Title: The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed.
Author: Payne, Buckner H. 'Ariel'
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed." ***


book was produced from scanned images of public domain


THE NEGRO:

WHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS?

IS HE THE PROGENY OF HAM? IS HE A DESCENDANT OF ADAM AND EVE? HAS HE A
SOUL? OR IS HE A BEAST IN GOD'S NOMENCLATURE? WHAT IS HIS STATUS AS
FIXED BY GOD IN CREATION? WHAT IS HIS RELATION TO THE WHITE RACE?

BY ARIEL.

"Truth, though sometimes slow in its power, is like itself, always
consistent; and like its AUTHOR, will always be triumphant.

The Bible is true."

SECOND EDITION.


CINCINNATI:

PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR.

1867.

(Copyright secured according to law.)



THE NEGRO.

_What is his Ethnological Status? Is he the progeny of Ham? Is he a
descendant of Adam and Eve? Has he a Soul? or is he a Beast, in God's
nomenclature? What is his Status as fixed by God in creation? What is
his relation to the White race?_


The intelligent will see at once, that the question of _slavery_, either
right or wrong, is not involved in this caption for examination: nor is
that question discussed. The points are purely ethnological and
Biblical, and are to be settled alone by the Bible and by concurrent
history, and by facts existing outside of the Bible and of admitted
truth. We simply say in regard to ourself, in this day of partisan
strife, religious and political, that we take no part in any such party
strife, and that it is many years since we cast our last vote. This
much, to prevent evil surmises.

With this understood independence of all parties, we begin by saying,
that the errors and mistakes, in understanding the true position of the
negro, as God intended it to be in his order of creation, are all
traceable to, and arise out of two assumptions. The learned men of the
past and present age, the clergy and others have assumed as true:

1. That the negro is a descendant of Ham, the youngest son of Noah. This
is false and untrue.

2. That the negro is a descendant of, or the progeny of, Adam and Eve.
This is also false and untrue.

These questions, or rather these assumptions, of the learned and
unlearned world, are Biblical, and are to be settled by the Bible alone,
whether they be true or false, and by outside concurrent history--and of
facts known to exist, and admitted to be true by the intelligent, and as
they may serve to elucidate any statement or account given in the Bible.

We shall have frequent use of the term, "logic of facts," and now
explain what we mean by it. It is this: If one sees another with a gun
in his hands, and that he shoots a man and kills him, and the bullet is
found afterward in the dead man's body, that although we did not see the
bullet put into the gun, yet we _know_ by this "logic of facts," that
it was in the gun. It is the strongest evidence of what is true, of any
testimony that can be offered.

It will be admitted by all, and contradicted by none, that we now have
existing on earth, two races of men, the _white_ and the _black_. We beg
here to remind our readers, that when they see the word men, or man,
_italicised_, we do not use it as applying to Adam and his race. But we
may sometimes use these words in the general and accepted sense of them,
but it is only for the purpose of getting before the minds of our
readers, the propositions of the learned of this age, exactly as they
would wish them to be stated. We will now describe, ethnologically, the
prominent characteristics and differences of these two races as we now
find them.

The white race have long, straight hair, high foreheads, high noses,
thin lips, and white skins: the olive and sunburnt color, where the
other characteristics are found, belong equally to the white race.

The negro or black race, are woolly or kinky-headed, low foreheads, flat
noses, thick-lipped, and have a black skin.

This description of the two races is (though not all their differences),
full enough for the fair discussion of their respective stations in
God's order of creation, and will be admitted to be just and true, as
far as it goes, by all candid and learned men. Therefore the reader will
observe, that when either of the terms, _white_, _black_ or _negro_, is
used, referring to race, that we refer to the one or the other, as the
case may be, as is here set forth in describing the two races.

In God's nomenclature of the creation, his order stands thus: 1. Birds;
2. Fowls; 3. Creeping things; 4. Cattle; 5. Beasts; 6. Adam and Eve. We
shall use this, but without any _intended_ disparagement to any, as it
is the _best_ and _highest authority_.

Before proceeding with the examination of the subjects involved in the
caption to this paper, we will for a moment, notice the prevailing
errors, now existing in all their strength, and held by the clergy, and
many learned men, to be true, which are: 1. Ham's name, which they
allege, in Hebrew, means black; 2. The curse denounced against him, that
a servant of servants should he be unto his brethren; and that _this_
curse, was denounced against Ham, for the accidental seeing of his
father Noah naked--that this curse was to do so, and did change him, so
that instead of being long, straight-haired, high forehead, high nose,
thin lips and white, as he then was, and like his brothers Shem and
Japheth, he was from that day forth, to be kinky-headed, low forehead,
thick lipped and black skinned; and that his _name_, and this _curse_,
effected all this. And truly, to answer their assumptions, it must have
done so, or the case would not fit the negro, as we now find him. And
they adduce in proof, that Ham's name in Hebrew (tCHam), means _black_,
the present color of the negro, and that therefore Ham is the progenitor
of the black race. They seem to forget, or rather, they ignore the fact,
that the Bible nowhere says, that such a curse, or that any curse
whatever, was denounced against Ham by his father Noah; but that this
curse, with whatever it carried with it, was hurled at Canaan, the
youngest son of Ham. But it is of little consequence, in the settlement
of these great questions, _which_ was intended, whether Ham or his
youngest son Canaan. But if it be of any value in supporting their
theory, this meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew, in designating _his_ color
to be black, and _black_ it must be, to answer the color of the negro,
then the names of Shem and Japheth should be of equal value, in
determining _their_ color; for each of the brothers received their
respective names a hundred years or more before the flood, and were all
the children of the same father and same mother. Now, if Shem and
Japheth's names do not describe their color (which they do not), upon
what principles of logical philology or grammar, can Ham's _name_
determine his color? How many of this day are there who are called,
black, white, brown, and olive, all of whom are white, and without the
slightest suspicion, that the _name_ indicated the color of their
respective owners. Is it not strange, that intelligent and learned men,
should be compelled to rely on such puerilities, as arguments and truly
supporting such tremendous conclusions? But they say it was his name in
conjunction with the curse, that made him and his descendants the negro
we now find on earth. It is an axiom in logic, that, that which is not
in the constituent, can not be in the constituted. We have seen, that
the making of Ham a negro, is not _in_ the name, which is one of the
constituents, now let us see, if it is in the other constituent, the
_curse_. Now the _curse_ and _name_ changed Ham, if their theory be
true, from a white man, to a black negro. If the curse, were capable of
effecting such results, it is to be found in the word _curse_, and not
in the words, that a servant of servants should he be, as he and his
descendants could, as readily be servants, white as black, and he was
already white, and no necessity to make him black, to be a servant. If
_this_ effect on _Ham_, is to be found in the word _curse_, it will then
be necessary, for the advocates of the assumption, to show, that such
were its _usual_ results, whenever that word was used; for unless such
were its common effects, when used by God himself, by men of God, by
patriarchs and by prophets, then we ask, on what grounds, if any there
be, it is, that they assert, that _it did produce this_ effect, in _this
instance_, by Noah on Ham and his descendants? We do not question or
doubt, that Canaan, was denounced in the curse, pronounced by Noah, that
_he_ should be a servant of servants; but whether Ham or Canaan _alone_
is meant, is not material to the questions at issue, except in this
view; but the advocates of such being its effect, must show, that such,
at least was its effect previous to, and after Noah used it; and if they
fail in this, that necessarily, this part of their argument is also a
total failure. Let us look into the Bible. God cursed our first parents.
Did this curse kink their hair, flatten their skulls, blacken their skin
and flatten their nose? If it did, then Noah was sadly mistaken and
these gentlemen too, in supposing that it was Noah's curse, that
accomplished all this, for it was already done for the whole race--and
long before, by God himself. God cursed the serpent. Did the curse
produce this effect on him? He cursed Cain--did it affect his skin, his
hair, his forehead, his nose or his lips? These curses were all
pronounced by God himself and produced no such effects. But we proceed
and take up the holy men of God, the patriarchs and prophets, and see
what their curses produced. Did the curse of Jacob, produce this effect
on Simeon and Levi? did it produce this effect on the man who would make
a graven image? did it produce this effect on the man who would rebuild
Jericho? did it produce this effect on those, who maketh the blind to
wander out of the way? did it produce this effect on those, who
perverteth the judgment of the stranger, the fatherless and the widow?
_Cum multis aliis._ It did not. But if it did produce this effect in
these cases, then when we read, that Christ died to redeem us from the
curse, are we to understand, that he died to redeem us from a kinky
head, flat nose, thick lips and a black skin? But such curses, never
having produced _such_ effects, when pronounced by God, by patriarch, by
prophet, or by any holy man of God before or since, then we inquire to
know, on what principles of interpretation, grammar or logic it is,
that it can so mean in this case of Noah? There are no words in the
curse, that express, or even _imply_ such effects. Then in the absence
of all such effects, following such curses, and as they are narrated in
the Bible, whether pronounced by God or man; and there being nothing in
the language beside to sustain it, and if true, Ham's posterity must be
shown now, as its truthful witnesses, from this, our day, back to the
flood or to Ham; and which can not be done--and if this can not be done,
then all arguments and assertions, based on such assumptions, that Ham
was the father of the negro or black race, are false; and if false, then
the negro is in _no sense_, the descendant of Ham; and therefore, he
must have been in the ark, and as he was not one of Noah's family, that
he _must_ have entered it in some capacity, or relation to the other
beasts or cattle. For that he did enter the ark is plain from the fact,
that he is now here, and not of the family or progeny of Ham. And no one
has ever suspicioned either Shem or Japheth of being the father of the
negro; therefore he must have come out of the ark, and he could not come
out, unless he had previously entered it; and if he entered it, that he
must have _existed_ before the flood, and that, too, just such negro as
we have now, and consequently not as a descendant of Adam and Eve; and
if not the progeny of Adam and Eve, that he is inevitably a beast, and
_as such_, entered the ark, though having the _form_ of man, and _man_
he is, being so _named_ by Adam. Such is the logic, and such are the
conclusions to which their premises lead, if legitimately carried out;
and by which it is plainly seen, that the position assumed by the
learned of the present and past ages--that the present negroes are the
descendants of Ham, and were _made so_ by his _name_, or by the _curse_
of his father--is false in fact, and but an unwarranted assumption at
best. But while this conclusion is inevitable, it also reveals to us
another sad fact, that the good men of our own race (the white), though
learned and philanthropic, exhibit a weakness, alas! _too_ common in
this our day, that anything they wish to believe or think will be
popular, that it is very easy to convert the greatest _improbabilities_
into the _best_ grounds of their _faith_. The word used by God, used by
patriarch and by prophet, is the _same_ word used by Noah. If the word
thus used by God, and by holy men, did not produce the effect as is
charged by these men, how can the _same_ word, when used by Noah, do it?
And yet, on these assumptions, the faith of more than half the world
seems to be now based. To expose these cobweb fabrics, called by _some_
reason, on this subject, and _Christian_ philanthropy by others, in
which are involved, such tremendous conclusions, for weal or for wo, of
so large a portion of the biped creation, that we feel like apologizing
to our readers, for answering such _learned_ ignorance, blindness or
weakness. But the meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew is not _primarily_
black. Its primary meaning is: 1. Sunburnt; 2. swarthy; 3. dark; 4.
black--and its most _unusual_ meaning.

