{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31302/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31302","id":"gutenberg_31302","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31302","summary":null,"tags":["Black race","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nbook was produced from scanned images of public domain\nmaterial from the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEGRO:\n\nWHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS?\n\nIS HE THE PROGENY OF HAM? IS HE A DESCENDANT OF ADAM AND EVE? HAS HE A\nSOUL? OR IS HE A BEAST IN GOD'S NOMENCLATURE? WHAT IS HIS STATUS AS\nFIXED BY GOD IN CREATION? WHAT IS HIS RELATION TO THE WHITE RACE?\n\nBY ARIEL.\n\n\"Truth, though sometimes slow in its power, is like itself, always\nconsistent; and like its AUTHOR, will always be triumphant.\n\nThe Bible is true.\"\n\nSECOND EDITION.\n\n\nCINCINNATI:\n\nPUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR.\n\n1867.\n\n(Copyright secured according to law.)\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEGRO.\n\n_What is his Ethnological Status? Is he the progeny of Ham? Is he a\ndescendant of Adam and Eve? Has he a Soul? or is he a Beast, in God's\nnomenclature? What is his Status as fixed by God in creation? What is\nhis relation to the White race?_\n\n\nThe intelligent will see at once, that the question of _slavery_, either\nright or wrong, is not involved in this caption for examination: nor is\nthat question discussed. The points are purely ethnological and\nBiblical, and are to be settled alone by the Bible and by concurrent\nhistory, and by facts existing outside of the Bible and of admitted\ntruth. We simply say in regard to ourself, in this day of partisan\nstrife, religious and political, that we take no part in any such party\nstrife, and that it is many years since we cast our last vote. This\nmuch, to prevent evil surmises.\n\nWith this understood independence of all parties, we begin by saying,\nthat the errors and mistakes, in understanding the true position of the\nnegro, as God intended it to be in his order of creation, are all\ntraceable to, and arise out of two assumptions. The learned men of the\npast and present age, the clergy and others have assumed as true:\n\n1. That the negro is a descendant of Ham, the youngest son of Noah. This\nis false and untrue.\n\n2. That the negro is a descendant of, or the progeny of, Adam and Eve.\nThis is also false and untrue.\n\nThese questions, or rather these assumptions, of the learned and\nunlearned world, are Biblical, and are to be settled by the Bible alone,\nwhether they be true or false, and by outside concurrent history--and of\nfacts known to exist, and admitted to be true by the intelligent, and as\nthey may serve to elucidate any statement or account given in the Bible.\n\nWe shall have frequent use of the term, \"logic of facts,\" and now\nexplain what we mean by it. It is this: If one sees another with a gun\nin his hands, and that he shoots a man and kills him, and the bullet is\nfound afterward in the dead man's body, that although we did not see the\nbullet put into the gun, yet we _know_ by this \"logic of facts,\" that\nit was in the gun. It is the strongest evidence of what is true, of any\ntestimony that can be offered.\n\nIt will be admitted by all, and contradicted by none, that we now have\nexisting on earth, two races of men, the _white_ and the _black_. We beg\nhere to remind our readers, that when they see the word men, or man,\n_italicised_, we do not use it as applying to Adam and his race. But we\nmay sometimes use these words in the general and accepted sense of them,\nbut it is only for the purpose of getting before the minds of our\nreaders, the propositions of the learned of this age, exactly as they\nwould wish them to be stated. We will now describe, ethnologically, the\nprominent characteristics and differences of these two races as we now\nfind them.\n\nThe white race have long, straight hair, high foreheads, high noses,\nthin lips, and white skins: the olive and sunburnt color, where the\nother characteristics are found, belong equally to the white race.\n\nThe negro or black race, are woolly or kinky-headed, low foreheads, flat\nnoses, thick-lipped, and have a black skin.\n\nThis description of the two races is (though not all their differences),\nfull enough for the fair discussion of their respective stations in\nGod's order of creation, and will be admitted to be just and true, as\nfar as it goes, by all candid and learned men. Therefore the reader will\nobserve, that when either of the terms, _white_, _black_ or _negro_, is\nused, referring to race, that we refer to the one or the other, as the\ncase may be, as is here set forth in describing the two races.\n\nIn God's nomenclature of the creation, his order stands thus: 1. Birds;\n2. Fowls; 3. Creeping things; 4. Cattle; 5. Beasts; 6. Adam and Eve. We\nshall use this, but without any _intended_ disparagement to any, as it\nis the _best_ and _highest authority_.\n\nBefore proceeding with the examination of the subjects involved in the\ncaption to this paper, we will for a moment, notice the prevailing\nerrors, now existing in all their strength, and held by the clergy, and\nmany learned men, to be true, which are: 1. Ham's name, which they\nallege, in Hebrew, means black; 2. The curse denounced against him, that\na servant of servants should he be unto his brethren; and that _this_\ncurse, was denounced against Ham, for the accidental seeing of his\nfather Noah naked--that this curse was to do so, and did change him, so\nthat instead of being long, straight-haired, high forehead, high nose,\nthin lips and white, as he then was, and like his brothers Shem and\nJapheth, he was from that day forth, to be kinky-headed, low forehead,\nthick lipped and black skinned; and that his _name_, and this _curse_,\neffected all this. And truly, to answer their assumptions, it must have\ndone so, or the case would not fit the negro, as we now find him. And\nthey adduce in proof, that Ham's name in Hebrew (tCHam), means _black_,\nthe present color of the negro, and that therefore Ham is the progenitor\nof the black race. They seem to forget, or rather, they ignore the fact,\nthat the Bible nowhere says, that such a curse, or that any curse\nwhatever, was denounced against Ham by his father Noah; but that this\ncurse, with whatever it carried with it, was hurled at Canaan, the\nyoungest son of Ham. But it is of little consequence, in the settlement\nof these great questions, _which_ was intended, whether Ham or his\nyoungest son Canaan. But if it be of any value in supporting their\ntheory, this meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew, in designating _his_ color\nto be black, and _black_ it must be, to answer the color of the negro,\nthen the names of Shem and Japheth should be of equal value, in\ndetermining _their_ color; for each of the brothers received their\nrespective names a hundred years or more before the flood, and were all\nthe children of the same father and same mother. Now, if Shem and\nJapheth's names do not describe their color (which they do not), upon\nwhat principles of logical philology or grammar, can Ham's _name_\ndetermine his color? How many of this day are there who are called,\nblack, white, brown, and olive, all of whom are white, and without the\nslightest suspicion, that the _name_ indicated the color of their\nrespective owners. Is it not strange, that intelligent and learned men,\nshould be compelled to rely on such puerilities, as arguments and truly\nsupporting such tremendous conclusions? But they say it was his name in\nconjunction with the curse, that made him and his descendants the negro\nwe now find on earth. It is an axiom in logic, that, that which is not\nin the constituent, can not be in the constituted. We have seen, that\nthe making of Ham a negro, is not _in_ the name, which is one of the\nconstituents, now let us see, if it is in the other constituent, the\n_curse_. Now the _curse_ and _name_ changed Ham, if their theory be\ntrue, from a white man, to a black negro. If the curse, were capable of\neffecting such results, it is to be found in the word _curse_, and not\nin the words, that a servant of servants should he be, as he and his\ndescendants could, as readily be servants, white as black, and he was\nalready white, and no necessity to make him black, to be a servant. If\n_this_ effect on _Ham_, is to be found in the word _curse_, it will then\nbe necessary, for the advocates of the assumption, to show, that such\nwere its _usual_ results, whenever that word was used; for unless such\nwere its common effects, when used by God himself, by men of God, by\npatriarchs and by prophets, then we ask, on what grounds, if any there\nbe, it is, that they assert, that _it did produce this_ effect, in _this\ninstance_, by Noah on Ham and his descendants? We do not question or\ndoubt, that Canaan, was denounced in the curse, pronounced by Noah, that\n_he_ should be a servant of servants; but whether Ham or Canaan _alone_\nis meant, is not material to the questions at issue, except in this\nview; but the advocates of such being its effect, must show, that such,\nat least was its effect previous to, and after Noah used it; and if they\nfail in this, that necessarily, this part of their argument is also a\ntotal failure. Let us look into the Bible. God cursed our first parents.\nDid this curse kink their hair, flatten their skulls, blacken their skin\nand flatten their nose? If it did, then Noah was sadly mistaken and\nthese gentlemen too, in supposing that it was Noah's curse, that\naccomplished all this, for it was already done for the whole race--and\nlong before, by God himself. God cursed the serpent. Did the curse\nproduce this effect on him? He cursed Cain--did it affect his skin, his\nhair, his forehead, his nose or his lips? These curses were all\npronounced by God himself and produced no such effects. But we proceed\nand take up the holy men of God, the patriarchs and prophets, and see\nwhat their curses produced. Did the curse of Jacob, produce this effect\non Simeon and Levi? did it produce this effect on the man who would make\na graven image? did it produce this effect on the man who would rebuild\nJericho? did it produce this effect on those, who maketh the blind to\nwander out of the way? did it produce this effect on those, who\nperverteth the judgment of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow?\n_Cum multis aliis._ It did not. But if it did produce this effect in\nthese cases, then when we read, that Christ died to redeem us from the\ncurse, are we to understand, that he died to redeem us from a kinky\nhead, flat nose, thick lips and a black skin? But such curses, never\nhaving produced _such_ effects, when pronounced by God, by patriarch, by\nprophet, or by any holy man of God before or since, then we inquire to\nknow, on what principles of interpretation, grammar or logic it is,\nthat it can so mean in this case of Noah? There are no words in the\ncurse, that express, or even _imply_ such effects. Then in the absence\nof all such effects, following such curses, and as they are narrated in\nthe Bible, whether pronounced by God or man; and there being nothing in\nthe language beside to sustain it, and if true, Ham's posterity must be\nshown now, as its truthful witnesses, from this, our day, back to the\nflood or to Ham; and which can not be done--and if this can not be done,\nthen all arguments and assertions, based on such assumptions, that Ham\nwas the father of the negro or black race, are false; and if false, then\nthe negro is in _no sense_, the descendant of Ham; and therefore, he\nmust have been in the ark, and as he was not one of Noah's family, that\nhe _must_ have entered it in some capacity, or relation to the other\nbeasts or cattle. For that he did enter the ark is plain from the fact,\nthat he is now here, and not of the family or progeny of Ham. And no one\nhas ever suspicioned either Shem or Japheth of being the father of the\nnegro; therefore he must have come out of the ark, and he could not come\nout, unless he had previously entered it; and if he entered it, that he\nmust have _existed_ before the flood, and that, too, just such negro as\nwe have now, and consequently not as a descendant of Adam and Eve; and\nif not the progeny of Adam and Eve, that he is inevitably a beast, and\n_as such_, entered the ark, though having the _form_ of man, and _man_\nhe is, being so _named_ by Adam. Such is the logic, and such are the\nconclusions to which their premises lead, if legitimately carried out;\nand by which it is plainly seen, that the position assumed by the\nlearned of the present and past ages--that the present negroes are the\ndescendants of Ham, and were _made so_ by his _name_, or by the _curse_\nof his father--is false in fact, and but an unwarranted assumption at\nbest. But while this conclusion is inevitable, it also reveals to us\nanother sad fact, that the good men of our own race (the white), though\nlearned and philanthropic, exhibit a weakness, alas! _too_ common in\nthis our day, that anything they wish to believe or think will be\npopular, that it is very easy to convert the greatest _improbabilities_\ninto the _best_ grounds of their _faith_. The word used by God, used by\npatriarch and by prophet, is the _same_ word used by Noah. If the word\nthus used by God, and by holy men, did not produce the effect as is\ncharged by these men, how can the _same_ word, when used by Noah, do it?\nAnd yet, on these assumptions, the faith of more than half the world\nseems to be now based. To expose these cobweb fabrics, called by _some_\nreason, on this subject, and _Christian_ philanthropy by others, in\nwhich are involved, such tremendous conclusions, for weal or for wo, of\nso large a portion of the biped creation, that we feel like apologizing\nto our readers, for answering such _learned_ ignorance, blindness or\nweakness. But the meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew is not _primarily_\nblack. Its primary meaning is: 1. Sunburnt; 2. swarthy; 3. dark; 4.\nblack--and its most _unusual_ meaning.\n\nHaving now disposed of these _fancies_, for they are nothing better, of\nthe effects of Ham's name, and Noah's curse, in making him a negro; and\nhaving examined them, for the purpose of allowing on what flimsy grounds\nthis mightiest of structures of air-built theories rests, and for _this_\npurpose _only_, as what we have said about them is not connected with,\nnor germain to the way we intend to pursue, in investigating the\nquestions forming the caption to this paper. But having now disposed of\nthem, we take up our own subject. The reader will bear in mind the\ndescription we have given respectively of the white and black races.\n\nThe first question to which we now invite attention is: Do the\ncharacteristics which we have given of the white race, belong equally,\nto all three of the sons of Noah--Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their\ndescendants? If they do, then the black race, belong to, and have since\nthe flood at least, belonged to another and totally different race of\n_men_.\n\nNow to our question: Do the characteristics, which we have given of the\nwhite race, belong equally to the three sons of Noah and their\ndescendants alike? We will begin with Noah himself first. The Bible says\nof Noah, that he was perfect in his generation. We will not stop to\ncriticise the Hebrew translated \"generation,\" for any English scholar on\nreading the verse in which it occurs, will see at once, that to make\nsense, it should have been _genealogy_. Then Noah was perfect in his\ngenealogy--he was a preacher of righteousness--he was the husband of one\nwife, who was also perfect in her genealogy; by this one wife, he had\nthree sons, all born about one hundred years before the flood, and all\nthree of them married, before the flood, to women who were perfect also\nin their genealogies. Ordinarily speaking, this little statement of\nfacts, undenied by all, and undeniable, would settle at least _this_\nquestion, that whatever the color of _one might_ be, the others would be\nthe same color--if one were black, all would be black--if one were\nwhite, all would be white. Out of this arises the question, what was the\ncolor of these three brothers--were they and their descendants black or\nwhite?