Band of Angels (Behold He Comes)
Monday, October 22, 2012 at 5:00AM 
One movie I remember watching, back in the day, was Band of Angels. I never forgot the painfulness of watching it. It was about a young southern belle in the pre-Civil War days who was shocked to discover she was black. Anything with Yvonne de Carlo was always of interest, but this movie also had Clark Gable. Here is how Wikipedia summarizes the plot:
Amantha Starr (Yvonne De Carlo) is the privileged daughter of a Kentucky plantation owner. However, after he dies, a shocking secret is revealed: 
These two movie posters show how this movie was marketed.unbeknownst to Amantha, her mother had been one of her father’s black slaves. Legally now property, she is taken by a slave trader to New Orleans to be sold. On the riverboat ride there, he makes it clear that he intends to sleep with her, but desists when she tries to hang herself; as a beautiful, cultured young woman who can pass for white, she is far too valuable to risk losing.
Amantha is put up for auction. When she is callously inspected by a coarse potential buyer, she is rescued from further humiliation by Hamish Bond (Clark Gable), who outbids the cad, paying an exorbitant price for her. Expecting the worst, Amantha is surprised to be treated as a lady, not a slave, by her new owner. At his city mansion, she meets his key slaves, his housekeeper (and former lover) Michele (Carolle Drake) and his conflicted right-hand-man Rau-Ru (Sidney Poitier). Rau-Ru is grateful for the kindness, education and trust Hamish has bestowed on him, but hates him anyway.
Of course this is Hollywood, so after a number of crises (apparently that is the plural of crisis), the two flee the South together. While this made an enjoyable, if possibly somewhat controversial, movie at the time, it does led to one obvious question. How common was this?
The short answer is to look at black Americans and the abundance of Caucasian features that are present.
I have heard many times about the greatness of the American Constitution. To some degree I agree. However it was based on a faulty foundation, that of slavery. Having a country that was 1/2 slave holding and 1/2 non-slave holding was not a situation that could continue indefinitely. When you build a building, it is only as good as the foundation. The flaw in the American foundation was not solved until the Civil War—you might say it is still unsolved.
I remember reading as a youth how our Founding Fathers were against slavery and loved their slaves. Maybe they loved their slaves, but not in the exact way I thought then.
As in President Thomas Jefferson’s household, the use of lighter-skinned slaves as household servants was not simply a choice related to skin color. Sometimes planters used mixed-race slaves as house servants or favored artisans because they were their own children or other relatives. Six of Jefferson’s later household slaves were the grown children of his father-in-law John Wayles and his slave mistress Betty Hemings. Half-siblings to Jefferson’s wife Martha, they were inherited by her along with Betty Hemings and other slaves a year after her marriage to Jefferson, after the death of her father. At that time, some of the Hemings-Wayles children were very young; Sally Hemings was an infant. They were trained as domestic and skilled servants and occupied the top of the slave hierarchy at Monticello.
Since 2000, historians have widely accepted that the widower Jefferson had a nearly four-decade relationship with Sally Hemings, the youngest daughter of Wayles and Betty. It was believed to have begun when he was US minister in Paris and she was part of his household. Sally was nearly 25 years younger than his late wife, and Jefferson had six children of record with her, four of whom survived. Jefferson had his three mixed-race “natural” sons by Hemings trained as carpenters, a highly skilled occupation, to enable them to make a living after he freed them when they came of age. Three of his four children by Sally Hemings, including his daughter Harriet, the only slave woman he freed, “passed” into white society as adults, according to their appearance.
While paternity of a child born over 200 years ago is not something that can be settled today, modern DNA tests have determined that at least one of Sally Heming’s children was a descendant of a Jefferson male. This is not in dispute. But the father could have been Jefferson’s brother, or his brother’s sons. There were in fact 8 different Jefferson males that could have been the father that lived within 20 miles.
Here is how Wikipedia describes the controversy:
Jefferson's Grandson In response to a PBS Frontline special on the DNA study in 2000, John H. Works, Jr., a Jefferson descendant and a past president of the Monticello Association, a lineage society, wrote that DNA tests indicated that any one of eight Jeffersons could have been the father of Eston. The team had concluded that Jefferson’s paternity was the simplest explanation and consistent with historic evidence, but the DNA study could not identify Thomas Jefferson exclusively of other Jefferson males because no sample of his DNA was available.
I agree. Jefferson was probably the father of Sally’s children, with the possible exception of her eldest. Remember that Sally had no real choice in the matter.