Having now disposed of these _fancies_, for they are nothing better, of
the effects of Ham's name, and Noah's curse, in making him a negro; and
having examined them, for the purpose of allowing on what flimsy grounds
this mightiest of structures of air-built theories rests, and for _this_
purpose _only_, as what we have said about them is not connected with,
nor germain to the way we intend to pursue, in investigating the
questions forming the caption to this paper. But having now disposed of
them, we take up our own subject. The reader will bear in mind the
description we have given respectively of the white and black races.

The first question to which we now invite attention is: Do the
characteristics which we have given of the white race, belong equally,
to all three of the sons of Noah--Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their
descendants? If they do, then the black race, belong to, and have since
the flood at least, belonged to another and totally different race of
_men_.

Now to our question: Do the characteristics, which we have given of the
white race, belong equally to the three sons of Noah and their
descendants alike? We will begin with Noah himself first. The Bible says
of Noah, that he was perfect in his generation. We will not stop to
criticise the Hebrew translated "generation," for any English scholar on
reading the verse in which it occurs, will see at once, that to make
sense, it should have been _genealogy_. Then Noah was perfect in his
genealogy--he was a preacher of righteousness--he was the husband of one
wife, who was also perfect in her genealogy; by this one wife, he had
three sons, all born about one hundred years before the flood, and all
three of them married, before the flood, to women who were perfect also
in their genealogies. Ordinarily speaking, this little statement of
facts, undenied by all, and undeniable, would settle at least _this_
question, that whatever the color of _one might_ be, the others would be
the same color--if one were black, all would be black--if one were
white, all would be white. Out of this arises the question, what was the
color of these three brothers--were they and their descendants black or
white?

We will begin with Shem, so as to find his race _now_ on earth, to see
if they are white or black. The Bible tells us where he went, and where
his descendants settled, and what countries they occupied, until the
days of our Saviour, who was of Shem's lineage after the flesh. From the
days of the Saviour down to the present day, we see the Jews, the
descendants of Shem, in every country, and see they belong to the white
race, which none will pretend to deny--that they were so before, and
after the flood, and have continued to be so to the present time, is
unquestionably true. We know then, on Biblical authority, with
mathematical certainty, that they are not negroes, either before, at,
nor since the flood, but white.

We next take up Japheth. We know where he went, and what countries his
descendants peopled, with equal certainty and on equal authority--and
all outside concurrent history, equally clearly prove, that Japheth's
descendants peopled Europe, whence they have spread over all the world.
That they too belong to the white race, is also unquestioned, nor
doubted by any that have eyes to see. That they were so before, and at
the flood, and not negroes then, nor since, is equally undoubted and
indisputable. We have not taken the trouble of showing step by step,
where those two brothers went, and what countries they peopled
_seriatim_, because they are admitted by all, learned and unlearned, to
be and to have done just what is here stated in spreading over the
world. It was, therefore, unnecessary to incumber this paper, by proving
that which none disputes. This being so, then two of the three brothers,
are known certainly, to be of the white race, and not of the negro,
either before or after the flood.

We now take up the youngest brother, Ham. The evidence establishing the
fact, that he too, and _his descendants_ belong to the white race, with
long, straight hair, high forehead, high noses and thin lips, is if
_possible still stronger_, than that of either of his brothers; if
indeed anything can, in human conception, be _stronger_ than that, which
is of perfect strength, and if this is true, then Ham can not be the
father of the negro. As in the cases of the other two brothers, the
Bible tells us where Ham, and his descendants went, and what countries
they peopled, and where his race may be found at this day; and which
likewise, all contemporaneous history abundantly testifies, and shows
that they are of the white race, and were so before the flood, and from
the flood continued so, and yet continue so to the _present time_; and
that not one of them, is of the negro race of this day. We will, in
establishing the truths of the above declarations, take up two of Ham's
sons and trace them and their descendants, from the flood to the present
time, and show what they were, and what they are down to this day. These
two sons of Ham, whose posterity we propose to trace, and show that they
_now_ belong to the white race, are Mizraim and Canaan, the second and
the youngest of his sons. The families of all of the sons can be traced
from the flood to the present day, but we presume two are sufficient,
and that they be white; and we have selected Canaan _intentionally_ and
for a purpose that will be seen hereafter. Canaan _was_ denounced by
Noah, that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, and if it
turns out, in this investigation, as we _know_ it will, that they belong
to the _white race_, it will satisfactorily settle this question, that
the _curse_ of Noah did not make _him_ and his descendants the black
negro we now find on earth, much less Ham, who was not so cursed. The
Bible plainly tells us, that the country now called Egypt, was settled
by Mizraim, the second son of Ham, and was peopled by his descendants;
that Mizraim, the second son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, gave his name
to the country; that they called it the land of Mizraim, and by which
name it is still known, to the present day, by the descendants of its
ancient inhabitants; that they built many magnificent cities on the
Nile--among them, the city of Thebes, one of the largest and most
magnificent in its architecture, and the grandeur of its monuments and
temples, the world ever saw. Its ruins at the present day, are of
surpassing magnificence and grandeur. The city was named Thebes, to
commemorate the Ark, that saved Noah, the grandfather of Mizraim, from
the flood; the name of the Ark in Hebrew, being _Theba_. Then we take it
for granted, all will admit, that what is now called Egypt, was settled
by Mizraim, the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah. The Bible, and outside
concurrent history, abundantly prove that he and his descendants, held,
occupied and ruled over Egypt, and continued in the possession and the
occupancy of the country as such, until long after the Exodus of the
Hebrews, under Moses and Aaron; that Ham's descendants, through
_Canaan_, in the persons of his sons Sidon and Heth, settled Sidon,
Tyre and Carthage. This will not be denied by any intelligent Biblical
student or historian. Sidon itself was named after Canaan's oldest son.

From Egypt in Africa, Mizraim's descendants passed over to Asia, and
settled India, whence they spread over that continent; that great
commerce sprung up between India, etc., and Egypt and connecting
countries, which was carried on by caravans; that Greece and Rome
subsequently, shared largely in this commerce, especially after the
march of Alexander the Great to India, by the caravan route, three
hundred and thirty-two years before our Saviour's birth. This commerce
has continued to our day. All these facts are undeniable, and will be
denied by none acquainted with the Bible and past history. These
descendants, of this maligned Ham, were at, and after the flood, and
continue to be, _to this day_, of the white race, all having long,
straight hair, high foreheads, high noses and thin lips; that they are
so, and as much so as the descendants of the other two brothers, and
possessing all of the same general lineaments--lineaments that so long
as the race shall exist, will be an eternal protest against their being
of the negro race that we now have. But as we intend to show
conclusively that Ham and his descendants were and are white, long,
straight hair, etc., from Noah to the present time, so _plainly_ and so
_positively_ that no fair or candid man can have the least doubt of its
truth, we proceed to state: That we will now give the names of the
country, now called Egypt, beginning with its first settlement by
Mizraim, in regular order down, to enable the Biblical and historical
student to refer readily to the histories of the different epochs, to
detect any error, if we should make one, in tracing Ham's descendants,
down to the present day. In Hebrew it is called Mizraim, in Coptic and
Arabic (the former being now the name of its ancient or first
inhabitants), it is called Misr or Mezr, being spelled in both these
ways by the Arabian and Coptic writers. In Syro-Chaldaic and Hellenic
Greek it is called Aiguptos--and in Latin, Ægyptus. In many of the
ancient Egyptian and Coptic writings it is called _Chimi_, that is, the
land of Ham, and is so called in the Bible, see Psalms cv, 23; cvi, 22,
and other places. The ancient inhabitants now in Egypt, the Copts, are
called the _posterity of Pharaoh_, by the Turks of the _present day_.
The ancient _Hyksos_, or shepherd kings (patriarchs) of the Hebrews, are
sometimes confounded in ancient history, with the descendants of Ham,
being of the same original stock. Egypt has not had a ruler of _its
own_ since the battle of Actium, fought by Augustus Caesar, thirty years
before our Saviour, as God by his prophet had foretold that their own
kings would cease forever to reign over that country. After the battle
of Actium, it became a Roman province, and since that time, it has been
under _foreign_ rule. It now is, and has been governed by the Turks
since 1517.