\n\nWe will begin with Shem, so as to find his race _now_ on earth, to see\nif they are white or black. The Bible tells us where he went, and where\nhis descendants settled, and what countries they occupied, until the\ndays of our Saviour, who was of Shem's lineage after the flesh. From the\ndays of the Saviour down to the present day, we see the Jews, the\ndescendants of Shem, in every country, and see they belong to the white\nrace, which none will pretend to deny--that they were so before, and\nafter the flood, and have continued to be so to the present time, is\nunquestionably true. We know then, on Biblical authority, with\nmathematical certainty, that they are not negroes, either before, at,\nnor since the flood, but white.\n\nWe next take up Japheth. We know where he went, and what countries his\ndescendants peopled, with equal certainty and on equal authority--and\nall outside concurrent history, equally clearly prove, that Japheth's\ndescendants peopled Europe, whence they have spread over all the world.\nThat they too belong to the white race, is also unquestioned, nor\ndoubted by any that have eyes to see. That they were so before, and at\nthe flood, and not negroes then, nor since, is equally undoubted and\nindisputable. We have not taken the trouble of showing step by step,\nwhere those two brothers went, and what countries they peopled\n_seriatim_, because they are admitted by all, learned and unlearned, to\nbe and to have done just what is here stated in spreading over the\nworld. It was, therefore, unnecessary to incumber this paper, by proving\nthat which none disputes. This being so, then two of the three brothers,\nare known certainly, to be of the white race, and not of the negro,\neither before or after the flood.\n\nWe now take up the youngest brother, Ham. The evidence establishing the\nfact, that he too, and _his descendants_ belong to the white race, with\nlong, straight hair, high forehead, high noses and thin lips, is if\n_possible still stronger_, than that of either of his brothers; if\nindeed anything can, in human conception, be _stronger_ than that, which\nis of perfect strength, and if this is true, then Ham can not be the\nfather of the negro. As in the cases of the other two brothers, the\nBible tells us where Ham, and his descendants went, and what countries\nthey peopled, and where his race may be found at this day; and which\nlikewise, all contemporaneous history abundantly testifies, and shows\nthat they are of the white race, and were so before the flood, and from\nthe flood continued so, and yet continue so to the _present time_; and\nthat not one of them, is of the negro race of this day. We will, in\nestablishing the truths of the above declarations, take up two of Ham's\nsons and trace them and their descendants, from the flood to the present\ntime, and show what they were, and what they are down to this day. These\ntwo sons of Ham, whose posterity we propose to trace, and show that they\n_now_ belong to the white race, are Mizraim and Canaan, the second and\nthe youngest of his sons. The families of all of the sons can be traced\nfrom the flood to the present day, but we presume two are sufficient,\nand that they be white; and we have selected Canaan _intentionally_ and\nfor a purpose that will be seen hereafter. Canaan _was_ denounced by\nNoah, that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, and if it\nturns out, in this investigation, as we _know_ it will, that they belong\nto the _white race_, it will satisfactorily settle this question, that\nthe _curse_ of Noah did not make _him_ and his descendants the black\nnegro we now find on earth, much less Ham, who was not so cursed. The\nBible plainly tells us, that the country now called Egypt, was settled\nby Mizraim, the second son of Ham, and was peopled by his descendants;\nthat Mizraim, the second son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, gave his name\nto the country; that they called it the land of Mizraim, and by which\nname it is still known, to the present day, by the descendants of its\nancient inhabitants; that they built many magnificent cities on the\nNile--among them, the city of Thebes, one of the largest and most\nmagnificent in its architecture, and the grandeur of its monuments and\ntemples, the world ever saw. Its ruins at the present day, are of\nsurpassing magnificence and grandeur. The city was named Thebes, to\ncommemorate the Ark, that saved Noah, the grandfather of Mizraim, from\nthe flood; the name of the Ark in Hebrew, being _Theba_. Then we take it\nfor granted, all will admit, that what is now called Egypt, was settled\nby Mizraim, the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah. The Bible, and outside\nconcurrent history, abundantly prove that he and his descendants, held,\noccupied and ruled over Egypt, and continued in the possession and the\noccupancy of the country as such, until long after the Exodus of the\nHebrews, under Moses and Aaron; that Ham's descendants, through\n_Canaan_, in the persons of his sons Sidon and Heth, settled Sidon,\nTyre and Carthage. This will not be denied by any intelligent Biblical\nstudent or historian. Sidon itself was named after Canaan's oldest son.\n\nFrom Egypt in Africa, Mizraim's descendants passed over to Asia, and\nsettled India, whence they spread over that continent; that great\ncommerce sprung up between India, etc., and Egypt and connecting\ncountries, which was carried on by caravans; that Greece and Rome\nsubsequently, shared largely in this commerce, especially after the\nmarch of Alexander the Great to India, by the caravan route, three\nhundred and thirty-two years before our Saviour's birth. This commerce\nhas continued to our day. All these facts are undeniable, and will be\ndenied by none acquainted with the Bible and past history. These\ndescendants, of this maligned Ham, were at, and after the flood, and\ncontinue to be, _to this day_, of the white race, all having long,\nstraight hair, high foreheads, high noses and thin lips; that they are\nso, and as much so as the descendants of the other two brothers, and\npossessing all of the same general lineaments--lineaments that so long\nas the race shall exist, will be an eternal protest against their being\nof the negro race that we now have. But as we intend to show\nconclusively that Ham and his descendants were and are white, long,\nstraight hair, etc., from Noah to the present time, so _plainly_ and so\n_positively_ that no fair or candid man can have the least doubt of its\ntruth, we proceed to state: That we will now give the names of the\ncountry, now called Egypt, beginning with its first settlement by\nMizraim, in regular order down, to enable the Biblical and historical\nstudent to refer readily to the histories of the different epochs, to\ndetect any error, if we should make one, in tracing Ham's descendants,\ndown to the present day. In Hebrew it is called Mizraim, in Coptic and\nArabic (the former being now the name of its ancient or first\ninhabitants), it is called Misr or Mezr, being spelled in both these\nways by the Arabian and Coptic writers. In Syro-Chaldaic and Hellenic\nGreek it is called Aiguptos--and in Latin, AEgyptus. In many of the\nancient Egyptian and Coptic writings it is called _Chimi_, that is, the\nland of Ham, and is so called in the Bible, see Psalms cv, 23; cvi, 22,\nand other places. The ancient inhabitants now in Egypt, the Copts, are\ncalled the _posterity of Pharaoh_, by the Turks of the _present day_.\nThe ancient _Hyksos_, or shepherd kings (patriarchs) of the Hebrews, are\nsometimes confounded in ancient history, with the descendants of Ham,\nbeing of the same original stock. Egypt has not had a ruler of _its\nown_ since the battle of Actium, fought by Augustus Caesar, thirty years\nbefore our Saviour, as God by his prophet had foretold that their own\nkings would cease forever to reign over that country. After the battle\nof Actium, it became a Roman province, and since that time, it has been\nunder _foreign_ rule. It now is, and has been governed by the Turks\nsince 1517.\n\nIt appears (see Asiatic Miscel., p. 148, 4to), that Mizraim, the son of\nHam, and his sons (descendants), after settling Egypt, a portion went to\nAsia, which was settled by them, and that they gave their names to the\ndifferent parts of the country where they settled, and which they\n_retain yet_. The names of these sons of Mizraim as given in history are\nas follows: Hind, Sind, Zeng, Nuba, Kanaan, Kush, Kopt, Berber and\nHebesh, or Abash. From these children of Ham, we not only readily trace\nthe present names of the countries, but that of the people also to this\nday; that they founded the nations of the Indus, Hindoos, Nubians,\nKoptos, Zanzebar, Barbary, Abysinia, the present Turks, is unquestioned\nand undoubted, by any intelligent scholar. That they are the white race,\nwith long, straight hair, etc., is equally unquestionable, and are so\n_this day_, and as positively as that Shem and Japheth's descendants are\nnow white. They first commenced to settle on the Nile in Africa, they\nthen passed into Asia; and these two continents were principally settled\nby them. A portion of Europe (Turkey) is occupied by them--these, too,\nhave long, straight hair, etc.\n\nA portion of Ham's descendants, through Canaan's sons, Sidon and Heth,\nsettled Sidon, Tyre, and later, Carthage. Tyre became a great power, and\na city of much wealth and commerce, as we learn by the Bible and other\nhistory. Tyre was eventually overthrown, and her Queen and people fled.\nThey subsequently built the great city of Carthage, near to where Tunis,\nin Africa, is now situated. They were again overthrown and their city\ndestroyed by Scipio Africanus Secundus, after the battle of Zama. But,\nduring one of the sieges, the city being invested by the Romans, the\npeople became hard pressed for provisions, to supply which, they\nresolved on building some ships, to run the blockade for provisions. But\nafter their ships were built, they had no ropes to rig them, nor\nanything within the city to make them. In this dilemma, the ladies, the\nwomen of Carthage, to their eternal honor be it spoken, patriotically\nstepped forward, and tendered their hair, _their long_ and _beautiful\ntresses_, to make the much needed ropes, which was accepted, and a\nsupply of provisions obtained. Now _how many_, and what _sort_ of ropes\nwould the kinky-headed negro have furnished, had the inhabitants been\nnegroes? This noble act of the women of Carthage, is mentioned to their\nhonor, by Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman and Carthagenian\nwriters and historians; and yet, we have seen it stated, and stated by\nlearned modern writers, and who ought to have known better, that\nHannibal, Hamilcar, Asdrubal, etc., the great Carthagenian Generals,\nwere kinky-headed negroes--that Carthage itself, was a negro city. Why,\nthe annals of fame do not present such an array of great names, whether\nin arts and sciences, and all that serves to elevate and make man noble\non earth, or in the senate, or the field, by any other race of people,\nas will compare with those of Ham's descendants. These Carthagenians\nwere all long and straight haired people. After the fall of Carthage, in\nthe last Punic War, many of its people passed over subsequently into\nSpain, which they held and occupied for centuries, and are known in\nhistory as Saracens. A part of Spain, they held and occupied, until the\nreign of Ferdinand and Isabella, when they were expelled. These, too,\nhad long and straight hair, etc. But to return to that portion of Ham's\ndescendants through Mizraim. These settled Egypt, India, China, and most\nall of Oriental Asia, where they have _continued to live_, and where\n_they yet live_, and not one of them is a negro. They all have long,\nstraight hair, etc., peculiar _only_ to the white race. Not one negro\nbelongs to _their race_. That this is their history, none will deny.\n\nHam, the maligned and slandered Ham--Ham who is falsely charged as being\nthe father of the negro--Ham, the son of the white man Noah--this Ham,\nand his descendants, the long and straight haired race, it appears from\nhistory--from _unquestioned_ history--_governed_ and _ruled the world_\nfrom the earliest ages after the flood and for many centuries--and gave\nto it, all the arts and sciences, manufactures and commerce, geometry,\nastronomy, geography, architecture, letters, painting, music, etc.,\netc.--and that they thus governed the world, as it were, from the flood,\nuntil they came in contact with the Roman people, and then their power\nwas broken in a contest for the mastery of the world, at Carthage, one\nhundred and forty-seven years before A.D., and Carthage fell--but fell,\nnot for lack of talents in her people, not for lack of orators,\nstatesmen and generals of the most consummate abilities, but _because_\nGod had long before determined, that the Japhethic race should govern\nthe world; and the Roman people were Japheth's children. When Hannibal,\nthe most consummate general the world ever saw to his day, fought the\nbattle of Zama, he met a fate similar to that which befel another\nequally consummate commander at a later day, on the field of\nWaterloo--both became exiles. That Ham's talents, abilities, genius,\npower, grandeur, glory, should now be attempted to be _stolen_, and to\nbe stolen, not by the negro, for he has neither genius or capacity for\n_such_ a theft, but stolen by the learned men of this and the past ages,\nand thrust upon the negro, who has not capacity to understand, when,\nwhere, or how, he had ever performed such feats of legislation,\nstatesmanship, government, arts of war and in science. The negro has\nbeen upon the earth, coeval with the white race. We defy any historian,\nany learned man, to put his finger on the _history_, the _page_, or even\n_paragraph_ of history, showing he has ever done one of these things,\nthus done by the children of Ham; or that he has shown, in this long\nrange of time, a capacity for self-government, such as Ham, Shem and\nJapheth. If he has done _anything_ on earth, in _any age_ of the world,\nsince he has been here, as has been done by the three sons of Noah, in\narts and sciences, government, etc., it surely can be shown; and shown\nequally as clear and _unequivocally, when_ and _where he did it_, as\nthat of Shem, Ham and Japheth can. But such a showing can never be made;\nthat page of history has never yet been written that records it. On\nthese subjects, _his history_ is as blank as that of the horse or the\nbeaver. But we are not yet done with Ham's descendants. The great\nTurko-Tartar generals, Timour, Ghenghis Kahn and Tamerlane, the latter\ncalled in history, the scourge of God--the Saracenic general, the\ngallant, the daring, the chivalrous, the noble Saladin, he who led the\nPaynim forces of Mahomet, against the lion-hearted Richard, in the war\nof the Crusades, all, all these were children of Ham. Mahomet himself,\nthe founder of an empire, and the head of a new religion, made his\nkingdom of Ham's descendants, as _all Turks are_: and these all--have\nstraight, long hair, etc. Those who have read the various histories of\nthe crusades of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, know that the\nTurkish forces then, had long, straight hair, etc., and that it is so\nyet with their descendants none doubt--and these were children of Ham.\n\nIt will be seen now, how we have taken up one of Ham's sons; that we\nhave traced him and his descendants from the flood to Egypt, _where they\nare still_; that we have traced them across the continent of Africa into\nAsia, settling countries as they went; and to the countries still\nbearing their names, where they settled, and where they _are yet_; that\nwe have taken up another son, and traced him and his descendants to\nSidon, Tyre, Carthage, and Spain, and shown that they, too, _without\nexception_, were long, straight haired, high foreheads, high noses, thin\nlips, and belong to the white race. Not a kinky-headed negro among them.