This post is a continuation of the series about sexual immorality and war. In this case there was no war involved until the Civil War. Such liaisons were relatively common in the South. It was built into the custom and society of the time. George Washington was likely involved in this kind of situation as well. Yes, the reason so many recently emancipated blacks chose the names “Jefferson” or “Washington” was to honor the forefathers—but some many have had a more direct claim to the surname.
A Gettysberg AddressSo why am I writing about this?
My main point in this series is that “what goes around, comes around.” Keeping generations of black women as sexual playthings, and then keeping the children as slaves was a practice of generations of slaveowners. America still suffers the consequences of it.
Did God reach down and aid the Northern cause in the Civil War? Who knows? The Battle Hymn of the Republic is sung by many churches, and that song thinks that was the case. But the very existence of slavery was one of the reasons the South failed in its secession attempt. The South was unprepared to fight a heavily industrialized North. Fancy southern horsemanship and superior martial skills was not enough.
No one will ever know how many died as a result of the sin of slavery. The current estimates of 600,000 deaths during the Civil War are now being reevaluated with the estimate now at 750,000 dead. We will never know.
America today is just now finishing the recovery from the Vietnam War where only 50,000 died.
The sins of a culture build and build until the situation explodes. Two scriptures come to mind from this, the first being 1 Thessalonians 2:
14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last. (NIV)
Sins build up until the situation explodes. In the case Paul is talking about here, it was the Jewish leadership that Jesus fought with that were ultimately destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. In this case the Bible tells us that God was directly responsible for the punishment.
I also thought of a frequent scripture I quote from Revelation 18:4-8
Get out, my people, as fast as you can,
so you don’t get mixed up in her sins,
so you don’t get caught in her doom.
Her sins stink to high Heaven;
God has remembered every evil she’s done.
Give her back what she’s given,
double what she’s doubled in her works,
double the recipe in the cup she mixed;
Bring her flaunting and wild ways
to torment and tears.
Because she gloated, “I’m queen over all,
and no widow, never a tear on my face,”
In one day, disasters will crush her—
death, heartbreak, and famine—
Then she’ll be burned by fire, because God,
the Strong God who judges her,
has had enough.
Even if you were not a slave holder in the South (my family archives say they were slave owners until one of my ancestors became a Christian—the denomination—minister), if your society crumbles you suffer too. For the adage that I have been repeating, “What you sow is what you reap,” applies to cultures and nations too.
The inhabitants of the South could not escape the judgment, even if they were not personally responsible. In the same way today, Americans may not feel responsible for their collective actions through government. It does not matter, for what a country sows that it shall also reap.
Maybe I should change the name of my blog to “Flee from the Wrath To Come.” But, where does one flee to? Our flight has to be metaphorical today. Are you ready to flee?
War 
Reader Comments (6)
Well, you could flee to Canada. Our national debt is only about one-third of what the US's is per capita. We owe, through our federal government's many idiocies, about $600 billion. If you were to extrapolate that to what the US would owe if it were as "frugal" as our Canadian politicians, the US national debt would amount to about $6 trillion. (Just multiply by ten, as the US has ten times Canada's population.)
However, the US apparently owes about $15 trillion in national debt and it's still growing insanely. How you folks let things get so out of hand I simply can't understand! ;(
Actually the Canadian debt is higher as a percentage of GDP. http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/30/snapshot-of-canadians-finances/
I can never sort out this "% of GDP" sort of stuff. They can manipulate the numbers any way they want, as long as they know which acronym to use.
My point was the incredible debt the US federal government has accumulated per capita. How it got to be three times that of Canada's is something I would like someone to explain to me. We were flipping our collective lids over federal and provincial debt in the 1990s and the politicians took it seriously. In Alberta they practically tarred and feathered the sick and poor to pay things down.
From Henry Luis Gates Jr, Harvard professor (who happens to be black) and editor in chief of "The Root":
Gates sites and believes the best studies show that less than 4% of all African slaves shipped west ended up in North America. The rest ended up in much worse conditions in the Caribbean and Latin American countries.
My question is: Why would a judgment of God come upon North America and seem to not land upon the countries which ended up owning the 96%?
Below follows a quote from an article by Gates in a recent edition of The Root.
______________________________________________________________________________
"The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial "gold standard" in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000.That's right: a tiny percentage."
The difference between Jefferson and Washington is that Washington freed his slaves, Jefferson never did. See the recent article in the Smithsonian Magazine, The Dark Side of Thos Jefferson. It is enlightening, I think. The article was inspired when the author found a note Jefferson made about the percentage of increase in value due to owning slaves. It appears that principles gave way to greed.
My guess is that Jefferson's financial situation prevented him from freeing his slaves. They probably were collateral.