to a portion of New Kingdom of Egypt which ruled Canaan in the late Bronze Age.[5][6]
In later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews, Christians and Muslims as an explanation for black skin, as well as a justification for enslavement of black people.[7][8]
There allegedly were a few according to some historians but it was less than one percent of the enslaved and less than one percent of the Confederate army.
originally posted by: Shoshanna
a reply to: Solvedit
It has also been said that the Southern army had surprisingly liberal attitudes toward blacks and mixed-race people serving in their ranks. There was no difference in pay, for example, unlike the North. It has also been remarked that if it weren't so, they would not have had an army. I think that means they needed the numbers. But what if they weren't white Southerners who had intermarried with Blacks? What if they were simply from North Africa, and had lost their gig selling slaves to Europe or South America, and decided to come here?
I hate to be "that guy" but I kinda need a source for the claim that the confederacy allowed blacks or slaves to engage in combat whatsoever. From what I've known they were not allowed in combat or allowed to serve in the confederate military whatsoever. They were cooks and stuff and some got compensated some did not.
originally posted by: SolveditThat tends to prove they were there. It's possible their personnel also assisted in the international trade in African slaves.
People with Viking heritage could sometimes be hard to tell from people from North Africa.
The Vikings were probably part Berber.
They may actually have started from the navy of the Umayyad invasion of Gaul.
originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: Solvedit My family came from Turkey, where my dad's great uncle ruled in the Ottoman empire in the 1880s. He was not Turkish, nor Muslim. He was a Christian Armenian and was best friends with the Sultan.
originally posted by: Solvedit
More evidence suggesting that some of the people here may actually have been Ottoman or Barbary States slave traders until just before the Civil War.
Then they and anyone who had anything to do with the pirate or slave trading economy may have been asked to leave North Africa because the end of the foreign income from piracy or slave trading might have otherwise caused a famine.
I have heard it said that the Confederates wouldn't have had an army if they hadn't been permissive about persons of mixed race serving under equal terms as whites. What if some of them were actually persons from North Africa rather than part white, part African?