\nWe have shown that Ham's descendants have led and governed the world,\nfor twenty-three centuries after the flood to the battle of Actium; that\nthey gave it, also, the arts and sciences, manufactures and commerce,\netc., etc. There is one discovery, one dye, as old as Tyre itself, and\nyet eminently noted--the _Tyrian Purple_--consecrated exclusively to\nimperial use. Imperial purple is the synonym of a king, in ancient and\nmodern history; that we have found these children of the slandered Ham,\nand have traced them step by step, as it were, from country to country,\nfrom the days of the flood down to the present day; that _wherever_ we\nfound them, and _whenever_ found, in any day, of any century from Noah\ndown to this day, we have found them white, and of the _white race\nonly_. And we now challenge the production of a single history, or a\nsingle paragraph of history, showing _one_ nation--_one single nation_\nor _kingdom_--of kinky-headed, flat-nosed, thick-lipped and\nblack-skinned negroes, that made such discoveries in arts and sciences,\nbuilt such cities, had such rulers, kings, and legislators, such\ngenerals, such commerce, and such manufactures, as Mizraim's people on\nthe Nile, or as Ham's children in Tyre, in Carthage, in Spain, show that\nthey had--we defy its production. But we are not yet done with our\nproofs about Ham and his descendants being white.\n\nIt seems as if God, foreseeing the slander that would, in after ages, be\nput, or attempted to be put, on _his son Ham_, by ignorant or designing\nmen attempting to show that he was the progenitor of the negro race,\ndirected Mizraim, the second son of Ham, by an interposition of his\npower and providence, or by direct inspiration, to put away his dead, by\na process of embalming, the details of which, for the accomplishment of\nthe object, can be regarded as little, if anything, short of being\nmiraculous; and by which, we can _now_ look into the faces of the\nchildren of Mizraim, male and female, even at this day, in succeeding\ngenerations, and from the flood; and which _can not be done_ with the\nchildren of Shem and Japheth, about whose identity with the white race\nno controversy has ever existed. It was this fact that caused us to say,\nthat the testimony establishing Ham's identity, as belonging to the\nwhite race, was _stronger_, if possible, than that of either of his\nbrothers. God foreseeing, as we have said, this atrocious slander, that\nwould be put on Ham and his posterity, so directed Mizraim, and at once\ninspired his mind, that from the first, he appeared to be fully\nacquainted with all the necessary ingredients, and how to use them, and\nin what proportions, and how many days were to be consumed to perfect\nthe corpse, that it would be incorruptible, and thereby become and be\n_forever_ a testimony of God for Ham, that should speak to the eyes and\nsenses of all men, in after ages, and proclaiming as they do, to this\nday, and from the very time of the flood, and _through each successive\ngeneration from the flood_, that their ancestor, Ham, and they, his\ndescendants, were like the children of the other brothers, their equal,\nin all the lineaments that stamp the race of Adam with the image and\nlikeness of the Almighty, and belonging to the white race. That these\nmummied witnesses of Ham, his dead children, speaking from the tombs of\nages for their father, and proclaiming from the days of the flood as\nthey do, by each succeeding generation of his buried ones, down to the\npresent day, and protesting by their long, straight hair, by their high\nforeheads, by their high noses, and by their thin lips, now hushed in\nsilence forever, that the slander, that their father was the progenitor\nof the negro, was a _slander most foul_--a slander most _infamous_. Well\nmight their indignant bodies be so aroused--well might Ham's children,\nwho have been slumbering for centuries, be so electrified by these foul\naspersions, as to burst their sarcophagii, and tear the cerements of the\ngrave, and this foul calumny, from their faces at one and the same time\nand forever. It looks as if God _intended_, by this overruling or\ninspiring of Mizraim, so to embalm his dead, to teach _us_ a lesson,\nthat there was an _importance_, in being of the white race, _to be\nattached to it_, of grander proportions, and of nobler value, than any\nearthly, filial or paternal affections that could be symbolized by it.\nMillions of these mummied bodies have been exhumed this century, but\n_not one_ negro has been found among them. What does this teach? What\nvalue do you place on this testimony prepared and ordained by God\nhimself, as _his testimony to the worth_ of the _white race_? The\nwriter of this has seen many of these mummies, but never a negro. He has\nassisted in unrolling some, and all had straight, long hair. It was his\nfortune, as it happened, to assist in unrolling the body of one\npossessing peculiar interest. From the hieroglyphic inscription on the\nsarcophagus, it proved to be the body of a young lady, who died in her\nseventeenth year, that she was the daughter of the High Priest of On\n(the temple of On was situated six miles northeast from the present\nCairo), and that she was an attendant of the princesses of the court of\nKing Thothmes 3d. This king is recognized and believed to be that\nPharaoh under whom Moses and Aaron brought out the children of Israel\nfrom Egypt. This mummy we assisted in unrolling. The inner wrapping next\nto the skin was of what we now call _fine linen cambric_. When this was\nremoved, the hair on the head looked as though it had but recently been\ndone up. It was in hundreds of very small plaits, three-ply, and each\nfrom a yard to a yard and a quarter long; and although she had then been\nburied 3,338 years, her hair had the _apparent_ freshness as if she had\nbeen dead only a few days or weeks. The face, ears, neck and bosom were\nguilded; and so were her hands to above the wrists, and her feet to\nabove the ankles. Such had been the perfect manner of her embalmment,\nthat the flesh retained its roundness and fullness remarkably, with fine\nteeth, beautiful mouth, and every mark by which we could, at this day,\nrecognize her as a beautiful lady of the white race. Without\ndisparagement to our fair country-women, we can say, that a more\nbeautiful hand, foot and ankle, we never beheld.\n\nNow, what have we proven by this recitement of Bible history--of that of\ncontemporaneous and concurrent history outside of the Bible--of facts,\nfacts now existing in the mummied remains of Ham's descendants,\ncommencing with Mizraim and coming down through centuries since the\nflood--of the _yet living nations_, comprised _unquestionably_ of his\ndescendants, and who, like the descendants of Shem and Japheth, have the\ndistinctive marks of the white race _alone_, and as clear as either Shem\nor Japheth, and that, too, as they _exist now on earth_, and running\nback as such from this our day to Noah; and as _distinct_ from the negro\nrace as that race is now distinct from the children of Japheth? Of that\nmiraculous intervention of divine power, in causing Mizraim so to embalm\nhis children, that they should speak from the grave, in attestation of\ntheir being of the white, and not of the negro, race. Why did God\nrequire that _only_ the children of Ham should be embalmed, of all then\non earth? No other nation, as such, then or _since_, embalmed their\ndead. Why was it, that the children of Ham alone did this? Except but\nfor the reason that God, foreseeing the disputes to arise about the\nnegro, and that Ham would be slandered and held to be the progenitor of\nthe negro; that, therefore, in vindication of him, as belonging to the\nwhite race, and as an _immortal_ being, and not of the beasts that\nperish, God caused these descendants of Ham to embalm their dead, and to\n_continue_ doing so for many centuries. No other valid reason can be\nassigned, why these people of Mizraim, _alone_ of all the nations of the\nearth, did so. There may have been, and doubtless there were, many\nreasons with the people, of a private and personal character, inciting\nthem to do so; but _this_ was _God's reason_, and he chose these\npersonal considerations of the people, as _his_ means of accomplishing\nit.\n\nWe have shown conclusively: 1. That Ham's descendants now on earth, in\nEgypt, in India, all over Asia, a portion of Africa and Europe\nrespectively, have, _this day_, long, straight hair, high foreheads,\nhigh noses and thin lips--that they have ever _been_ so; this, all\nhistory in the Bible, and all history outside of the Bible, fully\nattest. 2. While, on the other hand, all history tells us (when it says\nanything about them), that the negro race is kinky-headed, low forehead,\nflat nose, thick lip and black skin; that he has _always_ been so, and\nthe negro of this day attests that he is so yet; and that, consequently,\nhe is in _no way_ related to Ham, even by a _curse_, for he is black,\nand Ham is white. 3. That the descendants of Shem and Japheth are white,\nand have always been white, none dispute. 4. That, having established,\nthen, that Shem, Ham and Japheth were perfect in their genealogies from\nAdam and Eve; that they were the children of one father and one mother;\nthat they were born about a hundred years before the flood; that their\nwives, like themselves, were perfect in their genealogies; that these\nbrothers and their descendants, as regards their genealogy, were the\nperfect equals of each other; that the curse of Noah, even if directed\nagainst Ham, and which it is not, that it is _impossible_ that that\ncurse could, in any way, make him the father or progenitor of the\npresent negroes--as no curse denounced by God himself, by patriarch or\nby prophet, had ever done so before or since, and there is nothing in\nthe language used by Noah that covers that idea; that, on the contrary,\nthe _exact word_ used by Noah, had been before used by God and by\npatriarchs, without the slightest suspicion being excited that such was\nits effect on the person so cursed; that it was not found in Ham's name,\nand that the effort to connect the color of the negro with the meaning\nof Ham's name in Hebrew, is a mere _fancy_, not of the strength even of\na cobweb. Now, reader, are these things true? Look into your Bible--look\ninto contemporaneous and concurrent history--look at existing facts\noutside of the Bible, and running from the flood down to the present\nday, and hear the prophet of God defiantly ask, Can the Ethiopian change\nhis skin, or the leopard his spots?--both beasts; and when you have so\nlooked, you will say, _true_, every word, _indubitably_ true! Then,\nwhat? One word more, before we proceed further. The embalming of Ham's\ndead and the Jewish genealogical tables _ceased_ at about the same time,\nand by God's interposing power. Each were permitted by God to continue\nas _national records_--the one to show the genealogy of Jesus of\nNazareth to be the Messiah, the other to show that Ham was _white_, and\n_not_ the progenitor of the negro; and each having accomplished the end\ndesigned, God permitted them to cease, and both ceased about the same\ntime. Is not this embalming, then, in effect, the direct testimony of\nGod himself, that Ham and his children were of the white race, and that\nthere is an _importance in being of the white race_, and which we will\nsee by and by, and beyond any appreciation ever given to it heretofore?\nAnd is it not equally God's testimony, _ipso facto_, that the negro race\nhave always existed as we have it now, and as have those of the three\nbrothers equally always existed, and as we have _them_ now?\n\nBut, reader, suppose we admit, for the sake of the argument, that Ham\nwas black, and that he was made so by the curse of his father Noah--we\nsay, suppose we were to admit this, then what follows? Ham would have\nbeen just _such a negro_ as we now find on earth--admitted; but then he\nwould have been the _only_ negro on earth. Where was his negro wife to\nbe had? He could not propagate the negro race, by a cross with the white\nwoman; for that would have produced a _mulatto_, and not the negro, such\nas we now have. To propagate the negro that we now have on earth, the\n_man_ and the _woman_ must both be negroes. Now, where did Ham's negro\nwife come from? She did not come out of the ark? She was not on earth?\nDo we not see clearly from this statement of facts, that the assumption\nof the learned world, even admitting it, destroys itself the moment\nthat we bring it to the test of facts. Under _no_ view of their\n_assumptions_ can the negro we now have on earth be accounted for.\n\nThese things being so, now what? We proceed with our subject. It being\nshown to be incontestibly true, that the three brothers, Shem, Ham and\nJapheth, when they came out of the ark, were _each_ of the white race,\nand that they have continued so to the _present day_ in their\nposterity--this is incontestible, and being true, it settles _the\nquestion, that Ham is not the progenitor of the negro_, and we must now\nlook to some other quarter for the negro's origin. As the negro is not\nthe progeny of Ham, as has been demonstrated, and knowing that he is of\nneither family of Shem or Japheth, who are white, straight haired, etc.,\nand the negro we have now on earth, is kinky-headed and black, by this\nlogic of facts we _know, that he came out of the ark_, and is a totally\ndifferent race of men from the three brothers. How did he get in there,\nand in what station or capacity? We answer, that he went into the ark by\n_command of God_; and as he was neither Noah, nor one of his sons, all\nof whom were white, then, by the logic of facts, _he could only enter it\nas a beast, and along with the beasts_. This logic of _facts_ will not\nallow this position to be questioned. But we will state it in another\nway equally true, from which the same result must necessarily follow,\nthat the negro entered the ark _only as a beast_. All candid or uncandid\nmen will admit that the negro of the _present day_, have kinky heads,\nflat nose, thick lip and black skin, and which we have shown is _not_\ntrue of either Shem, Ham or Japheth's progeny of _this day_, and\nconsequently _it is impossible_ that either of them could be, or could\nhave been, the progenitor of the negro, at or since the flood, for each\nrace exists now, the one white and the other black; and then, as it is\nimpossible to believe that the negro was created at or since the flood,\ntherefore, he must have been in the ark. This being so, now let us see\nwhat God said to Noah in proof of this position. He told Noah that he\nintended to destroy the world by a flood, but that he intended to save\nhim and his wife, and his three sons and their wives. These were all God\nintended to _save_, for _they_ had _souls_ and _beasts have not_. God\ntold him he must prepare an ark, into which besides his family, he must\nalso take of _every beast_ after his kind, and all cattle after their\nkind, and of every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth, and every\nfowl after his kind, and every bird after his sort, and food for their\nsupport. Thus did Noah, and thus by God's command he entered the Ark\nwith his family. God promised Noah to _save_ him and his family--but God\ndid not promise to _save_ the _beasts_, etc., although he preserved them\nin the ark; but, _besides this preservation_, Noah and his family were\nto be _saved_--why, we will see presently. Then, Ham, not being the\nfather of the negro, the negro must have come out of the ark with the\nbeasts, and _as one_, for he was _not one of Noah's family_ that entered\nit. This is inevitable, and can not be shaken by all the reasonings of\nmen on earth to the contrary. Now, unless it can be shown that, from\nNoah back to Adam and Eve, that in some way this kinky-headed and\nblack-skinned negro is the progeny of Adam and Eve, and which we know\ncan not be done, then _again_ it follows, indubitably, that the negro is\nnot a _human_ being--not being of Adam's race. This point we will now\nexamine and settle, and then account for the negro being here.\n\nNoah was the tenth in generation from Adam and Eve. We have before shown\nthat the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, at this day, are\nwhite--have been so from the flood, with long, straight hair, etc. This\nfact establishes another fact, viz: that Noah was also white, with long,\nstraight hair, etc. The Bible tells us that Noah was perfect in his\ngenealogy, and the tenth in descent from Adam and Eve; that,\nconsequently, Adam and Eve were white--with long, straight hair, high\nforeheads, high noses and thin lips. Our Saviour was also white, and his\ngenealogy is traced, family by family, back to Adam and Eve--which\n_again_ establishes the fact that Adam and Eve were white. We have also\nshown that the negro did not descend from either of the sons of Noah.