It appears (see Asiatic Miscel., p. 148, 4to), that Mizraim, the son of
Ham, and his sons (descendants), after settling Egypt, a portion went to
Asia, which was settled by them, and that they gave their names to the
different parts of the country where they settled, and which they
_retain yet_. The names of these sons of Mizraim as given in history are
as follows: Hind, Sind, Zeng, Nuba, Kanaan, Kush, Kopt, Berber and
Hebesh, or Abash. From these children of Ham, we not only readily trace
the present names of the countries, but that of the people also to this
day; that they founded the nations of the Indus, Hindoos, Nubians,
Koptos, Zanzebar, Barbary, Abysinia, the present Turks, is unquestioned
and undoubted, by any intelligent scholar. That they are the white race,
with long, straight hair, etc., is equally unquestionable, and are so
_this day_, and as positively as that Shem and Japheth's descendants are
now white. They first commenced to settle on the Nile in Africa, they
then passed into Asia; and these two continents were principally settled
by them. A portion of Europe (Turkey) is occupied by them--these, too,
have long, straight hair, etc.

A portion of Ham's descendants, through Canaan's sons, Sidon and Heth,
settled Sidon, Tyre, and later, Carthage. Tyre became a great power, and
a city of much wealth and commerce, as we learn by the Bible and other
history. Tyre was eventually overthrown, and her Queen and people fled.
They subsequently built the great city of Carthage, near to where Tunis,
in Africa, is now situated. They were again overthrown and their city
destroyed by Scipio Africanus Secundus, after the battle of Zama. But,
during one of the sieges, the city being invested by the Romans, the
people became hard pressed for provisions, to supply which, they
resolved on building some ships, to run the blockade for provisions. But
after their ships were built, they had no ropes to rig them, nor
anything within the city to make them. In this dilemma, the ladies, the
women of Carthage, to their eternal honor be it spoken, patriotically
stepped forward, and tendered their hair, _their long_ and _beautiful
tresses_, to make the much needed ropes, which was accepted, and a
supply of provisions obtained. Now _how many_, and what _sort_ of ropes
would the kinky-headed negro have furnished, had the inhabitants been
negroes? This noble act of the women of Carthage, is mentioned to their
honor, by Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman and Carthagenian
writers and historians; and yet, we have seen it stated, and stated by
learned modern writers, and who ought to have known better, that
Hannibal, Hamilcar, Asdrubal, etc., the great Carthagenian Generals,
were kinky-headed negroes--that Carthage itself, was a negro city. Why,
the annals of fame do not present such an array of great names, whether
in arts and sciences, and all that serves to elevate and make man noble
on earth, or in the senate, or the field, by any other race of people,
as will compare with those of Ham's descendants. These Carthagenians
were all long and straight haired people. After the fall of Carthage, in
the last Punic War, many of its people passed over subsequently into
Spain, which they held and occupied for centuries, and are known in
history as Saracens. A part of Spain, they held and occupied, until the
reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, when they were expelled. These, too,
had long and straight hair, etc. But to return to that portion of Ham's
descendants through Mizraim. These settled Egypt, India, China, and most
all of Oriental Asia, where they have _continued to live_, and where
_they yet live_, and not one of them is a negro. They all have long,
straight hair, etc., peculiar _only_ to the white race. Not one negro
belongs to _their race_. That this is their history, none will deny.

Ham, the maligned and slandered Ham--Ham who is falsely charged as being
the father of the negro--Ham, the son of the white man Noah--this Ham,
and his descendants, the long and straight haired race, it appears from
history--from _unquestioned_ history--_governed_ and _ruled the world_
from the earliest ages after the flood and for many centuries--and gave
to it, all the arts and sciences, manufactures and commerce, geometry,
astronomy, geography, architecture, letters, painting, music, etc.,
etc.--and that they thus governed the world, as it were, from the flood,
until they came in contact with the Roman people, and then their power
was broken in a contest for the mastery of the world, at Carthage, one
hundred and forty-seven years before A.D., and Carthage fell--but fell,
not for lack of talents in her people, not for lack of orators,
statesmen and generals of the most consummate abilities, but _because_
God had long before determined, that the Japhethic race should govern
the world; and the Roman people were Japheth's children. When Hannibal,
the most consummate general the world ever saw to his day, fought the
battle of Zama, he met a fate similar to that which befel another
equally consummate commander at a later day, on the field of
Waterloo--both became exiles. That Ham's talents, abilities, genius,
power, grandeur, glory, should now be attempted to be _stolen_, and to
be stolen, not by the negro, for he has neither genius or capacity for
_such_ a theft, but stolen by the learned men of this and the past ages,
and thrust upon the negro, who has not capacity to understand, when,
where, or how, he had ever performed such feats of legislation,
statesmanship, government, arts of war and in science. The negro has
been upon the earth, coeval with the white race. We defy any historian,
any learned man, to put his finger on the _history_, the _page_, or even
_paragraph_ of history, showing he has ever done one of these things,
thus done by the children of Ham; or that he has shown, in this long
range of time, a capacity for self-government, such as Ham, Shem and
Japheth. If he has done _anything_ on earth, in _any age_ of the world,
since he has been here, as has been done by the three sons of Noah, in
arts and sciences, government, etc., it surely can be shown; and shown
equally as clear and _unequivocally, when_ and _where he did it_, as
that of Shem, Ham and Japheth can. But such a showing can never be made;
that page of history has never yet been written that records it. On
these subjects, _his history_ is as blank as that of the horse or the
beaver. But we are not yet done with Ham's descendants. The great
Turko-Tartar generals, Timour, Ghenghis Kahn and Tamerlane, the latter
called in history, the scourge of God--the Saracenic general, the
gallant, the daring, the chivalrous, the noble Saladin, he who led the
Paynim forces of Mahomet, against the lion-hearted Richard, in the war
of the Crusades, all, all these were children of Ham. Mahomet himself,
the founder of an empire, and the head of a new religion, made his
kingdom of Ham's descendants, as _all Turks are_: and these all--have
straight, long hair, etc. Those who have read the various histories of
the crusades of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, know that the
Turkish forces then, had long, straight hair, etc., and that it is so
yet with their descendants none doubt--and these were children of Ham.

It will be seen now, how we have taken up one of Ham's sons; that we
have traced him and his descendants from the flood to Egypt, _where they
are still_; that we have traced them across the continent of Africa into
Asia, settling countries as they went; and to the countries still
bearing their names, where they settled, and where they _are yet_; that
we have taken up another son, and traced him and his descendants to
Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, and Spain, and shown that they, too, _without
exception_, were long, straight haired, high foreheads, high noses, thin
lips, and belong to the white race. Not a kinky-headed negro among them.
We have shown that Ham's descendants have led and governed the world,
for twenty-three centuries after the flood to the battle of Actium; that
they gave it, also, the arts and sciences, manufactures and commerce,
etc., etc. There is one discovery, one dye, as old as Tyre itself, and
yet eminently noted--the _Tyrian Purple_--consecrated exclusively to
imperial use. Imperial purple is the synonym of a king, in ancient and
modern history; that we have found these children of the slandered Ham,
and have traced them step by step, as it were, from country to country,
from the days of the flood down to the present day; that _wherever_ we
found them, and _whenever_ found, in any day, of any century from Noah
down to this day, we have found them white, and of the _white race
only_. And we now challenge the production of a single history, or a
single paragraph of history, showing _one_ nation--_one single nation_
or _kingdom_--of kinky-headed, flat-nosed, thick-lipped and
black-skinned negroes, that made such discoveries in arts and sciences,
built such cities, had such rulers, kings, and legislators, such
generals, such commerce, and such manufactures, as Mizraim's people on
the Nile, or as Ham's children in Tyre, in Carthage, in Spain, show that
they had--we defy its production. But we are not yet done with our
proofs about Ham and his descendants being white.