\nThat he is now here on earth, none will deny; and being here now, this\nlogic of facts proves that he was in the ark, and came out of the ark\nafter the flood; and that it indubitably follows, from the necessities\nof the case, that he entered the ark as a _beast_, and _only_ as a\nbeast. Now, it is very plain, from this statement, that as he came out\nof the Ark, the negro, _as we now know him_, existed anterior to the\nflood, and _just such a negro as we have now_, with his kinky head, flat\nnose, black skin, etc.; and that, Noah and his wife being white, and\nperfect in their genealogy, it establishes that Adam and Eve were white;\nand no _mesalliance_ having taken place from Adam to Noah, by which the\nnegro could be produced, that, therefore, as neither of the sons of\nNoah, nor Noah himself, nor Adam and Eve, ever could by any possibility\nbe, either of them, the progenitor of the negro, that, therefore, it\nfollows, from this logic of facts, that the negro is a _separate_ and\n_distinct_ species of the _genus homo_ from Adam and Eve, and being\ndistinct from them, that it _unquestionably_ follows that _the negro was\ncreated before Adam and Eve_. Created before them? Yes. How do we know\nthis? Because the Bible plainly tells us that Adam and Eve were the last\nbeings of God's creation on earth, and being _the last_, that the negro\nmust have existed before they were created; for he is here now, and not\nbeing their offspring, it follows, from this logic of facts, that he was\non the earth before them, and if on the earth before Adam, that he is\ninevitably a beast, and as a beast, entered the ark. Let us recapitulate\nour points. We have shown that the assumption of the learned world, that\nHam is the progenitor of the negro, is a mistake, philanthropically and\ninnocently made, we have no doubt, but nevertheless a mistake, and a\nvery great one. As Ham is not the father of the negro, and no one\nasserts that either Shem or Japheth is, then the negro belongs to\nanother race of people, and that he came out of the ark, is a\ndemonstrated fact; and not being of Noah's family, who are white, and\nAdam and Eve being likewise white, therefore, _they_ could not be the\nprogenitors of the negro; and as neither the _name_ or _curse_ did make\nHam a negro, or the father of negroes (and this covers the space of time\nfrom now back to the flood and to Noah), and no _mesalliance_ ever\nhaving taken place from the flood or Noah, back to Adam and Eve, by\nwhich the negro can be accounted for, and Adam and Eve being white, that\nthey could never be the father or mother of the kinky-headed, low\nforehead, flat nose, thick lip and black-skinned negro; and as Adam and\nEve were the last beings created by God on earth, therefore, all beasts,\ncattle, etc., were consequently made _before_ Adam and Eve were created;\nand the negro being now here on earth, and not Adam's progeny, it\nfollows, beyond all the reasonings of men on earth to controvert, that\nhe was created _before_ Adam, and with the other beasts or cattle, and\nbeing created _before_ Adam, that, like all beasts and cattle, they have\nno souls. This can not be gainsaid, and being true, let us see if it is\nin philosophic harmony with God's order among animals in their creation.\nNot to be prolix on this point, we will take a few cases. We will begin\nwith the cat. The cat, as a genera of a species of animals, we trace in\nhis order of _creation_ through various grades--cougar, panther,\nleopard, tiger, up to the lion, improving in each gradation from the\nsmall cat up to the lion, a noble beast. Again, we take the ass, and we\ntrace through the intervening animals of the same species up to the\nhorse, another noble animal. Again, we take up the monkey, and trace him\nlikewise through his upward and advancing orders--baboon, ourang-outang\nand gorilla, up to the negro, another noble animal, the noblest of the\nbeast creation.\n\nThe difference between these higher orders of the monkey and the negro,\nis very slight, and consists mainly in this one thing: the negro can\nutter sounds that can be imitated; hence he could talk with Adam and\nEve, for they could imitate his sounds. This is the foundation of\nlanguage. The gorilla, ourang-outang, baboon, etc., have languages\npeculiar to themselves, and which they understand, because they can\nimitate each other's sounds. But man can not imitate them, and hence can\nnot converse with them. The negro's main superiority over them is, that\nhe utters sounds that could be imitated by Adam; hence, conversation\nensued between them. Again, the baboon is thickly clothed with hair, and\ngoes erect a _part_ of his time. Advancing still higher in the scale,\nthe ourang-outang is less thickly covered with hair, and goes erect most\naltogether. Still advancing higher in the scale, the gorilla has still\nless hair, and is of a black skin, and goes erect when moving about. A\nrecent traveler in Africa states that the gorilla frequently steals the\nnegro women and girls, and carry them off for wives. It is thus seen\nthat the gradation, from the monkey up to the negro, is in philosophical\njuxtaposition, in God's order of creation. The step from the negro to\nAdam, is still progressive, and consists of change of color, hair,\nforehead, nose, lips, etc., and _immortality_. That the negro existed on\nearth before Adam was created, is so positively plain from the preceding\nfacts, no intelligent, candid man can doubt; and that he so existed\nbefore Adam, and _as a man_ (for he was so _named_ by Adam), we now\nproceed to show.\n\nWe read in the Bible, and God said, let us make man _in_ our own image\nand after _our_ likeness; which is equivalent to saying, we have _man_\nalready, but _not in our_ image; for if the negro was already in God's\nimage, _God could not have said_, now let us make man _in_ our image.\nBut God did say, after he had created every thing else on earth _but\nAdam_, that he _then_ said, let us make man _in our_ image, and after\n_our likeness_, and let him, so created now, have dominion. God so\nformed _this_ man, out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his\nnostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul, and endowed\nwith immortality. Now, it is indisputably plain, and so shown from the\nBible in this paper, that _this_ BEING, thus created by God, had long,\nstraight hair, high forehead, high nose, thin lips, and white skin, and\nwhich the negro has not; and it is equally clearly shown that the negro\nis not the progeny of Adam. Therefore the negro must have existed before\nAdam. But another fact: Adam was to have _dominion_ over all the earth.\nThere must, of _necessity_, be an established boundary to that dominion,\nas betwixt God and himself, in order that Adam should rule only in his\nallotted dominion. In settling this domain, the Bible is full and exact.\nThat which was to be, and to continue under _God's_ dominion, rule and\ncontrol, God named himself. He called the light, day; the darkness he\ncalled night; the dry land he called earth; and the gathering together\nof the waters, he called seas; and the firmament he called heaven, etc.\nAnd what was to be under Adam's dominion, rule and control, Adam named\nhimself, but by God's direction and authority. But mark: _Adam did not\nname himself_--for no child ever names himself. But God named _him and\nhis race_, but he did not call or name him _man_ after he created him.\nAdam's dominion, starting _from_ himself, went _downward_ in the scale\nof creation; while God's dominion, starting _with_ Adam, went upward.\nGod, foreseeing that Adam would call the negro by the name _man_, when\nhe said, let us make man, therefore so used the term; for by such _name_\n\"man,\" the negro, was known by to the flood, but not _the_ man.\n\nWhenever Adam is personally spoken of in the Hebrew scriptures,\ninvariably his name has the prefix, _the_ man, to contradistinguish him\nfrom the negro, who is called _man_ simply, and was so _named_ by Adam.\nBy inattention to this distinction, made by God himself, the world is\nindebted for the confusion that exists regarding Adam and his race, and\nthe negro. Adam and his race were to be _under God's dominion, rule and\ngovernment_, and was, therefore, _named_ by God, \"and he called _their_\nname Adam,\" in reference to his _race_, and _the man_, to\ncontradistinguish _him_ from the negro, whom Adam named \"_man_.\" _But\nGod did not call Adam man after he created him_--he called their name\nAdam--while Adam named the negro _man_. But some may say, again, as many\nhave already said, that the negro might be the offspring of Adam by some\nother woman, or of Eve by some one other than Adam. Have such reasoners\nthought of the destruction, the _certain_ destruction, to their own\ntheory, this assumption would entail upon them? Can they not see that,\nin either case, by Adam or by Eve, the progeny would be a _mulatto_, and\nnot a kinky-headed, flat nose, black negro, and that we should be at as\nmuch loss as before, to account for the negro as we now have him on\nearth, as ever. And if such miscegenating and crossing continued, that\nnow we would have no _kinky heads_ nor _black skins_ among us. But this\namalgamation of the whites and blacks was never consummated until a\nlater day, and then we shall see what God thought of its practice. But\nwhile on this point, just here let us remark, that God in the creating\nof Adam, to be the head of creation, intended to distinguish, and did\ndistinguish, him with eminent grandeur and notableness in his creation,\nover and above everything else that had preceded it. But when creating\nthe negro and other beasts and animals, he made the male and\nfemale--each out of the ground. Not so with Adam and his female, for God\nexpressly tells us that he made Adam's wife out of himself, thus\nsecuring the _unity_ of immortality _in his race alone_, and hence he\ncalled _their_ name Adam, not _man_. The black _man_ was the _back\nground_ of the picture, to show the white man to the world, in his\ndominion over the earth, as the _darkness_ was the back ground of the\npicture of creation, before and over which light, _God's light_, should\nforever be seen.\n\nThe discussion and practice of the social and political equality of the\nwhite and black races, heretofore, have always carried along with them\ntheir kindred error of the equality of _rights_ of the _two_ sexes, in\nall things pertaining to human affairs and government. But both end in\ndestruction, _entire_ destruction and extermination, as we shall see in\nthe further prosecution of our subject, and as the Bible plainly\nteaches. The conclusion, then, that the negro which we now have on earth\nwas created _before_ Adam, is inevitable, from the logic of facts, and\nthe divine testimony of the Bible, and can not be resisted by all the\nreasonings of men on earth.\n\nHow is it that we say that the horse was created before Adam? The Bible\ndoes not tell us so in so many words, yet we _know_ that it is true. How\ndo we know it? Simply because we know that the Bible plainly tells us\nthat Adam and Eve were the last of God's creation on earth, and by the\nfact that we have the horse _now_, and know that he must have been\ncreated, and Adam being the last created, that, consequently, by this\nlogic of facts, we _know_ that the horse was made before Adam. The\nhorse has his distinctive characteristics, and by which he has been\nknown in all ages of the world, and he has been described in all\nlanguages by those characteristics, so as to be recognized in all ages\nof the world. His characteristics are not more distinct from some other\nanimals than that of the white race is distinct from that of the negro,\nor of the negro from the white. We can trace all the beasts, etc., now\non earth, back to the flood, and from the flood back to the creation of\nthe world, and just _such animals_ as we find them now. Why not the\nnegro? We know we can that of the white man. Then we ask, again, why not\nthe negro as readily as the white man or the horse? Has _any_ animal so\nchanged from their creation that we can not recognize them now?\nCertainly not. Then, why say that the negro has? Has God ever changed\nany beings from the _order_ in which he created them since he made the\nworld? Most certainly he has not. Has he ever intimated in any way that\nhe would do so? Certainly not. Has he created any beings since he made\nAdam? No. How, then, can any man _assert that he did make or change a\nwhite man_ into a black _negro_, and say not _one word_ about it? Such a\nposition is untenable, it is preposterous.\n\nBut, to go on with our subject: We read in the Bible that it came to\npass when _men_ began to multiply, etc., that the sons of God saw the\ndaughters of _men_, that they were fair, and they took themselves wives\nof all which they chose. A word or two of criticism before we proceed.\nIn this quotation the word _men_ is correctly translated from the\nHebrew, and as it applies to the negro, it is not in the original\napplied to Adam, for then it would be _the_ men, Adam and his race being\nso distinguished by God himself, when Adam was created. Again, the\n_daughters_ of _men_ were _fair_. The word _fair_ is not a correct\nrendering of the original, except as it covers simply the _idea_,\ncaptivating, enticing, seductive.\n\nWith this explanation we proceed, and in proceeding we will show these\ncriticisms to be just and proper.\n\nWho were these sons of God? Were they from heaven? If they were, then\ntheir morals were sadly out of order. Were they angels? Then it is very\nplain they never got back to heaven: nor are wicked angels ever sent to\nearth from heaven. And they are not on earth for the angels that sinned,\nare confined where there is certainly no water; and these were all\n_drowned_. And angels can not be drowned. Angels belong to heaven, and\nif they do anything wrong there, they are sent, not to earth, but\nto--tophet. They are not the sons of men from _below_, nor its angels;\nfor these could not be called sons of God. Who were they then? We\nanswer, without the fear of successful contradiction, that they were the\nsons of Adam and Eve, thus denominated by _pre-eminence_; and as they\ntruly were, the sons of God, to show the horrible _crime_ of their\ncriminal association with _beasts_. Immortal beings allying themselves\nwith the beasts of the earth. These daughters of _men_ were _negroes_,\nand these sons of God, were the children of Adam and Eve, as we shall\nsee presently, and beyond a shade of doubt.\n\nGod told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Then it is\nplain, God could have no objection to their taking themselves wives of\nwhom they chose, of their own race, in obeying this injunction; for they\ncould not do otherwise in obeying it. But God _did_ object to their\ntaking wives of _these daughters of men_. Then it is plain that these\ndaughters of _men_, whatever else they may have been, _could not be the\ndaughters_ of Adam and Eve; for, had they been, God would certainly not\nhave objected, as they would have been exactly fulfilling his command,\nto take them wives and multiply. But our Saviour settles these points\nbeyond any doubt, when he taught his disciples how to pray--to say, _Our\nFather_, who art in heaven. His disciples were white, and the lineal and\npure descendants of Adam and Eve. This being so, then, when he told such\nto say, \"Our Father, who art in heaven,\" equally and at the same time\ntold them that, as God was their father, _they were the sons of God_;\nand as God did object to the \"sons of God\" taking them wives of these\ndaughters of _men_, that it is _ipso facto_ God's testimony that these\ndaughters of _men_ were negroes, and _not his children_. This settles\nthe question that it was Adam's pure descendants who are here called the\n_sons of God_, and that these daughters of men were negroes.\n\nBy this logic of facts we see, then, who these sons of God were, and who\nthese daughters of _men_ were; and that the crime they were committing,\ncould not be, or ever will be, _propitiated_; for God neither _could_ or\n_would forgive it_, as we shall see. He determined to destroy them, and\nwith them the world, by a flood, and for the crime of _amalgamation_ or\n_miscegenation_ of _the white race_ with that of _the black--mere beasts\nof the earth_. We can now form an opinion of the awful nature of this\ncrime, in the _eyes of God_, when we know that he destroyed the world by\na flood, on account of its perpetration. But it is probable that we\nshould not, in this our day, have been so long in the dark in regard to\nthe sin, the _particular_ sin, that brought the flood upon the earth,\nhad not our translators rejected the rendering of some of the oldest\nmanuscripts--the Chaldean, Ethiopic, Arabic, _et al._--of the Jewish or\nHebrew scriptures, in which _that sin_ is plainly set forth; our\ntranslators believing it _impossible_ that brute beasts could corrupt\nthemselves with mankind, and then, not thinking, or regarding, that the\n_negro_ was the _very beast_ referred to. But even after this rejection,\nsuch were the number and authenticity of manuscripts in which that\n_idea_ was still presented, that they felt constrained to admit it,\ncovertly as it were, as may be seen on reading Gen. vi: 12-13, in our\ncommon version.\n\nIt will be admitted by all Biblical scholars, and doubted by none, that\nimmediately after the fall of Adam in the garden of Eden, God then\n(perhaps on the same day), instituted and ordained sacrifices and\nofferings, as the media through which Adam and his race should approach\nGod and call upon his name. That Adam did so--that Cain and Abel did so;\nand that Seth, through whom our Saviour descended after the flesh, did\nso, none can or will doubt, who believe in the Bible. Now, Seth's\nfirst-born son, Enos (Adam's first grandson), was born when Adam was two\nhundred and thirty-five years old. Upon the happening of the birth of\nthis grandson, the sacred historian fixes the time, the _particular\ntime_, immediately after the birth of Enos, as the period when a certain\nimportant matter _then first_ took place; that important event was: that\n\"_Then_ men _began_ to call on the name of the Lord,\" as translated in\nour Bible. Who are _these men_ that _then began_ to call on the Lord? It\nwas not Adam; it was not Cain; it was not Abel; it was not Seth; And\nthese were all the men that were of Adam's race that were upon the earth\nat that time, or that had been, up to the birth of Enos; and these had\nbeen calling on the name of the Lord ever since the fall in the garden.\nWho were they, then? What _men_ were they, then on earth, that _then\nbegan_ to call on the name of the Lord? There is but one answer between\nearth and skies, that can be given in truth to this question. This logic\nof facts, this logic of Bible facts, plainly tells us that these _men_\nwho _then began_ (A.M. 235) to call upon the name of the Lord, were\nnegroes--the _men_ so named by Adam when he named the other beasts and\ncattle. This can not be questioned. Any other view would make the Bible\nstatements false, and we know the Bible to be true. If our translators\n(indeed all translators whose works we have examined), had not had their\nminds confused by the _idea_ that all who are, in the Bible, called\n_men_ were _Adam's_ progeny; or had they recognized the simple fact,\nthat the term _man_ was the _name_ bestowed on the _negro_ by Adam, and\nthat this _name_ was never applied to Adam and his race till long after\nthe flood, they would have made a very different translation of this\nsentence from the original Hebrew. The logic of facts existing _before_\nand at the time the sacred historian said that \"Then _men_ began to\ncall,\" would, in conjunction with the original Hebrew text, have\ncompelled them to a different rendering from the one they adopted. But,\nbelieving as they did, that it was some of _Adam's race_, then called\n_men_, they stumbled on a translation that _not one_ of them has been\nsatisfied with since they made it. The propriety of this assertion in\nregard to antecedents _controlling_ the proper rendering, will be\nreadily admitted by all scholars. The rendering, therefore, of the exact\n_idea_ of the sacred historian, would be this: \"Then _men_ began to\nprofane the Lord by calling on his name.\" This is required by the\n_Hebrew_, and the antecedent facts certainly demand it; otherwise we\nwould falsify the Bible, as Adam and his sons had been calling on the\nLord ever since the fall; therefore, the men referred to, that then\n_began_ to call, could not be Adam, nor any of his sons. This logic of\nfacts compels us to say that it was the negro, created before Adam and\nby him _named man_, for there were no other _men_ on the earth. That the\ncalling was profane, is admitted by all of our ablest commentators and\nBiblical scholars, as may be seen by reference to their works. See Adam\nClark, _et al._ The Jews translate it thus: \"Then men began to profane\nthe name of the Lord.\"\n\nBut we have this singular expression in the Bible, occurring about the\nflood: That it repented the Lord that he had made _man_ on the earth,\nand that it _grieved him at his heart_. Now, it is clear that God could\nnot refer, in these expressions, to Adam as the man whom it repented and\ngrieved him that he had made; for Adam was a part of himself, and became\nso when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became\na living soul, immortal, and must exist, _ex consequentia_, as long as\nGod exists. God can not hate any part of himself, for that would be\nperfection hating perfection, and Adam did partake of the divine nature\nto some extent; and therefore the _man_ here referred to could not have\nbeen Adam's posterity; and must have been, from the same logic of facts,\nthe _man_, negro, the beast, called by God, _man before he created\nAdam_. Now, it must have been some awful crime, some terrible\ncorruption, that could and did cause God to repent, to be grieved at his\nheart, that he had made man. What was this crime? what this corruption?\nWas it moral crimes confined to Adam's race? Let us see. It was not the\neating of the forbidden fruit; for that had been done long before. It\nwas not murder; for Cain had murdered his brother. It was not\ndrunkenness; for Noah, though a preacher of righteousness, did get\ndrunk. It was not incest; for Lot, another preacher of righteousness,\ncommitted that. It was not that of one brother selling his own brother\nas a slave, to be taken to a strange land; for Joseph's brethren did\nthat, and lied about it, too. It was not--, but we may go through the\nwhole catalogue of moral sins and crimes of _human_ turpitude, and take\nthem up separately, and then compound them together, until the whole\ncatalogue of _human_ iniquity and infamy is exhausted, and then suppose\nthem all to be perpetrated every day by _Adam's race_, and as they have\nbeen _before_ and _since_ the flood, still we would have but one answer,\nand that answer would be, It _is none of these, nor all of them\ncombined_, that thus caused God to repent and be grieved at his heart,\nthat he had made _man_; but add one more--nay not _add_, but take one\ncrime alone and by itself--one _only_, and that crime Adam's children,\nthe sons of God, amalgamating, miscegenating, with the _negro--man--beast,\nwithout soul--without the endowment of immortality_, and you have the\nreason, _why_ God repented and drowned the world, because of its\ncommission. It is a crime, _in the sight of God_, that can not be\n_propitiated_ by any sacrifice, or by any oblation, and can not be\nforgiven by God--_never_ has been forgiven on earth, and never will be.\nDeath--death inexorable, is declared by God's judgments on the _world_\nand _on nations_; and he has declared death as its punishment by his\nlaw--death to both male and female, without pardon or reprieve, and\nbeyond the power of _any_ sacrifice to expiate.\n\nThat Adam was especially endowed by his Creator, and by him commissioned\nwith authority to rule and have dominion over everything created on\nearth, is unquestioned; that to mark the extent of his dominion,\neverything _named by him_ was included in his right to rule them. His\nwife was the _last thing_ named by him, and consequently under his\nrule, government and dominion. But a being called man existed before\nAdam was created, and was _named man_ by Adam, and was to be under his\nrule and dominion, as all other beasts and animals. But did God call\nAdam _man_, after he had created him? Most certainly he did not. This\nfact relieves us of all doubt as to _who_ was meant as the _men_ of\nwhose daughters the sons of God took their wives, independent of the\npreceding irrefragable proofs, that it was the negro; and the crime of\namalgamation thus committed, brought the flood upon the earth. There is\nno possibility of avoiding this conviction.\n\nBut this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cush was Ham's oldest\nson, and the father of Nimrod. It appears from the Bible, that this\nNimrod was not entirely cured, by the flood, of this antediluvian love\nfor and miscegenation with negroes. Nimrod was the first on earth who\nbegan to monopolize power and play the despot: its objects we will see\npresently. _Kingly power_ had its origin in love for and association\nwith the negro. Beware! Nimrod's hunting was not only of wild animals,\nbut also of _men_--the negro--to subdue them under his power and\ndominion; and for the purposes of rebellion against God, and in defiance\nof his power and judgment in destroying the world, and for the _same\nsin_. This view of Nimrod as a _mighty_ hunter, will be sustained, not\nonly by the facts narrated in our Bible, of what he did, but to the mind\nof every Hebrew scholar, it will appear doubly strong by the sense of\nthe original. We see that God, by his prophets, gives the name _hunter\nto all tyrants_, with manifest reference to Nimrod as its originator. In\nthe Latin Vulgate, Ezekiel xxxii: 30, plainly shows it. It was Nimrod\nthat directed and managed--ruled, if you please--the great multitude\nthat assembled on the Plain of Shinar. This multitude, thus assembled by\nhis arbitrary power, and other inducements, we shall see presently, were\nmostly _negroes_; and with them he undertook the building of the tower\nof Babel--a building vainly intended, by him and them, should reach\nheaven, and thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently\ndestroyed the earth; and for the _same sin_. Else why build such a\ntower? They knew the sin that had caused the flood, for Noah was yet\nliving; and unless they were again committing the _same_ offense, there\nwould be no necessity for such a tower. That the great multitude,\ngathered thus by Nimrod, were mostly negroes, appears from the facts\nstated in the Bible. God told Noah, after the flood, to subdue the\nearth \"for all beasts, cattle,\" etc., \"are delivered into thy hands.\"\nThe negro, as already shown, was put into the ark with the beasts, and\ncame out of it along with them, as one. If they went into the ark by\nsevens, as is probable they did, from being the head of the beasts,\ncattle, etc., then their populating power would be in proportion to the\nwhites--as seven is to three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod\n_must_ have resorted to them to get the multitude that he assembled on\nthe Plain of Shinar; for the Bible plainly tells us where the other\ndescendants of Noah's children went, including those of Nimrod's\n_immediate_ relations; and from the Bible account where they _did_ go\nto, it is evident _that they did not go with Nimrod_ to Shinar. This\nlogic of facts, therefore, proves that they were negroes, and explains\nwhy Nimrod is called the _mighty_ hunter before, or _against_ the Lord,\nas it should have been translated in this place. David stood _before_\nGoliah; but evidently _against him_. The whole tenor of the Bible\naccount shows these views to be correct, whether the negro entered the\nark by sevens or only a pair. For, when we read further, that they now\nwere all of one speech and one language, they proposed, besides the\ntower, to build them a city, where their power could be _concentrated_;\nand if this were accomplished, and they kept together, and acting in\n_concert_, under such a man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it\nwould be impossible for Noah's descendants to _subdue_ the earth, as God\nhad charged they should do. It was, therefore, to prevent this\n_concentration_ of power and numbers, that God confounded their\nlanguage, broke them into bands, overthrew their tower, stopped the\nbuilding of their city, and scattered or dispersed them over the earth.\n\nLet us now ask: Was not their tower an _intended_ offense to, and\ndefiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did God destroy it? Did\nGod ever, _before_ or _after_, destroy any _other_ tower of the many\nbuilt about this time, or in any subsequent age of the world, made by\nany _other_ people? No. Why did he not destroy the towers, obelisks and\npyramids, built by Mizraim and his descendants, on the banks of the\nNile? And why prevent _them_ from building a city, but for the purpose\nof destroying concentrated power, to the injury of Noah's children, and\ntheir _right_ from God to rule the earth? The Bible nowhere tells us\nwhere any of the beasts of earth went at any time: hence, the negro\nbeing one, it says not one word about where any of them went. But we are\nat no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro, we know\nfrom his habits, when unrestrained, never inhabits mountainous districts\nor countries; and, therefore, we readily find him in the level Plain of\nShinar. The whole facts narrated in the Bible, of what was _said_ and\n_done_, go to show that the positions here assumed, warrant the\ncorrectness of the conclusion that the main body of these people were\nnegroes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nimrod; that the\nlanguage used by them, why they would build them a tower, shows they\nwere daily practicing the _same sin_ that caused God to destroy the\nearth by a flood; and that, actuated by the fear of a similar fate,\nspringing from a _like cause_, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which\nshould reach heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the\nstopping of the building of _their_ city by God--all, all go to show\nwhat sort of people they were, and what sin it was that caused God to\ndeal with them so _totally_ different from his treatment of _any other_\npeople. The very language used by them, on the occasion, goes plainly to\nprove that those Babel-builders knew that they were _but beasts_, and\nknew what the effect of that sin would be, that was being committed\ndaily. They knew it was the very _nature_ of beasts to be scattered over\nthe earth, and that they had _no name_ (from God, as Adam had);\ntherefore they said, \"one to another, let us make brick, and let us\nbuild _us_ a _city_, and a _tower_ whose top may reach heaven; and let\nus make _us a name_ (as God gave us none), lest we be _scattered\nabroad_.\" _Name_, in the Hebrew scriptures, signified \"power, authority,\nrule,\" as may be readily seen by consulting the Bible. And God said:\n\"And _this_ they will begin to do, and nothing will _be restrained from\nthem_ which they have _imagined to do_; let us, therefore, confound\ntheir language, that they might not understand one another.\" This\nlanguage is _very peculiar_--used as it is by God--and there is more in\nit than appears on the surface, or to a superficial reader; but we will\nnot pause to consider it now. The confusion of language _was confined to\nthose there assembled_. Why should God object to _their_ building a\ncity, if they were the descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he\ndid object to _their_ building one. Did God object to Cain's building a\ncity?--although a fratricidal murderer. Did he object to Mizraim and his\ndescendants building those immense cities which they built on the Nile?\nNo. In short, did God ever object to any of the known descendants of\nAdam and Eve building a city, or as many as they might choose to build?\nNever. But, from some cause or other, God did object to those people\nbuilding _that_ city and _that_ tower. The objection could not be in\nregard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it was proposed to\nbuild them; for the great City of Babylon and with higher towers, too,\nwas afterward built on the same spot--_but by another people_--Shem's\ndescendants. Then, what could be the reason that could cause God to come\ndown from heaven to prevent _these_ people from building it? It must be\nsome great cause that would bring God down to overthrow and prevent it.