It seems as if God, foreseeing the slander that would, in after ages, be
put, or attempted to be put, on _his son Ham_, by ignorant or designing
men attempting to show that he was the progenitor of the negro race,
directed Mizraim, the second son of Ham, by an interposition of his
power and providence, or by direct inspiration, to put away his dead, by
a process of embalming, the details of which, for the accomplishment of
the object, can be regarded as little, if anything, short of being
miraculous; and by which, we can _now_ look into the faces of the
children of Mizraim, male and female, even at this day, in succeeding
generations, and from the flood; and which _can not be done_ with the
children of Shem and Japheth, about whose identity with the white race
no controversy has ever existed. It was this fact that caused us to say,
that the testimony establishing Ham's identity, as belonging to the
white race, was _stronger_, if possible, than that of either of his
brothers. God foreseeing, as we have said, this atrocious slander, that
would be put on Ham and his posterity, so directed Mizraim, and at once
inspired his mind, that from the first, he appeared to be fully
acquainted with all the necessary ingredients, and how to use them, and
in what proportions, and how many days were to be consumed to perfect
the corpse, that it would be incorruptible, and thereby become and be
_forever_ a testimony of God for Ham, that should speak to the eyes and
senses of all men, in after ages, and proclaiming as they do, to this
day, and from the very time of the flood, and _through each successive
generation from the flood_, that their ancestor, Ham, and they, his
descendants, were like the children of the other brothers, their equal,
in all the lineaments that stamp the race of Adam with the image and
likeness of the Almighty, and belonging to the white race. That these
mummied witnesses of Ham, his dead children, speaking from the tombs of
ages for their father, and proclaiming from the days of the flood as
they do, by each succeeding generation of his buried ones, down to the
present day, and protesting by their long, straight hair, by their high
foreheads, by their high noses, and by their thin lips, now hushed in
silence forever, that the slander, that their father was the progenitor
of the negro, was a _slander most foul_--a slander most _infamous_. Well
might their indignant bodies be so aroused--well might Ham's children,
who have been slumbering for centuries, be so electrified by these foul
aspersions, as to burst their sarcophagii, and tear the cerements of the
grave, and this foul calumny, from their faces at one and the same time
and forever. It looks as if God _intended_, by this overruling or
inspiring of Mizraim, so to embalm his dead, to teach _us_ a lesson,
that there was an _importance_, in being of the white race, _to be
attached to it_, of grander proportions, and of nobler value, than any
earthly, filial or paternal affections that could be symbolized by it.
Millions of these mummied bodies have been exhumed this century, but
_not one_ negro has been found among them. What does this teach? What
value do you place on this testimony prepared and ordained by God
himself, as _his testimony to the worth_ of the _white race_? The
writer of this has seen many of these mummies, but never a negro. He has
assisted in unrolling some, and all had straight, long hair. It was his
fortune, as it happened, to assist in unrolling the body of one
possessing peculiar interest. From the hieroglyphic inscription on the
sarcophagus, it proved to be the body of a young lady, who died in her
seventeenth year, that she was the daughter of the High Priest of On
(the temple of On was situated six miles northeast from the present
Cairo), and that she was an attendant of the princesses of the court of
King Thothmes 3d. This king is recognized and believed to be that
Pharaoh under whom Moses and Aaron brought out the children of Israel
from Egypt. This mummy we assisted in unrolling. The inner wrapping next
to the skin was of what we now call _fine linen cambric_. When this was
removed, the hair on the head looked as though it had but recently been
done up. It was in hundreds of very small plaits, three-ply, and each
from a yard to a yard and a quarter long; and although she had then been
buried 3,338 years, her hair had the _apparent_ freshness as if she had
been dead only a few days or weeks. The face, ears, neck and bosom were
guilded; and so were her hands to above the wrists, and her feet to
above the ankles. Such had been the perfect manner of her embalmment,
that the flesh retained its roundness and fullness remarkably, with fine
teeth, beautiful mouth, and every mark by which we could, at this day,
recognize her as a beautiful lady of the white race. Without
disparagement to our fair country-women, we can say, that a more
beautiful hand, foot and ankle, we never beheld.

Now, what have we proven by this recitement of Bible history--of that of
contemporaneous and concurrent history outside of the Bible--of facts,
facts now existing in the mummied remains of Ham's descendants,
commencing with Mizraim and coming down through centuries since the
flood--of the _yet living nations_, comprised _unquestionably_ of his
descendants, and who, like the descendants of Shem and Japheth, have the
distinctive marks of the white race _alone_, and as clear as either Shem
or Japheth, and that, too, as they _exist now on earth_, and running
back as such from this our day to Noah; and as _distinct_ from the negro
race as that race is now distinct from the children of Japheth? Of that
miraculous intervention of divine power, in causing Mizraim so to embalm
his children, that they should speak from the grave, in attestation of
their being of the white, and not of the negro, race. Why did God
require that _only_ the children of Ham should be embalmed, of all then
on earth? No other nation, as such, then or _since_, embalmed their
dead. Why was it, that the children of Ham alone did this? Except but
for the reason that God, foreseeing the disputes to arise about the
negro, and that Ham would be slandered and held to be the progenitor of
the negro; that, therefore, in vindication of him, as belonging to the
white race, and as an _immortal_ being, and not of the beasts that
perish, God caused these descendants of Ham to embalm their dead, and to
_continue_ doing so for many centuries. No other valid reason can be
assigned, why these people of Mizraim, _alone_ of all the nations of the
earth, did so. There may have been, and doubtless there were, many
reasons with the people, of a private and personal character, inciting
them to do so; but _this_ was _God's reason_, and he chose these
personal considerations of the people, as _his_ means of accomplishing
it.

We have shown conclusively: 1. That Ham's descendants now on earth, in
Egypt, in India, all over Asia, a portion of Africa and Europe
respectively, have, _this day_, long, straight hair, high foreheads,
high noses and thin lips--that they have ever _been_ so; this, all
history in the Bible, and all history outside of the Bible, fully
attest. 2. While, on the other hand, all history tells us (when it says
anything about them), that the negro race is kinky-headed, low forehead,
flat nose, thick lip and black skin; that he has _always_ been so, and
the negro of this day attests that he is so yet; and that, consequently,
he is in _no way_ related to Ham, even by a _curse_, for he is black,
and Ham is white. 3. That the descendants of Shem and Japheth are white,
and have always been white, none dispute. 4. That, having established,
then, that Shem, Ham and Japheth were perfect in their genealogies from
Adam and Eve; that they were the children of one father and one mother;
that they were born about a hundred years before the flood; that their
wives, like themselves, were perfect in their genealogies; that these
brothers and their descendants, as regards their genealogy, were the
perfect equals of each other; that the curse of Noah, even if directed
against Ham, and which it is not, that it is _impossible_ that that
curse could, in any way, make him the father or progenitor of the
present negroes--as no curse denounced by God himself, by patriarch or
by prophet, had ever done so before or since, and there is nothing in
the language used by Noah that covers that idea; that, on the contrary,
the _exact word_ used by Noah, had been before used by God and by
patriarchs, without the slightest suspicion being excited that such was
its effect on the person so cursed; that it was not found in Ham's name,
and that the effort to connect the color of the negro with the meaning
of Ham's name in Hebrew, is a mere _fancy_, not of the strength even of
a cobweb. Now, reader, are these things true? Look into your Bible--look
into contemporaneous and concurrent history--look at existing facts
outside of the Bible, and running from the flood down to the present
day, and hear the prophet of God defiantly ask, Can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots?--both beasts; and when you have so
looked, you will say, _true_, every word, _indubitably_ true! Then,
what? One word more, before we proceed further. The embalming of Ham's
dead and the Jewish genealogical tables _ceased_ at about the same time,
and by God's interposing power. Each were permitted by God to continue
as _national records_--the one to show the genealogy of Jesus of
Nazareth to be the Messiah, the other to show that Ham was _white_, and
_not_ the progenitor of the negro; and each having accomplished the end
designed, God permitted them to cease, and both ceased about the same
time. Is not this embalming, then, in effect, the direct testimony of
God himself, that Ham and his children were of the white race, and that
there is an _importance in being of the white race_, and which we will
see by and by, and beyond any appreciation ever given to it heretofore?
And is it not equally God's testimony, _ipso facto_, that the negro race
have always existed as we have it now, and as have those of the three
brothers equally always existed, and as we have _them_ now?

But, reader, suppose we admit, for the sake of the argument, that Ham
was black, and that he was made so by the curse of his father Noah--we
say, suppose we were to admit this, then what follows? Ham would have
been just _such a negro_ as we now find on earth--admitted; but then he
would have been the _only_ negro on earth. Where was his negro wife to
be had? He could not propagate the negro race, by a cross with the white
woman; for that would have produced a _mulatto_, and not the negro, such
as we now have. To propagate the negro that we now have on earth, the
_man_ and the _woman_ must both be negroes. Now, where did Ham's negro
wife come from? She did not come out of the ark? She was not on earth?
Do we not see clearly from this statement of facts, that the assumption
of the learned world, even admitting it, destroys itself the moment
that we bring it to the test of facts. Under _no_ view of their
_assumptions_ can the negro we now have on earth be accounted for.