\nHe allowed the people of Shem, afterward, to build the City of Babylon\nat the same place.\n\nReader, candid or uncandid, carefully read and reflect on the facts\ndescribed in this whole affair. Then remember that, on one other\noccasion, God came down from heaven; that he talked with Noah; that he\ntold him he was going to destroy the world; that he told him the reason\nwhy he intended to destroy it. Reader, do not the facts here detailed,\nof the objects and purposes of these people, and this _logic of facts_,\nforce our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, to\nthe conviction that _the sin_ of these people was the identical sin, and\nconsequent _corruption_ of the race, as that which caused the\ndestruction of the world by the flood; and that sin, the amalgamation or\nmiscegenation of Nimrod and his kindred with beasts--the daughters of\n_men_--negroes. But, this view of who it was that attempted the building\nof the tower and city of Babel, and their reasons for doing so, will be\nconfirmed by what is to follow.\n\nThe Bible informs us that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, settled\nCanaan; and that it was from him the land took its name, as did the land\nof Mizraim, Ham's second son take its name from him, of what is now\ncalled Egypt. It was against this Canaan (not Ham) that the curse of\nNoah was directed, that a servant of servants should he be to his\nbrethren. There is something of marked curiosity in the Bible account of\nthis Canaan and his family. The language is singular, and differs from\nthe Bible account of every other family in the Bible, where it proposes\nto give and does give the genealogy of any particular family. Why is\nthis, there must be some reason, and some valid reason too, or there\nwould be no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any\nother family? The account in the Bible reads thus--\"And Canaan begat\nSidon his first born, and Heth.\" So far so good. And why not continue on\ngiving the names of his other sons as in all other genealogies? But it\ndoes not read so. It reads, \"And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and\nHeth, _and the Jebusite_, and the _Amorite_, and the _Girgasite_, and\nthe _Hivite_, and the _Arkite_, and the _Sinite_, and the _Arvadite_,\nand the _Zemarite_ and the _Hamathite_, and who afterward were the\n_families_ of the _Canaanite_ spread abroad.\" With all _other_ families\nthe Divine Record goes on as this commenced, giving the names of all the\nsons. But in this family of Canaan, after naming the two sons Sidon and\nHeth (who settled Sidon, Tyre and Carthage, and were _white_ as is\nplainly shown) it breaks off abruptly to these _ites_. Why this suffix\nof _ite_ to _their_ names? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must\nbe some reason, a _peculiar_ reason for this departure from the usual\nmode or rule, of which _this_ is the only exception. What does _it\nmean_? The reason is plain. The progeny of the horse and ass species is\nnever _classed_ with either its father or mother, but is called a _mule_\nand represents neither. So the progeny of a son of God, a descendant of\nAdam and Eve with the negro a beast, is not classed with or called by\nthe name of either its father or mother, but is an _ite_, a\n\"_class_\"--\"_bonded class_,\" _not race_, God intending by _this\ndistinguishment_ to show to all future ages what will become of _all\nsuch ites_, by placing in bold relief before our eyes the _terrible end\nof these_ as we shall see presently. Reader, bear in mind the end of\nthese _ites_ when we come to narrate them. These _ites_, the progeny of\nCanaan and the negro, inhabited the land of Canaan; with other places,\nthey occupied what was then the beautiful plain and vale of Siddim,\nwhere they built the notorious cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and\nZeboim. Like all _counterfeits_, they were ambitious of appearing as the\ngenuine descendants of Adam, whose name they knew or had heard meant\n\"red and fair\" in Hebrew; they, therefore, called one of their cities\n_Admah_, to represent this \"red and fair\" man, and at the same time it\nshould mean in negro \"Ethiopic\" \"beautiful\"--that kind of beauty that\nonce seduced the sons of God, and brought the flood upon the earth.\nAbout the time we are now referring to, Abraham, a descendant of Shem\nwas sojourning in Canaan. He had a nephew named Lot who had located\nhimself in the vale of Siddim, and at this time was living in Sodom. One\nday three men were seen by Abraham passing his tent; it was summer time.\nAbraham ran to them and entreated that they should abide under the tree,\nwhile he would have refreshment prepared for them; they did so, and when\nabout to depart one of them said, \"shall we keep from Abraham that thing\nwhich I do (God come down again), seeing he shall surely become a great\nand mighty nation, _for I know he will command his children and\nhousehold_ after him, _and they shall keep the way of the Lord_;\" that\nis, keeping Adam's race pure--a mission the Jews are to this day\nfulfilling. And they told Abraham of the impending fate of these cities.\nAbraham interceded for them, and pleaded that the righteous should not\nbe destroyed with the wicked. God ultimately promised him, that if there\nwere ten righteous in all these cities that he would not destroy them.\nWhat strong foundation have we people of the United States in God's\nmercy and _forbearance_ in this incident? Will we prove worthy? The\nangels went to Sodom and brought out _all_ the righteous, being only Lot\nand his two daughters (and their righteousness was not in their\nmorality), his wife being turned into a pillar of salt. This done, God\nrained fire upon these cities and literally burnt up their inhabitants\nalive, and everything they had, and then sunk the very ground upon which\ntheir cities stood more than a thousand feet beneath, not the pure\nwaters of the deluge, but beneath the bitter, salt, and slimy waters of\nAsphaltites, wherein no living thing can exist. An awful judgment! But\nit was for the most awful crime that man can commit in the sight of God,\nof which the punishment _is on earth_. Exhaust the catalogue of human\ndepravity--name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpetrate, and\nwhich has been perpetrated on earth since the fall of Adam, and no such\njudgment of God on any people has ever before fallen, on their\ncommission. But one crime, one _other_ crime, and that crime the same\nfor which he had destroyed every living thing on earth, save what was in\nthe ark. But now he destroys by fire, not by water, but by fire, men,\nwomen and children, old and young, for the crime of miscegenating of\n_Adam's race with the negroes_. Noah was a preacher of righteousness to\nthe antediluvians, yet he got drunk after the flood. Lot too was a\npreacher of righteousness to the cities of the plain, and he too not\nonly got drunk but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of\nincest besides. Then we ask, what _righteousness_, what _kind_ of\nrighteousness was it that was thus preached by such men? We speak with\nentire reverence when we say that the logic of facts shows but little of\nmorality--but it does show, as it _was intended to be shown by God_,\nthat, though frail and sinful in a _moral sense_ as they were, yet,\nbeing _perfect_ in their genealogies from Adam and Eve, _they_ could\nstill be _his_ preachers of righteousness, they themselves being\n_right_ in keeping from beastly alliances.\n\nBut the Bible evidence to the truth of these views does not stop here.\nGod appeared unto Abraham at another time, while sojourning in the land\nof Canaan, and told him that all _that_ land he would give to him and to\nhis seed after him forever. But the land was already inhabited and owned\nby these _ites_. If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve,\nwould they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy it\nas Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If these _ites_ were God's\nchildren by Adam and Eve, it is impossible to suppose that God would\nturn one child out of house and land and give them to another, without\nright and without justice; and which he would be doing, were he to act\nso. Nay! but the Lord of the whole earth will do right. But God did make\nsuch a promise to Abraham, and he made it in righteousness, truth and\njustice. When the time came for Abraham's seed to enter upon it and to\npossess it, God sent Moses and Aaron to bring them up out of Egypt,\nwhere they had long been in bondage, and they did so. But now mark what\nfollows: God explicitly enjoins upon them, (1.) that they _shall not_\ntake, of the daughters of the land, wives for their sons; nor give their\ndaughters in marriage to them. Strange conflict of God with himself, if\nindeed these Canaanites were _his_ children! To multiply and replenish\nthe earth, is God's _command_ to Adam; but his command to Moses is, that\nIsrael, known to be the children of Adam, shall not take wives of these\nCanaanites for their sons--nor shall they give their daughters to them.\nWhy this conflict of the one great lawgiver, if these Canaanites were\nGod's children through Adam? It could not be to identify the Messiah,\nfor that required only the lineage of one family. But mark, (2.) \"But of\nthe _cities_ and _people_ of the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee\nfor an inheritance, thou shalt save alive _nothing that breathes_, but\nthou shalt _utterly destroy_ them, namely the Hittites, Canaanites,\"\netc., naming all the _ites_--this is their end. Why this terrible order\nof extermination given? and given by God himself? Will not the Lord of\nthe whole earth do right? Yes, verily. Then, we ask, what is that great\nand terrible reason for God ordering this entire extermination of these\n_ites_, if indeed they were his children and the pure descendants of\nAdam and Eve? What crimes had they committed, that had not been before\ncommitted by the pure descendants of Noah? What iniquity had the little\nchildren and nursing infants been guilty of, that such a terrible fate\nshould overwhelm them? There must have been some good cause for such\nentire destruction; for the Lord of the whole earth does right, and only\nright. Let us see how God deals with _Adam's_ children, _how bad soever\nthey may be, in a moral sense_, in contrast with this order to\nexterminate. The Bible tells us, that when the Hebrews approached the\nborder of Sier (which is in Canaan), God told them not to touch _that_\nland nor its people, for he had given it to Esau for a possession. Yet\nthis Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and he and his\npeople were idolaters, and treated the children of Israel with acts of\nhostility which some of these _ites_ had not. Again, they were not to\ntouch the land of Ammon, nor that of Moab, although _they_ were the\noffspring of incestuous intercourse, and were, with the people of Sier,\nas much given to idolatry and all other moral crimes, and as much so as\nany of these Canaanites whom God directed Moses to exterminate. Why\nexcept those, and doom these to extermination? Was not Canaan, the\nfather of these _ites_, a grandson of Noah, and as much related to the\nHebrews as were the children of Esau, Moab and Ammon? Certainly. Then,\ntheir destruction was not for want of kinship; nor was it because they\nwere idolaters more than these, or were greater _moral_ criminals in the\nsight of Heaven; but _simply because they were the progeny of\namalgamation or miscegenation between Canaan, a son of Adam and Eve_,\nand the negro; and were _neither_ man nor _beast_. For this crime God\nhad destroyed the world, sown confusion broad-cast at Babel, burnt up\nthe inhabitants of the vale of Siddim, and for it would now exterminate\nthe Canaanite. It is a crime that God has never forgiven, _never will\nforgive_, nor can it be propitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make\nor give. God has shown himself, in regard to it, _long-suffering and of_\ngreat forbearance. However much our minds may seek and desire to seek\nother reasons for this order of extermination of God, yet we look in\nvain, even to the Hebrews themselves, for reasons to be found, in their\nsuperior _moral_ conduct toward God; but we look in vain. The very\npeople for whom they were exterminated were, in their moral conduct and\nobedience to God, no better, save in that sin of amalgamation. The\nexterminator and the exterminated were bad, equally alike in every moral\nor religious sense--save one _thing_, and _one_ thing only--one had not\nbrutalized himself by amalgamating with negroes, the other had. This\nlogic of facts, forces our minds, compels our judgment, and presses all\nour reasoning faculties back, in spite of ourselves or our wishes, to\nthe conclusion that it was this one crime, and _one crime only_, that\nwas the originating cause of this terrible and inexorable fate of the\nCanaanite; being, as they were, the _corrupt_ seed of Canaan, God\ndestroyed them. For, if these Canaanites had been the full children of\nAdam and Eve, they would have been as much entitled to the land, under\nthe grant by God, of the whole earth, to Adam and his posterity, with\nthe right of dominion, and their right to it as perfect as that of\nAbraham could possibly be; but, being partly _beasts_ and partly\n_human_, God not only dispossessed them of it, but also ordered their\n_entire_ extermination, _for he had given no part of the earth to such\nbeings_. This judgment of God on these people has been harped upon by\nevery deistical and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to\nThomas Paine of the present age, but without understanding it. This\ncrime must be unspeakably great, when we read, as we do in the Bible,\nthat it caused God to repent and to be grieved at his heart that he had\nmade _man_. For, the debasing idolatry of the world, the murder of the\ngood and noble of earth, the forswearing of the apostle Peter in denying\nhis Lord and Saviour--all, all the crimsoned crimes of earth, or within\nthe power of man's infamy and turpitude to commit and blacken his\nsoul--are as nothing on earth, as compared with this. Death by the\nflood, death by the scorching fire of God burning alive the inhabitants\nof Sodom and Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds,\nremorseless, relentless and exterminating death--is the _just judgment_\nof an _all-merciful God, for this offense_. The seed of Adam, which is\nthe seed of God, must be kept pure; it _shall be kept pure, is the fiat\nof the Almighty_. Man perils his existence, nations peril their\nexistence and destruction, if they support, countenance, or permit it.\nSuch have been God's dealings with it heretofore, and such will be his\ndealings with it hereafter.\n\nBut we have said before, that we intentionally selected Canaan, the\nyoungest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we will now explain. Had\nNoah named Ham instead of Canaan, when he declared that he should be a\nservant of servants to his brethren, the learned world are of the\nopinion that it would have forever, and _satisfactorily_ settled the\nquestion, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, _that\nHam was the father_ of the present negro race--that if _this curse_ had\nbeen _specifically_ and personally directed against Ham, instead of his\nyoungest son Canaan, then, no doubt could exist on earth, but that Ham\nwas, and is the father of the negro. This is the opinion of the learned.\nBut, why so? Could not the curse affect Canaan as readily? If it could\naffect Ham in changing his color, kinking his hair, crushing his\nforehead down and flattening his nose, why would it not be equally\npotent in producing those effects on Canaan? Surely its effects would be\nas great on one person as another? It was to relieve our learned men\nfrom this dilemma, among others, that we took up Canaan, to show, that\nalthough this _curse_ was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan,\nby Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried _no\nsuch effects_ with it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not\nmake the black negro of Canaan, how could it have produced _that effect_\non Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had two _white_ sons, with long,\nstraight hair, etc., peculiar alone to the white race, and not belonging\nto the negro race at all, which is proof that the curse did not affect\nhis hair or the color of his skin, nor that of his posterity. Canaan had\ntwo white sons by his first wife, Sidon and Heth. They settled\nPhoenicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name\nfrom the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white race\n_alone_, we have before proven, unquestionably. But we will do so again,\nfor the purpose of showing what that curse was, and what it did effect,\nand why this order of extermination. Canaan was the father of all these\n_ites_. Nine are first specifically named, and then it is added, \"and\nwho afterward, were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad.\" Was\nnot Canaan as much and no more the father of these _ites_, than he was\nof Sidon and Heth? Certainly. Then why doom them and their flocks and\nherds to extermination, and except the families of Sidon and Heth, his\ntwo other sons? Were they morally any better, except as to their not\nbeing the progeny of amalgamation with negroes? They were not. Then why\nsave one and doom the other? If these _ites_ were no worse _morally_\nthan the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek\nthe reason for their destruction, in something _besides moral\ndelinquency_? Let us see if we can find _that_ something? The Bible\ntells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him\nthat all that land (including all those _ites_) should be his and his\nseed's after him--\"that his seed shall be strangers in a land not\ntheirs, and be afflicted four hundred years, and thou shalt go to thy\nfathers in peace; _but in the fourth generation_ they shall come hither\nagain, _for the iniquity of the Amorites_\" (these representing all the\nites), \"is _not yet full_.\"\n\nIn the fourth generation their cup of iniquity would _then_ be full--in\nthe fourth generation God gave this order to exterminate these ites, and\nto leave nothing alive that breathes. If this filling of their cup,\nreferred to _moral_ crimes to be committed, or to moral obliquity as\nsuch, then it is _very strange_. If this be its reference, then these\npeople were, at _that_ time (four generations previous to this order for\ntheir extermination), _worse_ than the very devil himself, as it was not\nlong before they did fill _their cup_, and the devil's cup is not full\nyet. If this filling up of iniquity, referred to their _moral conduct_\nin the sight of God, how was Moses or Joshua to _see_ that it was full,\nor _when_ it was full? Yet, they must _know_ it, or they would not know\nwhen to commence exterminating, as God intended. How were they to know\nit? As in the case of Sodom they had a few Lots among them, and the\n_color_ would soon tell when their iniquity was full, and neither Moses\nnor Joshua would be at any loss when to begin, or who to exterminate.\nConsummated amalgamation would tell _when_ their cup of iniquity was\nfull. The iniquity of the Amorites (these representing all) is not _yet_\nfull, is the language of God--in the fourth generation it will be full,\nand _then_ Abraham's seed should possess the land, and these _ites_ be\nexterminated. Let us inquire? Does not each generation, morally stand\nbefore God, on their own responsibility in regard to sin? Certainly they\ndo. How then, could the cumulative sins of one generation be passed to\nthe next succeeding one, to their _moral_ injury or detriment?\nImpossible! But _the iniquity_ here spoken of, _could be so\ntransmitted_; and at the time when God said it, he tells us that it\nrequired _four generations_ to make the iniquity full. What crime but\nthe amalgamation of Adam's sons, the children of God, with the\nnegro--beasts--called by Adam _men_, could require four generations to\nfill up their iniquity, but this crime of amalgamation? None. Then we\n_know the iniquity_, and what God then thought and yet thinks of it.\n\nNor is this all the evidence the Bible furnishes, of God's utter\nabhorrence of this crime, and his decided _disapprobation of the negro_,\nin those various attempts to _elevate_ him to _social_, _political_ and\n_religious equality_ with the white race. In the laws delivered by God,\nto Moses, for the children of Israel, he expressly enacts and charges,\n\"that no _man_ having a _flat nose_, shall approach unto his altar.\"\nThis includes the _whole negro race_; and expressly _excludes_ them from\ncoming to his altar, for _any act of worship_. God would not have their\nworship then, nor accept their sacrifices or oblations--_they_ should\nnot approach his altar; but all of Adam's race could. For Adam's\nchildren God set up his altar, and for their benefit ordained the\nsacrifices; but not for the race of _flat-nosed men_, and such the\n_negro race is_. And who shall gainsay, or _who dare_ gainsay, that what\nGod does is not right? The first attempt at the social equality of the\nnegro, with Adam's race, brought the flood upon the world--the second,\nbrought confusion and dispersion--the third, the fire of God's wrath,\nupon the cities of the plain--the fourth, the order from God, to\nexterminate the _nations_ of the Canaanites--the fifth, the inhibition\nand exclusion, by _express law of_ God, of the _flat-nosed_ negro from\nhis altar. Will the people of the United States, now furnish the sixth?\n_Nous verrons_.\n\nThere remains now but one other point to prove, and that is--That the\nnegro has no soul. This can only be done by the express word of God. Any\nauthority short of this, will not do. But if God says so, then all the\nmen, and all the reasonings of men on earth, can not change it; for it\nis not in man's power to _give_ a soul to any being on earth, where God\nhas given none.\n\nIt will be borne in mind that we have shown, beyond the power of\ncontradiction, that the descendants of Shem and Japheth, from the\npresent day back to the days of our Saviour, and from our Saviour's time\nback to Noah, their father, that they were all long, straight-haired,\nhigh foreheads, high noses, and belong to the white race of Adam. In the\ncase of Ham, the other brother, there is, or has been, a dispute. It is\ncontended, generally, by the learned world, that Ham is the progenitor\nof the negro race of this our day, and that, such being the case, the\nnegro is our social, political and religious equal--_brother_; and which\nhe would be, certainly, if this were true. The learned world, however,\nsees the difficulty of how Ham could be the progenitor of a race so\ndistinct from that of Ham's family; and proceed upon their own\nassumptions, but without one particle of Bible authority for doing so,\nto account why Ham's descendants should now have kinky heads, low\nforeheads, flat noses, thick lips, and black skin (not to mention the\nexceptions to his leg and foot), which they charge to the _curse_\ndenounced by Noah, not against Ham, but against Ham's youngest\nson--Canaan. But, to sustain their theory, they further assume that this\ncurse was _intended_ for Ham, and not Canaan; and they do this right in\nthe teeth of the Bible and its express assertions to the contrary.\nForgetting or overlooking the fact that, confining its application to\nCanaan, as the Bible expressly says, yet they ignore the fact that\nCanaan had two white sons--Sidon and Heth--and that it was impossible\nfor the _curse_ to have made a negro such as we now have, or to have\nexerted any influence upon either color, hair, etc.; as these two sons\nof Canaan, and their posterity, are shown, unequivocally, to have been,\nand yet are, in their descendants, white. The learned world, seeing the\ndifficulties of the position, and the weakness of their foundation for\nsuch a tremendous superstructure as they were rearing on this supposed\ncurse of Ham, by his father, undertake to prop it up by saying that\nHam's name means black in Hebrew; and, as the negro is _black_,\ntherefore it is that the _name_ and the _curse_ together made the negro,\nsuch as we now have on earth. And, although the Bible nowhere _says_,\nand nowhere charges, or even intimates, that Ham is or was the\nprogenitor of the negro; and in defiance of the fact that _no such_\ncurse was ever denounced against Ham, as they allege--nor can it be\nfound in the Bible; yet they boldly, on these _assumptions_ and\ncontradictions, go on to say that Ham _is_ the father of the negro of\nthe present day. Contradicting the Bible; contradicting the _whole order\nof nature_ as ordained by God himself--that like will produce its like;\ncontradicting the effect of every curse narrated in the Bible, whether\npronounced by God, or by patriarch, or by prophet; and assuming that it\ndid that, in this case of Noah, which it had never done before nor\nsince--that it did change Ham from a white man to a black negro.\nForgetting or setting aside the declaration of the Bible, that Ham and\nhis brothers were the children of one father and one mother, who were\nperfect in their genealogies from Adam, and that they were white, they\nassume again, that the Bible forgot to tell us that Ham was turned into\na negro for accidentally seeing his father naked in his tent. Tremendous\njudgment, for so slight an offense! We do not ask if this is probable;\nbut we do ask, if it is within the bounds _of possibility_ to believe\nit? Did not the daughters of Lot see the nakedness of their father in a\nmuch more unseemly manner? Ham seeing his father so, seems altogether\naccidental; theirs deliberately sought. And on this flimsy,\nself-stultifying theory, the learned of the world build their\nfaith--that Ham _is_ the progenitor of the negro! While, on the other\nhand, by simply taking Ham's descendants--those _known to be his\ndescendants now_, and known as much so and as _positively_ as that we\nknow the descendants, at the present day, of Shem and Japheth--that by\nthus taking up Ham's descendants of this day, we find them like his\nbrothers' children--with long, straight hair, high foreheads, high\nnoses, thin lips, and, indeed, every lineament that marks the white race\nof his brothers, Shem and Japheth; that we can trace him, with history\nin hand, from this day back, step by step, to the Bible record, with as\nmuch positive certainty as we can the descendants of his brothers; that,\nwith the Bible record after, we can trace him back to his father, Noah,\nwith equal absolute certainty, no one will deny, nor _dare_ deny, who\nregards outside concurrent history, of admitted authenticity and the\nBible, as competent witnesses in the case; that the testimony in regard\nto Ham and his descendants being of the white race, is more overwhelming\nand convincing than that of Japheth--and none doubt Japheth's being of\nthe white race; that God himself, foreseeing the slander that after ages\nwould attempt to throw on Ham, as being the father of the kinky-headed,\nflat-nosed and black-skinned negro, caused a whole nation to do one\nthing, and that _one_ thing had never been done before, nor by any other\nnation since, and that he caused them to continue doing that one thing\nfor centuries, and for no other purpose in God's providence, that we can\nsee, but for the _alone_ purpose of proving the identity of Ham's\nchildren, from the flood downward, for more than twenty-three centuries,\nand that they, thus identified, were of the white race; and that this\nembalmment of Ham's children was so intended, as evidence by God; that\nlike, as the Jewish genealogical tables served to identify Jesus of\nNazareth as the Messiah, so this embalming of the children of Mizraim,\nthe second son of Ham, serves to identify his descendants as belonging\nto the white race; and that, like the Jewish tables of genealogy, when\nthey had accomplished the end designed by God, they both ceased, and at\none and the same time.\n\nMizraim settled what is now called Egypt. He embalmed his dead. Where\ndid he get the idea from? No nation or people had ever done it before;\nnone have done it since. It was a very difficult thing to accomplish, to\npreserve human bodies after death; and to preserve them to last for\nthousands of years, was still more difficult. How did Mizraim come to a\nknowledge of the ingredients to be used, and how to use them? Yet he did\nit, and did it at once. The only satisfactory answer to these questions,\nis, that God _inspired him_. Then, it is God's testimony, vindicating\n_his son Ham_ from the aspersions of men--that he was a negro, or the\nfather of negroes.\n\nYe learned men of this age--you who have contributed, by your learned\nefforts, and by your noble but mistaken philanthropy, innocently,\nhonestly and sincerely as they were made, but wrongfully done--to fix\nand fasten on Ham this gross slander, that he is the father of the\npresent race of negroes, must reexamine your grounds for so believing\nheretofore, and now set yourselves right. God's Bible is against your\nviews; concurrent history is against them: the existing race of Ham is\nagainst them: _God's living testimony_ is against them, in the _dead_\nchildren of Mizraim, embalmed ever since the flood, but now brought\nforth into the light of day, and testifying for Ham, that he and his\ndescendants were and yet are of the white race. You must now come forth\nand abandon your fortress of _assumptions_, for _here that citadel\nfalls; for, if Ham is not the father of the negro_ (which is shown _to\nbe an impossibility_) then the negro came out of the ark, _and as we now\nfind him_; and if he came out of the ark, _then he must have been in the\nark_; and if he was in the ark, which, by the logic of facts, _we know_\nhe was--now let us read the Bible, the divine record and see whether or\nnot the negro has a soul. It reads thus: \"When the long-suffering of God\nwaited, in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few,\nthat is _eight souls_, were saved;\" the negro being in the ark, was not\none of those eight souls, and consequently he has _no soul to be\nsaved_--the Bible and God's inspiration being judge. Carping is vain,\nagainst God. His order _will stand_, whether pleasing or displeasing to\nany on earth. But God only promised to _save eight_--Noah and his wife,\nand his three sons and their wives. These _had souls_, as the apostle\n(Peter) testifies, and _all that were in the ark that did have souls.\nThe negro was in the ark; and God thus testifies that he has no soul_.\n\nOne point more. God has set a line of demarcation so ineffaceable, so\nindelible besides color, and so _plain_, between the children of Adam\nand Eve whom he endowed with immortality, and the negro who is of this\nearth only, that none can efface, and none so blind as not to see it.\nAnd this line of demarcation is, that Adam and his race being endowed by\nGod _with souls_, that a _sense of immortality_ ever inspires them and\nsets them to work; and the one race builds what he hopes is to last for\nages, his houses, his palaces, his temples, his towers, his monuments,\nand from the earliest ages after the flood. Not so the other, the negro;\nas left to himself, as Mizraim was, he builds nothing for ages to come;\nbut like any other beast or animal of earth, his building is _only for\nthe day_. The one starts his building on earth, and builds for\nimmortality, reaching toward Heaven, the abode of his God; the other\nalso starting his building on earth, builds nothing durable, nothing\npermanent--_only_ for present _necessity_, and which goes down, _down_,\nas everything merely animal must forever do. Such are the actions of the\ntwo races, when left to themselves, as all their works attest. Subdue\nthe negro as we do the other animals, and like them, teach them all we\ncan; then turn them loose, free them entirely from the restraints and\ncontrol of the white race, and, just like all other animals or beasts so\ntreated, back to his native nature and wildness and barbarism and the\nworship of daemons, he _will go_. Not so with Adam's children: Starting\nfrom the flood, they began to build for Eternity. Ham, the slandered\nHam, settled on the Nile, in the person of his son Mizraim, and built\ncities, monuments, temples and towers of surpassing magnificence and\n_endurance_; and here, too, with them, he started all the arts and\nsciences that have since covered Europe and America with grandeur and\nglory. Even Solomon, whose name is a synonym for wisdom, when about to\nbuild the Temple, instructed as he was by his father David, as to how\nGod had told him the Temple was to be built; yet he, notwithstanding his\nwisdom, was warned of God, and he sent to Hiram, King of Tyre, for a\nworkman skilled in all the science of architecture and cunning in all\nits devices and ornaments, to raise and build that structure designed\nfor the visible glory of God on earth. And Hiram, King of Tyre, sent\nhim a widow's son, named Hiram Abiff; and who was Grand Master of the\nworkmen. He built the Temple and adorned it, and was killed a few months\nbefore Solomon consecrated it. This Hiram, King of Tyre, and this Hiram\nAbiff, although the mother of the latter was a Jewess, were descendants\nof _this slandered Ham_. Now, we ask, is it reasonable to suppose that\nGod would call, or would suffer to be called, a descendant of Ham to\nsuperintend and build his Temple, and erect therein his altar, if Hiram\nAbiff had been a negro?