These things being so, now what? We proceed with our subject. It being
shown to be incontestibly true, that the three brothers, Shem, Ham and
Japheth, when they came out of the ark, were _each_ of the white race,
and that they have continued so to the _present day_ in their
posterity--this is incontestible, and being true, it settles _the
question, that Ham is not the progenitor of the negro_, and we must now
look to some other quarter for the negro's origin. As the negro is not
the progeny of Ham, as has been demonstrated, and knowing that he is of
neither family of Shem or Japheth, who are white, straight haired, etc.,
and the negro we have now on earth, is kinky-headed and black, by this
logic of facts we _know, that he came out of the ark_, and is a totally
different race of men from the three brothers. How did he get in there,
and in what station or capacity? We answer, that he went into the ark by
_command of God_; and as he was neither Noah, nor one of his sons, all
of whom were white, then, by the logic of facts, _he could only enter it
as a beast, and along with the beasts_. This logic of _facts_ will not
allow this position to be questioned. But we will state it in another
way equally true, from which the same result must necessarily follow,
that the negro entered the ark _only as a beast_. All candid or uncandid
men will admit that the negro of the _present day_, have kinky heads,
flat nose, thick lip and black skin, and which we have shown is _not_
true of either Shem, Ham or Japheth's progeny of _this day_, and
consequently _it is impossible_ that either of them could be, or could
have been, the progenitor of the negro, at or since the flood, for each
race exists now, the one white and the other black; and then, as it is
impossible to believe that the negro was created at or since the flood,
therefore, he must have been in the ark. This being so, now let us see
what God said to Noah in proof of this position. He told Noah that he
intended to destroy the world by a flood, but that he intended to save
him and his wife, and his three sons and their wives. These were all God
intended to _save_, for _they_ had _souls_ and _beasts have not_. God
told him he must prepare an ark, into which besides his family, he must
also take of _every beast_ after his kind, and all cattle after their
kind, and of every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth, and every
fowl after his kind, and every bird after his sort, and food for their
support. Thus did Noah, and thus by God's command he entered the Ark
with his family. God promised Noah to _save_ him and his family--but God
did not promise to _save_ the _beasts_, etc., although he preserved them
in the ark; but, _besides this preservation_, Noah and his family were
to be _saved_--why, we will see presently. Then, Ham, not being the
father of the negro, the negro must have come out of the ark with the
beasts, and _as one_, for he was _not one of Noah's family_ that entered
it. This is inevitable, and can not be shaken by all the reasonings of
men on earth to the contrary. Now, unless it can be shown that, from
Noah back to Adam and Eve, that in some way this kinky-headed and
black-skinned negro is the progeny of Adam and Eve, and which we know
can not be done, then _again_ it follows, indubitably, that the negro is
not a _human_ being--not being of Adam's race. This point we will now
examine and settle, and then account for the negro being here.

Noah was the tenth in generation from Adam and Eve. We have before shown
that the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, at this day, are
white--have been so from the flood, with long, straight hair, etc. This
fact establishes another fact, viz: that Noah was also white, with long,
straight hair, etc. The Bible tells us that Noah was perfect in his
genealogy, and the tenth in descent from Adam and Eve; that,
consequently, Adam and Eve were white--with long, straight hair, high
foreheads, high noses and thin lips. Our Saviour was also white, and his
genealogy is traced, family by family, back to Adam and Eve--which
_again_ establishes the fact that Adam and Eve were white. We have also
shown that the negro did not descend from either of the sons of Noah.
That he is now here on earth, none will deny; and being here now, this
logic of facts proves that he was in the ark, and came out of the ark
after the flood; and that it indubitably follows, from the necessities
of the case, that he entered the ark as a _beast_, and _only_ as a
beast. Now, it is very plain, from this statement, that as he came out
of the Ark, the negro, _as we now know him_, existed anterior to the
flood, and _just such a negro as we have now_, with his kinky head, flat
nose, black skin, etc.; and that, Noah and his wife being white, and
perfect in their genealogy, it establishes that Adam and Eve were white;
and no _mesalliance_ having taken place from Adam to Noah, by which the
negro could be produced, that, therefore, as neither of the sons of
Noah, nor Noah himself, nor Adam and Eve, ever could by any possibility
be, either of them, the progenitor of the negro, that, therefore, it
follows, from this logic of facts, that the negro is a _separate_ and
_distinct_ species of the _genus homo_ from Adam and Eve, and being
distinct from them, that it _unquestionably_ follows that _the negro was
created before Adam and Eve_. Created before them? Yes. How do we know
this? Because the Bible plainly tells us that Adam and Eve were the last
beings of God's creation on earth, and being _the last_, that the negro
must have existed before they were created; for he is here now, and not
being their offspring, it follows, from this logic of facts, that he was
on the earth before them, and if on the earth before Adam, that he is
inevitably a beast, and as a beast, entered the ark. Let us recapitulate
our points. We have shown that the assumption of the learned world, that
Ham is the progenitor of the negro, is a mistake, philanthropically and
innocently made, we have no doubt, but nevertheless a mistake, and a
very great one. As Ham is not the father of the negro, and no one
asserts that either Shem or Japheth is, then the negro belongs to
another race of people, and that he came out of the ark, is a
demonstrated fact; and not being of Noah's family, who are white, and
Adam and Eve being likewise white, therefore, _they_ could not be the
progenitors of the negro; and as neither the _name_ or _curse_ did make
Ham a negro, or the father of negroes (and this covers the space of time
from now back to the flood and to Noah), and no _mesalliance_ ever
having taken place from the flood or Noah, back to Adam and Eve, by
which the negro can be accounted for, and Adam and Eve being white, that
they could never be the father or mother of the kinky-headed, low
forehead, flat nose, thick lip and black-skinned negro; and as Adam and
Eve were the last beings created by God on earth, therefore, all beasts,
cattle, etc., were consequently made _before_ Adam and Eve were created;
and the negro being now here on earth, and not Adam's progeny, it
follows, beyond all the reasonings of men on earth to controvert, that
he was created _before_ Adam, and with the other beasts or cattle, and
being created _before_ Adam, that, like all beasts and cattle, they have
no souls. This can not be gainsaid, and being true, let us see if it is
in philosophic harmony with God's order among animals in their creation.
Not to be prolix on this point, we will take a few cases. We will begin
with the cat. The cat, as a genera of a species of animals, we trace in
his order of _creation_ through various grades--cougar, panther,
leopard, tiger, up to the lion, improving in each gradation from the
small cat up to the lion, a noble beast. Again, we take the ass, and we
trace through the intervening animals of the same species up to the
horse, another noble animal. Again, we take up the monkey, and trace him
likewise through his upward and advancing orders--baboon, ourang-outang
and gorilla, up to the negro, another noble animal, the noblest of the
beast creation.

The difference between these higher orders of the monkey and the negro,
is very slight, and consists mainly in this one thing: the negro can
utter sounds that can be imitated; hence he could talk with Adam and
Eve, for they could imitate his sounds. This is the foundation of
language. The gorilla, ourang-outang, baboon, etc., have languages
peculiar to themselves, and which they understand, because they can
imitate each other's sounds. But man can not imitate them, and hence can
not converse with them. The negro's main superiority over them is, that
he utters sounds that could be imitated by Adam; hence, conversation
ensued between them. Again, the baboon is thickly clothed with hair, and
goes erect a _part_ of his time. Advancing still higher in the scale,
the ourang-outang is less thickly covered with hair, and goes erect most
altogether. Still advancing higher in the scale, the gorilla has still
less hair, and is of a black skin, and goes erect when moving about. A
recent traveler in Africa states that the gorilla frequently steals the
negro women and girls, and carry them off for wives. It is thus seen
that the gradation, from the monkey up to the negro, is in philosophical
juxtaposition, in God's order of creation. The step from the negro to
Adam, is still progressive, and consists of change of color, hair,
forehead, nose, lips, etc., and _immortality_. That the negro existed on
earth before Adam was created, is so positively plain from the preceding
facts, no intelligent, candid man can doubt; and that he so existed
before Adam, and _as a man_ (for he was so _named_ by Adam), we now
proceed to show.

We read in the Bible, and God said, let us make man _in_ our own image
and after _our_ likeness; which is equivalent to saying, we have _man_
already, but _not in our_ image; for if the negro was already in God's
image, _God could not have said_, now let us make man _in_ our image.
But God did say, after he had created every thing else on earth _but
Adam_, that he _then_ said, let us make man _in our_ image, and after
_our likeness_, and let him, so created now, have dominion. God so
formed _this_ man, out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul, and endowed
with immortality. Now, it is indisputably plain, and so shown from the
Bible in this paper, that _this_ BEING, thus created by God, had long,
straight hair, high forehead, high nose, thin lips, and white skin, and
which the negro has not; and it is equally clearly shown that the negro
is not the progeny of Adam. Therefore the negro must have existed before
Adam. But another fact: Adam was to have _dominion_ over all the earth.
There must, of _necessity_, be an established boundary to that dominion,
as betwixt God and himself, in order that Adam should rule only in his
allotted dominion. In settling this domain, the Bible is full and exact.
That which was to be, and to continue under _God's_ dominion, rule and
control, God named himself. He called the light, day; the darkness he
called night; the dry land he called earth; and the gathering together
of the waters, he called seas; and the firmament he called heaven, etc.
And what was to be under Adam's dominion, rule and control, Adam named
himself, but by God's direction and authority. But mark: _Adam did not
name himself_--for no child ever names himself. But God named _him and
his race_, but he did not call or name him _man_ after he created him.
Adam's dominion, starting _from_ himself, went _downward_ in the scale
of creation; while God's dominion, starting _with_ Adam, went upward.
God, foreseeing that Adam would call the negro by the name _man_, when
he said, let us make man, therefore so used the term; for by such _name_
"man," the negro, was known by to the flood, but not _the_ man.