--a _flat-nosed negro_, whom he had expressly\nforbidden to approach his altar? The idea is entirely inconsistent with\nGod's dealings with men. God thus, then, testifying in calling this son\nof Ham to build his Temple, his appreciation of Ham and his race.\n\nNow, let us sum up what is written in this paper: We have shown, (1.)\nThat Ham was not made a negro, neither by his name, nor the curse (or\nthe supposed curse) of his father Noah. (2.) We have shown that the\npeople of India, China, Turkey, Egypt (Copts), now have long, straight\nhair, high foreheads, high noses and every lineament of the white race;\nand that these are the descendants of Ham. (3.) That, therefore, it is\n_impossible_ that Ham could be the father of the present race of\nNegroes. (4.) That this is sustained by God himself causing Mizraim to\nembalm his dead, from directly after the flood and to continue it for\ntwenty-three centuries; and that these mummies now show Ham's children\nto have long, straight hair, etc., and the lineaments alone of the white\nrace. (5.) That Shem, Ham and Japheth being white, proves that their\nfather and mother were white. (6.) That Noah and his wife being white\nand perfect in their genealogy, proves that Adam and Eve were white, and\ntherefore _impossible_ that _they_ could be the progenitors of the\nkinky-headed, black-skinned negroes of this day. (7.) That, therefore,\nas neither Adam nor Ham was the progenitor of the negro, and the negro\nbeing now on earth, consequently we _know_ that he was created before\nAdam, as _certainly_ and as _positively_ as we _know_ that the horse and\nevery other animal were created before him; as Adam and Eve were the\nlast beings created by God. (8.) That the negro being created before\nAdam, consequently he is a _beast_ in God's nomenclature; and being a\nbeast, was under Adam's rule and dominion, and, like all other beasts or\nanimals, has no soul. (9.) That God destroyed the world by a flood, for\nthe crime of the amalgamation, or miscegenation of the white race (whom\nhe had endowed with souls and immortality), with negroes, mere beasts\nwithout souls and without immortality, and producing thereby a _class_\n(not race), but a _class_ of beings that were neither _human_ nor\n_beasts_. (10.) That this was a crime against God that could not be\nexpiated, and consequently could not be forgiven by God, and never would\nbe; and that its punishment in the progeny is on earth, and by death.\n(11.) That this was shown at Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the\nextermination of the nations of the Canaanites, and by God's law to\nMoses. (12.) That God will not accept religious worship from the negro,\nas he has expressly ordered that no man having a _flat nose_, shall\napproach his altar; and the negroes have flat noses. (13.) That the\nnegro has no soul, is shown by express authority of God, speaking\nthrough the Apostle Peter by divine inspiration.\n\nThe intelligent can not fail to discover who was the tempter in the\ngarden of Eden. It was a _beast_, a _talking_ beast--a beast that talked\n_naturally_--if it required a _miracle_ to make it talk (as our\n_learned_ men suppose, and as no one could then perform a miracle but\nGod only and if he performed _this_ miracle to make a snake, a serpent,\ntalk, and to talk only with Eve, and that as soon as the serpent (?)\nseduced Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, God then performed another\nmiracle to stop his speaking afterward, that if this be true), then it\nfollows beyond contradiction, _that God is the immediate and direct\nauthor_ or cause _of sin_: an idea that can not be admitted for one\nmoment, by _any_ believer in the Bible. _God called it a beast--\"more\nsubtile than all the beasts the Lord God had made.\"_ As Adam was the\nfederal head of all his posterity, as well as the real head, so was this\nbeast, the negro, the federal head of all beasts and cattle, etc., down\nto creeping things--to things that go upon the belly and eat dust all\nthe days of their life. If all the beasts, cattle, etc., were not\ninvolved in the sin of their federal head, why did God destroy them at\nthe flood? If the crime that brought destruction on the world was the\nsin of Adam's race alone, why destroy the _innocent_ beasts, cattle,\netc.? When all things were created, God not only pronounced them good,\nbut \"very good;\" then why destroy these innocent (?) beasts, cattle,\netc., for Adam's sin or wrong-doing? But, that these beasts, etc., were\ninvolved in the _same_ sin with Adam, is positively plain, from _one\nfact alone_, among others, and that fact is: That before the fall of\nAdam in the garden, all was peace and harmony among and between all\ncreated beings and things. After the fall, strife, contention and war\nensued, as much among the beasts, cattle, etc., as with the posterity of\nAdam; and continues so to the present time. Why should God thus afflict\n_them_ for another's crime, if they were free and innocent of that\ncrime? God told Adam, on the day of his creation, \"to have dominion over\neverything living that moveth upon the earth:\" but to Noah, after the\nflood, he uses _very_ different language; for, while he told Noah to be\nfruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, the same as he said to\nAdam, yet he adds, \"and the fear of _you_ and the _dread_ of you _shall_\nbe upon every beast of the earth, etc., and all that moveth upon the\nearth, etc.; into _thy_ hands are they delivered\". If these had\ncontinued in their \"_primeval_ goodness,\" wholly unconnected with Adam's\nsin, is it reasonable to suppose that God would have used the language\ntoward _them_, that he did in his _instructions_ to Noah? It is\nimpossible! The intelligent can also see the judgments of God on this\n\"_unforgivable_\" sin, at the flood, at Babel, at Sodom and Gomorrah, and\non the Canaanites, and in his law; and they may profit by the example.\nThey can see the exact time (A.M. 235), _when men_--the negro--erected\nthe _first_ altar on earth; _they_ had seen Adam, Cain, Abel, and Seth,\nerect altars and call on the name of the Lord. They, too, could\n_imitate_ them; they _did_ then _imitate_; they then built _their_\naltars; they _then_ called an the name of the Lord; they are yet\n_imitating_; they are _yet profaning_ the name of the Lord, by calling\non his name. And _you_, the people of the United States, are upholding\n_this profanity_. Who was it that caused God to repent and to be grieved\nat his heart, that he had made _man_? Will _you_ place yourselves\nalongside of that being, and against God? All analogy says _you will_!\nBut remember, that the righteous will escape--the hardened alone will\nperish.\n\nThe ways of God are _always consistent, when understood_, and always\njust and reasonable. It is a curious fact, but a fact, nevertheless, and\nfully sustained by the Bible; and that fact is this; That God _never\nconferred_, and never _designed_ to _confer_, any great _blessing_ on\nthe human family, but what he _always_ selects or selected a white\n_slaveholder_ or one of a white _slaveholding nation_, as the _medium_,\nby or through which _that blessing_ should reach them. Why he has done\nso, is not material to discuss now; but the _fact_, that he _always_ did\nso, the Bible abundantly proves. Abraham, the father of the faithful,\nand in whom and his seed all the families of the earth were to be\nblessed, is a notable instance of this truth. For Abraham owned three\nhundred and eighteen _slaves_. And the Saviour of the world was of a\nwhite _slaveholding nation_; and they held slaves by God's own laws, and\nnot by theirs. And how has it been in respect of our own nation and\ngovernment, the United States? A government now declared by thousands of\nlips, latterly, to be the best, the very best, that has ever been in the\nworld. Who made this government? Who established it and its _noble\nprinciples_? Let us appeal to history. The first attack on British\npower, and the aggressions of its parliament, ever made on this\ncontinent, was made by a slaveholder, from a slave state, Patrick Henry,\nMay 30, 1765. The first president of the first congress, that ever\nassembled on this continent, to consider of the affairs of the thirteen\ncolonies, and which met in Philadelphia, September 5, 1774, was a slave\nowner from a slave state, Peyton Randolph. The only secretary that\ncongress ever had, was a slave owner from a slave state, Charles\nThompson. The gentleman who was chairman of the committee of the whole,\non Saturday, the 8th of June, 1776, and who, on the morning of the 10th\nreported the resolutions, that the thirteen colonies, of right ought to\nbe free and independent _states_, was a slaveholder from a slave state,\nBenjamin Harrison. The same gentlemen again, as chairman of the\ncommittee of the whole, reported the Declaration of Independence in\nform; and to which he affixed his signature, on Thursday, July 4, 1776.\nThe gentleman who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a slave\nowner, from a slave state, Thomas Jefferson. The gentleman who was\nselected to lead their armies, as commander-in-chief, and who did lead\nthem successfully, to victory and the independence of the country, was a\nslave owner, from a slave state, George Washington. The gentleman who\nwas president of the convention, to form the constitution of the United\nStates, was a slave holder, from a slave state, George Washington. The\ngentleman who wrote the constitution of the United States (making it the\nbest government ever formed on earth), was a slave owner, from a slave\nstate, James Madison. The first president of the United States, under\nthat constitution, and who, under God gave it strength, consistency and\npower before the world, was a slave owner, from a slave state, George\nWashington; and these were all white men and slave owners; and whatever\nof peace, prosperity, happiness and glory, the people of the United\nStates have enjoyed under it, have been from the administration of the\ngovernment, by presidents elected by the people, of _slave holders_,\nfrom _slave states_. Whenever the people have elected a president from a\nnon-slaveholding state, commencing with the elder Adams, and down to Mr.\nLincoln, confusion, wrangling and strife have been the order of the day,\nuntil it culminated in the greatest civil war the world has ever beheld,\nunder the last named gentleman. Why this has been so is not in the line\nof our subject. We mention it as a matter of history, to confirm the\nBible fact, _that God always_ selects _slaveholders_, or from a\n_slaveholding_ nation, the media through which he confers his blessings\non mankind. Would it not be wisdom to heed it now?\n\nOne reflection and then we are done. The people of the United States\nhave now thrust upon them, the question of negro equality, social,\npolitical and religious. How will they decide it? If they decide it one\nway, then they will make the _sixth_ cause of invoking God's wrath, once\nagain on the earth. They will begin to discover this approaching wrath:\n(1.) By God bringing confusion. (2.) By his breaking the government into\npieces, or fragments, in which the negro will go and settle with those\nthat favor this equality. (3.) In God pouring out the fire of his wrath,\non this portion of them; but in what way, or in what form, none can tell\nuntil it comes, only that in severity it will equal in intensity and\ntorture, the destruction of fire burning them up. (4.) The states or\npeople that favor this equality and amalgamation of the white and black\nraces, _God will exterminate_. To make the negro, the political, social\nand religious equal of the white race by _law_, by _statute_ and by\n_constitutions_, can easily be effected in _words_; but so to elevate\nthe negro _jure divino_, is simply _impossible_. You can not elevate a\n_beast_ to the level of a son of God--a son of Adam and Eve--but you may\ndepress the sons of Adam and Eve, with their _impress_ of the Almighty,\n_down to the level of a beast_. God has made one for immortality, and\nthe other to perish with the animals of the earth. The antediluvians\nonce made this depression. Will the people of the United States make\nanother, _and the last_? Yes, they will, for a large majority of the\nNorth are unbelievers in the Bible; and this paper will make a large\nnumber of their clergy deists and atheists. A man can not commit so\ngreat an offense against his race, against his country, against his God,\nin any other way, as to give his daughter in marriage to a negro--a\n_beast_--or to take one of their females for his wife. As well might he\nin the sight of God, wed his child to any other beast of forest or of\nfield. This crime _can not_ be expiated--it never has been expiated on\nearth--and from its nature never can be, and, consequently, _never was\nforgiven by God, and never will be_. The negro is now free. There are\nbut two things on earth, that may be done with him now, and the people\nand government of this country escape destruction. One or the other _God\nwill make you do_, or _make you accept his punishment_, as he made\nBabel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, before you. You _must\nsend him back to Africa_ or _re-enslave him_. The former is the best,\n_far the best_. Now, which will my countrymen do? I do not say\n_fellow-citizens_, as I regard myself but as a sojourner in the land,\nwhose every political duty is now performed by obeying _your_ laws, be\nthey good or bad--not voting, nor assisting others in making _your_\nlaws. Will my countrymen, in deciding for themselves these questions,\n_remember--will they remember_, that the first law of liberty is\nobedience to God. Without this obedience to the great and noble\nprinciples of God, truth, righteousness and justice, there can be no\nliberty, no peace, no prosperity, no happiness in any earthly\ngovernment--if these are sacrificed or ignored, God will overturn and\nkeep overturning, until mankind learn his truth, justice and mercy, and\nconform to them.\n\nTo the people of the South, we say, _obedience_ to God is better than\nall sacrifices. You have sacrificed all your negroes. It was _your\nancestors_, that God made use of to form this noblest of all human\ngovernments--no others could do it. Do not be cast down at what has\nhappened, and what is _yet to happen_--God will yet use you to reinstate\nand remodel this government, on its just and noble principles and at the\n_proper time_. The North _can never do it_. These are perilous\ntimes--the _impending decisions will be against you, and against God_.\nBut keep yourselves free from _this sin--do not by your acts, nor by\nyour votes, invite the negro equality--if it is forced upon you_, as it\nwill be--obey the laws--remembering _that God will protect the\nrighteous_; and that his truth, like itself, will always be consistent,\nand like its Author, will be always and _forever triumphant. The finger\nof God is in this. Trust him._ The Bible is true.\n\n_July_, 1840.\n\n_December_, 1866.      ARIEL.\n\nNOTE 1. Any candid scholar, wishing to address the writer, is informed,\nthat any letter addressed to \"Ariel,\" care of Messrs. Payne, James &\nCo., Nashville, Tennessee, during this summer and fall (1867), will\nreach him and command his attention.\n\nNOTE 2. Some few kinky-headed negroes, have been found embalmed on the\nNile, but the inscriptions on their sarcophagii, fully explain who they\nwere, and how they came to be there. They were generally _negro traders_\nfrom the interior of the country, and of much later dates.","title":"The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":23176}