Whenever Adam is personally spoken of in the Hebrew scriptures,
invariably his name has the prefix, _the_ man, to contradistinguish him
from the negro, who is called _man_ simply, and was so _named_ by Adam.
By inattention to this distinction, made by God himself, the world is
indebted for the confusion that exists regarding Adam and his race, and
the negro. Adam and his race were to be _under God's dominion, rule and
government_, and was, therefore, _named_ by God, "and he called _their_
name Adam," in reference to his _race_, and _the man_, to
contradistinguish _him_ from the negro, whom Adam named "_man_." _But
God did not call Adam man after he created him_--he called their name
Adam--while Adam named the negro _man_. But some may say, again, as many
have already said, that the negro might be the offspring of Adam by some
other woman, or of Eve by some one other than Adam. Have such reasoners
thought of the destruction, the _certain_ destruction, to their own
theory, this assumption would entail upon them? Can they not see that,
in either case, by Adam or by Eve, the progeny would be a _mulatto_, and
not a kinky-headed, flat nose, black negro, and that we should be at as
much loss as before, to account for the negro as we now have him on
earth, as ever. And if such miscegenating and crossing continued, that
now we would have no _kinky heads_ nor _black skins_ among us. But this
amalgamation of the whites and blacks was never consummated until a
later day, and then we shall see what God thought of its practice. But
while on this point, just here let us remark, that God in the creating
of Adam, to be the head of creation, intended to distinguish, and did
distinguish, him with eminent grandeur and notableness in his creation,
over and above everything else that had preceded it. But when creating
the negro and other beasts and animals, he made the male and
female--each out of the ground. Not so with Adam and his female, for God
expressly tells us that he made Adam's wife out of himself, thus
securing the _unity_ of immortality _in his race alone_, and hence he
called _their_ name Adam, not _man_. The black _man_ was the _back
ground_ of the picture, to show the white man to the world, in his
dominion over the earth, as the _darkness_ was the back ground of the
picture of creation, before and over which light, _God's light_, should
forever be seen.

The discussion and practice of the social and political equality of the
white and black races, heretofore, have always carried along with them
their kindred error of the equality of _rights_ of the _two_ sexes, in
all things pertaining to human affairs and government. But both end in
destruction, _entire_ destruction and extermination, as we shall see in
the further prosecution of our subject, and as the Bible plainly
teaches. The conclusion, then, that the negro which we now have on earth
was created _before_ Adam, is inevitable, from the logic of facts, and
the divine testimony of the Bible, and can not be resisted by all the
reasonings of men on earth.

How is it that we say that the horse was created before Adam? The Bible
does not tell us so in so many words, yet we _know_ that it is true. How
do we know it? Simply because we know that the Bible plainly tells us
that Adam and Eve were the last of God's creation on earth, and by the
fact that we have the horse _now_, and know that he must have been
created, and Adam being the last created, that, consequently, by this
logic of facts, we _know_ that the horse was made before Adam. The
horse has his distinctive characteristics, and by which he has been
known in all ages of the world, and he has been described in all
languages by those characteristics, so as to be recognized in all ages
of the world. His characteristics are not more distinct from some other
animals than that of the white race is distinct from that of the negro,
or of the negro from the white. We can trace all the beasts, etc., now
on earth, back to the flood, and from the flood back to the creation of
the world, and just _such animals_ as we find them now. Why not the
negro? We know we can that of the white man. Then we ask, again, why not
the negro as readily as the white man or the horse? Has _any_ animal so
changed from their creation that we can not recognize them now?
Certainly not. Then, why say that the negro has? Has God ever changed
any beings from the _order_ in which he created them since he made the
world? Most certainly he has not. Has he ever intimated in any way that
he would do so? Certainly not. Has he created any beings since he made
Adam? No. How, then, can any man _assert that he did make or change a
white man_ into a black _negro_, and say not _one word_ about it? Such a
position is untenable, it is preposterous.

But, to go on with our subject: We read in the Bible that it came to
pass when _men_ began to multiply, etc., that the sons of God saw the
daughters of _men_, that they were fair, and they took themselves wives
of all which they chose. A word or two of criticism before we proceed.
In this quotation the word _men_ is correctly translated from the
Hebrew, and as it applies to the negro, it is not in the original
applied to Adam, for then it would be _the_ men, Adam and his race being
so distinguished by God himself, when Adam was created. Again, the
_daughters_ of _men_ were _fair_. The word _fair_ is not a correct
rendering of the original, except as it covers simply the _idea_,
captivating, enticing, seductive.

With this explanation we proceed, and in proceeding we will show these
criticisms to be just and proper.

Who were these sons of God? Were they from heaven? If they were, then
their morals were sadly out of order. Were they angels? Then it is very
plain they never got back to heaven: nor are wicked angels ever sent to
earth from heaven. And they are not on earth for the angels that sinned,
are confined where there is certainly no water; and these were all
_drowned_. And angels can not be drowned. Angels belong to heaven, and
if they do anything wrong there, they are sent, not to earth, but
to--tophet. They are not the sons of men from _below_, nor its angels;
for these could not be called sons of God. Who were they then? We
answer, without the fear of successful contradiction, that they were the
sons of Adam and Eve, thus denominated by _pre-eminence_; and as they
truly were, the sons of God, to show the horrible _crime_ of their
criminal association with _beasts_. Immortal beings allying themselves
with the beasts of the earth. These daughters of _men_ were _negroes_,
and these sons of God, were the children of Adam and Eve, as we shall
see presently, and beyond a shade of doubt.

God told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Then it is
plain, God could have no objection to their taking themselves wives of
whom they chose, of their own race, in obeying this injunction; for they
could not do otherwise in obeying it. But God _did_ object to their
taking wives of _these daughters of men_. Then it is plain that these
daughters of _men_, whatever else they may have been, _could not be the
daughters_ of Adam and Eve; for, had they been, God would certainly not
have objected, as they would have been exactly fulfilling his command,
to take them wives and multiply. But our Saviour settles these points
beyond any doubt, when he taught his disciples how to pray--to say, _Our
Father_, who art in heaven. His disciples were white, and the lineal and
pure descendants of Adam and Eve. This being so, then, when he told such
to say, "Our Father, who art in heaven," equally and at the same time
told them that, as God was their father, _they were the sons of God_;
and as God did object to the "sons of God" taking them wives of these
daughters of _men_, that it is _ipso facto_ God's testimony that these
daughters of _men_ were negroes, and _not his children_. This settles
the question that it was Adam's pure descendants who are here called the
_sons of God_, and that these daughters of men were negroes.

By this logic of facts we see, then, who these sons of God were, and who
these daughters of _men_ were; and that the crime they were committing,
could not be, or ever will be, _propitiated_; for God neither _could_ or
_would forgive it_, as we shall see. He determined to destroy them, and
with them the world, by a flood, and for the crime of _amalgamation_ or
_miscegenation_ of _the white race_ with that of _the black--mere beasts
of the earth_. We can now form an opinion of the awful nature of this
crime, in the _eyes of God_, when we know that he destroyed the world by
a flood, on account of its perpetration. But it is probable that we
should not, in this our day, have been so long in the dark in regard to
the sin, the _particular_ sin, that brought the flood upon the earth,
had not our translators rejected the rendering of some of the oldest
manuscripts--the Chaldean, Ethiopic, Arabic, _et al._--of the Jewish or
Hebrew scriptures, in which _that sin_ is plainly set forth; our
translators believing it _impossible_ that brute beasts could corrupt
themselves with mankind, and then, not thinking, or regarding, that the
_negro_ was the _very beast_ referred to. But even after this rejection,
such were the number and authenticity of manuscripts in which that
_idea_ was still presented, that they felt constrained to admit it,
covertly as it were, as may be seen on reading Gen. vi: 12-13, in our
common version.

It will be admitted by all Biblical scholars, and doubted by none, that
immediately after the fall of Adam in the garden of Eden, God then
(perhaps on the same day), instituted and ordained sacrifices and
offerings, as the media through which Adam and his race should approach
God and call upon his name. That Adam did so--that Cain and Abel did so;
and that Seth, through whom our Saviour descended after the flesh, did
so, none can or will doubt, who believe in the Bible. Now, Seth's
first-born son, Enos (Adam's first grandson), was born when Adam was two
hundred and thirty-five years old. Upon the happening of the birth of
this grandson, the sacred historian fixes the time, the _particular
time_, immediately after the birth of Enos, as the period when a certain
important matter _then first_ took place; that important event was: that
"_Then_ men _began_ to call on the name of the Lord," as translated in
our Bible. Who are _these men_ that _then began_ to call on the Lord? It
was not Adam; it was not Cain; it was not Abel; it was not Seth; And
these were all the men that were of Adam's race that were upon the earth
at that time, or that had been, up to the birth of Enos; and these had
been calling on the name of the Lord ever since the fall in the garden.
Who were they, then? What _men_ were they, then on earth, that _then
began_ to call on the name of the Lord? There is but one answer between
earth and skies, that can be given in truth to this question. This logic
of facts, this logic of Bible facts, plainly tells us that these _men_
who _then began_ (A.M. 235) to call upon the name of the Lord, were
negroes--the _men_ so named by Adam when he named the other beasts and
cattle. This can not be questioned. Any other view would make the Bible
statements false, and we know the Bible to be true. If our translators
(indeed all translators whose works we have examined), had not had their
minds confused by the _idea_ that all who are, in the Bible, called
_men_ were _Adam's_ progeny; or had they recognized the simple fact,
that the term _man_ was the _name_ bestowed on the _negro_ by Adam, and
that this _name_ was never applied to Adam and his race till long after
the flood, they would have made a very different translation of this
sentence from the original Hebrew. The logic of facts existing _before_
and at the time the sacred historian said that "Then _men_ began to
call," would, in conjunction with the original Hebrew text, have
compelled them to a different rendering from the one they adopted. But,
believing as they did, that it was some of _Adam's race_, then called
_men_, they stumbled on a translation that _not one_ of them has been
satisfied with since they made it. The propriety of this assertion in
regard to antecedents _controlling_ the proper rendering, will be
readily admitted by all scholars. The rendering, therefore, of the exact
_idea_ of the sacred historian, would be this: "Then _men_ began to
profane the Lord by calling on his name." This is required by the
_Hebrew_, and the antecedent facts certainly demand it; otherwise we
would falsify the Bible, as Adam and his sons had been calling on the
Lord ever since the fall; therefore, the men referred to, that then
_began_ to call, could not be Adam, nor any of his sons. This logic of
facts compels us to say that it was the negro, created before Adam and
by him _named man_, for there were no other _men_ on the earth. That the
calling was profane, is admitted by all of our ablest commentators and
Biblical scholars, as may be seen by reference to their works. See Adam
Clark, _et al._ The Jews translate it thus: "Then men began to profane
the name of the Lord."

But we have this singular expression in the Bible, occurring about the
flood: That it repented the Lord that he had made _man_ on the earth,
and that it _grieved him at his heart_. Now, it is clear that God could
not refer, in these expressions, to Adam as the man whom it repented and
grieved him that he had made; for Adam was a part of himself, and became
so when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became
a living soul, immortal, and must exist, _ex consequentia_, as long as
God exists. God can not hate any part of himself, for that would be
perfection hating perfection, and Adam did partake of the divine nature
to some extent; and therefore the _man_ here referred to could not have
been Adam's posterity; and must have been, from the same logic of facts,
the _man_, negro, the beast, called by God, _man before he created
Adam_. Now, it must have been some awful crime, some terrible
corruption, that could and did cause God to repent, to be grieved at his
heart, that he had made man. What was this crime? what this corruption?
Was it moral crimes confined to Adam's race? Let us see. It was not the
eating of the forbidden fruit; for that had been done long before. It
was not murder; for Cain had murdered his brother. It was not
drunkenness; for Noah, though a preacher of righteousness, did get
drunk. It was not incest; for Lot, another preacher of righteousness,
committed that. It was not that of one brother selling his own brother
as a slave, to be taken to a strange land; for Joseph's brethren did
that, and lied about it, too. It was not--, but we may go through the
whole catalogue of moral sins and crimes of _human_ turpitude, and take
them up separately, and then compound them together, until the whole
catalogue of _human_ iniquity and infamy is exhausted, and then suppose
them all to be perpetrated every day by _Adam's race_, and as they have
been _before_ and _since_ the flood, still we would have but one answer,
and that answer would be, It _is none of these, nor all of them
combined_, that thus caused God to repent and be grieved at his heart,
that he had made _man_; but add one more--nay not _add_, but take one
crime alone and by itself--one _only_, and that crime Adam's children,
the sons of God, amalgamating, miscegenating, with the _negro--man--beast,
without soul--without the endowment of immortality_, and you have the
reason, _why_ God repented and drowned the world, because of its
commission. It is a crime, _in the sight of God_, that can not be
_propitiated_ by any sacrifice, or by any oblation, and can not be
forgiven by God--_never_ has been forgiven on earth, and never will be.
Death--death inexorable, is declared by God's judgments on the _world_
and _on nations_; and he has declared death as its punishment by his
law--death to both male and female, without pardon or reprieve, and
beyond the power of _any_ sacrifice to expiate.

That Adam was especially endowed by his Creator, and by him commissioned
with authority to rule and have dominion over everything created on
earth, is unquestioned; that to mark the extent of his dominion,
everything _named by him_ was included in his right to rule them. His
wife was the _last thing_ named by him, and consequently under his
rule, government and dominion. But a being called man existed before
Adam was created, and was _named man_ by Adam, and was to be under his
rule and dominion, as all other beasts and animals. But did God call
Adam _man_, after he had created him? Most certainly he did not. This
fact relieves us of all doubt as to _who_ was meant as the _men_ of
whose daughters the sons of God took their wives, independent of the
preceding irrefragable proofs, that it was the negro; and the crime of
amalgamation thus committed, brought the flood upon the earth. There is
no possibility of avoiding this conviction.

But this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cush was Ham's oldest
son, and the father of Nimrod. It appears from the Bible, that this
Nimrod was not entirely cured, by the flood, of this antediluvian love
for and miscegenation with negroes. Nimrod was the first on earth who
began to monopolize power and play the despot: its objects we will see
presently. _Kingly power_ had its origin in love for and association
with the negro. Beware! Nimrod's hunting was not only of wild animals,
but also of _men_--the negro--to subdue them under his power and
dominion; and for the purposes of rebellion against God, and in defiance
of his power and judgment in destroying the world, and for the _same
sin_. This view of Nimrod as a _mighty_ hunter, will be sustained, not
only by the facts narrated in our Bible, of what he did, but to the mind
of every Hebrew scholar, it will appear doubly strong by the sense of
the original. We see that God, by his prophets, gives the name _hunter
to all tyrants_, with manifest reference to Nimrod as its originator. In
the Latin Vulgate, Ezekiel xxxii: 30, plainly shows it. It was Nimrod
that directed and managed--ruled, if you please--the great multitude
that assembled on the Plain of Shinar. This multitude, thus assembled by
his arbitrary power, and other inducements, we shall see presently, were
mostly _negroes_; and with them he undertook the building of the tower
of Babel--a building vainly intended, by him and them, should reach
heaven, and thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently
destroyed the earth; and for the _same sin_. Else why build such a
tower? They knew the sin that had caused the flood, for Noah was yet
living; and unless they were again committing the _same_ offense, there
would be no necessity for such a tower. That the great multitude,
gathered thus by Nimrod, were mostly negroes, appears from the facts
stated in the Bible. God told Noah, after the flood, to subdue the
earth "for all beasts, cattle," etc., "are delivered into thy hands."
The negro, as already shown, was put into the ark with the beasts, and
came out of it along with them, as one. If they went into the ark by
sevens, as is probable they did, from being the head of the beasts,
cattle, etc., then their populating power would be in proportion to the
whites--as seven is to three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod
_must_ have resorted to them to get the multitude that he assembled on
the Plain of Shinar; for the Bible plainly tells us where the other
descendants of Noah's children went, including those of Nimrod's
_immediate_ relations; and from the Bible account where they _did_ go
to, it is evident _that they did not go with Nimrod_ to Shinar. This
logic of facts, therefore, proves that they were negroes, and explains
why Nimrod is called the _mighty_ hunter before, or _against_ the Lord,
as it should have been translated in this place. David stood _before_
Goliah; but evidently _against him_. The whole tenor of the Bible
account shows these views to be correct, whether the negro entered the
ark by sevens or only a pair. For, when we read further, that they now
were all of one speech and one language, they proposed, besides the
tower, to build them a city, where their power could be _concentrated_;
and if this were accomplished, and they kept together, and acting in
_concert_, under such a man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it
would be impossible for Noah's descendants to _subdue_ the earth, as God
had charged they should do. It was, therefore, to prevent this
_concentration_ of power and numbers, that God confounded their
language, broke them into bands, overthrew their tower, stopped the
building of their city, and scattered or dispersed them over the earth.

Let us now ask: Was not their tower an _intended_ offense to, and
defiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did God destroy it? Did
God ever, _before_ or _after_, destroy any _other_ tower of the many
built about this time, or in any subsequent age of the world, made by
any _other_ people? No. Why did he not destroy the towers, obelisks and
pyramids, built by Mizraim and his descendants, on the banks of the
Nile? And why prevent _them_ from building a city, but for the purpose
of destroying concentrated power, to the injury of Noah's children, and
their _right_ from God to rule the earth? The Bible nowhere tells us
where any of the beasts of earth went at any time: hence, the negro
being one, it says not one word about where any of them went. But we are
at no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro, we know
from his habits, when unrestrained, never inhabits mountainous districts
or countries; and, therefore, we readily find him in the level Plain of
Shinar. The whole facts narrated in the Bible, of what was _said_ and
_done_, go to show that the positions here assumed, warrant the
correctness of the conclusion that the main body of these people were
negroes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nimrod; that the
language used by them, why they would build them a tower, shows they
were daily practicing the _same sin_ that caused God to destroy the
earth by a flood; and that, actuated by the fear of a similar fate,
springing from a _like cause_, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which
should reach heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the
stopping of the building of _their_ city by God--all, all go to show
what sort of people they were, and what sin it was that caused God to
deal with them so _totally_ different from his treatment of _any other_
people. The very language used by them, on the occasion, goes plainly to
prove that those Babel-builders knew that they were _but beasts_, and
knew what the effect of that sin would be, that was being committed
daily. They knew it was the very _nature_ of beasts to be scattered over
the earth, and that they had _no name_ (from God, as Adam had);
therefore they said, "one to another, let us make brick, and let us
build _us_ a _city_, and a _tower_ whose top may reach heaven; and let
us make _us a name_ (as God gave us none), lest we be _scattered
abroad_." _Name_, in the Hebrew scriptures, signified "power, authority,
rule," as may be readily seen by consulting the Bible. And God said:
"And _this_ they will begin to do, and nothing will _be restrained from
them_ which they have _imagined to do_; let us, therefore, confound
their language, that they might not understand one another." This
language is _very peculiar_--used as it is by God--and there is more in
it than appears on the surface, or to a superficial reader; but we will
not pause to consider it now. The confusion of language _was confined to
those there assembled_. Why should God object to _their_ building a
city, if they were the descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he
did object to _their_ building one. Did God object to Cain's building a
city?--although a fratricidal murderer. Did he object to Mizraim and his
descendants building those immense cities which they built on the Nile?
No. In short, did God ever object to any of the known descendants of
Adam and Eve building a city, or as many as they might choose to build?
Never. But, from some cause or other, God did object to those people
building _that_ city and _that_ tower. The objection could not be in
regard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it was proposed to
build them; for the great City of Babylon and with higher towers, too,
was afterward built on the same spot--_but by another people_--Shem's
descendants. Then, what could be the reason that could cause God to come
down from heaven to prevent _these_ people from building it? It must be
some great cause that would bring God down to overthrow and prevent it.
He allowed the people of Shem, afterward, to build the City of Babylon
at the same place.

Reader, candid or uncandid, carefully read and reflect on the facts
described in this whole affair. Then remember that, on one other
occasion, God came down from heaven; that he talked with Noah; that he
told him he was going to destroy the world; that he told him the reason
why he intended to destroy it. Reader, do not the facts here detailed,
of the objects and purposes of these people, and this _logic of facts_,
force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, to
the conviction that _the sin_ of these people was the identical sin, and
consequent _corruption_ of the race, as that which caused the
destruction of the world by the flood; and that sin, the amalgamation or
miscegenation of Nimrod and his kindred with beasts--the daughters of
_men_--negroes. But, this view of who it was that attempted the building
of the tower and city of Babel, and their reasons for doing so, will be
confirmed by what is to follow.

The Bible informs us that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, settled
Canaan; and that it was from him the land took its name, as did the land
of Mizraim, Ham's second son take its name from him, of what is now
called Egypt. It was against this Canaan (not Ham) that the curse of
Noah was directed, that a servant of servants should he be to his
brethren. There is something of marked curiosity in the Bible account of
this Canaan and his family. The language is singular, and differs from
the Bible account of every other family in the Bible, where it proposes
to give and does give the genealogy of any particular family. Why is
this, there must be some reason, and some valid reason too, or there
would be no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any
other family? The account in the Bible reads thus--"And Canaan begat
Sidon his first born, and Heth." So far so good. And why not continue on
giving the names of his other sons as in all other genealogies? But it
does not read so. It reads, "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and
Heth, _and the Jebusite_, and the _Amorite_, and the _Girgasite_, and
the _Hivite_, and the _Arkite_, and the _Sinite_, and the _Arvadite_,
and the _Zemarite_ and the _Hamathite_, and who afterward were the
_families_ of the _Canaanite_ spread abroad." With all _other_ families
the Divine Record goes on as this commenced, giving the names of all the
sons. But in this family of Canaan, after naming the two sons Sidon and
Heth (who settled Sidon, Tyre and Carthage, and were _white_ as is
plainly shown) it breaks off abruptly to these _ites_. Why this suffix
of _ite_ to _their_ names? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must
be some reason, a _peculiar_ reason for this departure from the usual
mode or rule, of which _this_ is the only exception. What does _it
mean_? The reason is plain. The progeny of the horse and ass species is
never _classed_ with either its father or mother, but is called a _mule_
and represents neither. So the progeny of a son of God, a descendant of
Adam and Eve with the negro a beast, is not classed with or called by
the name of either its father or mother, but is an _ite_, a
"_class_"--"_bonded class_," _not race_, God intending by _this
distinguishment_ to show to all future ages what will become of _all
such ites_, by placing in bold relief before our eyes the _terrible end
of these_ as we shall see presently. Reader, bear in mind the end of
these _ites_ when we come to narrate them. These _ites_, the progeny of
Canaan and the negro, inhabited the land of Canaan; with other places,
they occupied what was then the beautiful plain and vale of Siddim,
where they built the notorious cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and
Zeboim. Like all _counterfeits_, they were ambitious of appearing as the
genuine descendants of Adam, whose name they knew or had heard meant
"red and fair" in Hebrew; they, therefore, called one of their cities
_Admah_, to represent this "red and fair" man, and at the same time it
should mean in negro "Ethiopic" "beautiful"--that kind of beauty that
once seduced the sons of God, and brought the flood upon the earth.
About the time we are now referring to, Abraham, a descendant of Shem
was sojourning in Canaan. He had a nephew named Lot who had located
himself in the vale of Siddim, and at this time was living in Sodom. One
day three men were seen by Abraham passing his tent; it was summer time.
Abraham ran to them and entreated that they should abide under the tree,
while he would have refreshment prepared for them; they did so, and when
about to depart one of them said, "shall we keep from Abraham that thing
which I do (God come down again), seeing he shall surely become a great
and mighty nation, _for I know he will command his children and
household_ after him, _and they shall keep the way of the Lord_;" that
is, keeping Adam's race pure--a mission the Jews are to this day
fulfilling. And they told Abraham of the impending fate of these cities.
Abraham interceded for them, and pleaded that the righteous should not
be destroyed with the wicked. God ultimately promised him, that if there
were ten righteous in all these cities that he would not destroy them.
What strong foundation have we people of the United States in God's
mercy and _forbearance_ in this incident? Will we prove worthy? The
angels went to Sodom and brought out _all_ the righteous, being only Lot
and his two daughters (and their righteousness was not in their
morality), his wife being turned into a pillar of salt. This done, God
rained fire upon these cities and literally burnt up their inhabitants
alive, and everything they had, and then sunk the very ground upon which
their cities stood more than a thousand feet beneath, not the pure
waters of the deluge, but beneath the bitter, salt, and slimy waters of
Asphaltites, wherein no living thing can exist. An awful judgment! But
it was for the most awful crime that man can commit in the sight of God,
of which the punishment _is on earth_. Exhaust the catalogue of human
depravity--name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpetrate, and
which has been perpetrated on earth since the fall of Adam, and no such
judgment of God on any people has ever before fallen, on their
commission. But one crime, one _other_ crime, and that crime the same
for which he had destroyed every living thing on earth, save what was in
the ark. But now he destroys by fire, not by water, but by fire, men,
women and children, old and young, for the crime of miscegenating of
_Adam's race with the negroes_. Noah was a preacher of righteousness to
the antediluvians, yet he got drunk after the flood. Lot too was a
preacher of righteousness to the cities of the plain, and he too not
only got drunk but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of
incest besides. Then we ask, what _righteousness_, what _kind_ of
righteousness was it that was thus preached by such men? We speak with
entire reverence when we say that the logic of facts shows but little of
morality--but it does show, as it _was intended to be shown by God_,
that, though frail and sinful in a _moral sense_ as they were, yet,
being _perfect_ in their genealogies from Adam and Eve, _they_ could
still be _his_ preachers of righteousness, they themselves being
_right_ in keeping from beastly alliances.

But the Bible evidence to the truth of these views does not stop here.
God appeared unto Abraham at another time, while sojourning in the land
of Canaan, and told him that all _that_ land he would give to him and to
his seed after him forever. But the land was already inhabited and owned
by these _ites_. If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve,
would they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy it
as Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If these _ites_ were God's
children by Adam and Eve, it is impossible to suppose that God would
turn one child out of house and land and give them to another, without
right and without justice; and which he would be doing, were he to act
so. Nay! but the Lord of the whole earth will do right. But God did make
such a promise to Abraham, and he made it in righteousness, truth and
justice. When the time came for Abraham's seed to enter upon it and to
possess it, God sent Moses and Aaron to bring them up out of Egypt,
where they had long been in bondage, and they did so. But now mark what
follows: God explicitly enjoins upon them, (1.) that they _shall not_
take, of the daughters of the land, wives for their sons; nor give their
daughters in marriage to them. Strange conflict of God with himself, if
indeed these Canaanites were _his_ children! To multiply and replenish
the earth, is God's _command_ to Adam; but his command to Moses is, that
Israel, known to be the children of Adam, shall not take wives of these
Canaanites for their sons--nor shall they give their daughters to them.
Why this conflict of the one great lawgiver, if these Canaanites were
God's children through Adam? It could not be to identify the Messiah,
for that required only the lineage of one family. But mark, (2.) "But of
the _cities_ and _people_ of the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee
for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive _nothing that breathes_, but
thou shalt _utterly destroy_ them, namely the Hittites, Canaanites,"
etc., naming all the _ites_--this is their end. Why this terrible order
of extermination given? and given by God himself? Will not the Lord of
the whole earth do right? Yes, verily. Then, we ask, what is that great
and terrible reason for God ordering this entire extermination of these
_ites_, if indeed they were his children and the pure descendants of
Adam and Eve? What crimes had they committed, that had not been before
committed by the pure descendants of Noah? What iniquity had the little
children and nursing infants been guilty of, that such a terrible fate
should overwhelm them? There must have been some good cause for such
entire destruction; for the Lord of the whole earth does right, and only
right. Let us see how God deals with _Adam's_ children, _how bad soever
they may be, in a moral sense_, in contrast with this order to
exterminate. The Bible tells us, that when the Hebrews approached the
border of Sier (which is in Canaan), God told them not to touch _that_
land nor its people, for he had given it to Esau for a possession. Yet
this Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and he and his
people were idolaters, and treated the children of Israel with acts of
hostility which some of these _ites_ had not. Again, they were not to
touch the land of Ammon, nor that of Moab, although _they_ were the
offspring of incestuous intercourse, and were, with the people of Sier,
as much given to idolatry and all other moral crimes, and as much so as
any of these Canaanites whom God directed Moses to exterminate. Why
except those, and doom these to extermination? Was not Canaan, the
father of these _ites_, a grandson of Noah, and as much related to the
Hebrews as were the children of Esau, Moab and Ammon? Certainly. Then,
their destruction was not for want of kinship; nor was it because they
were idolaters more than these, or were greater _moral_ criminals in the
sight of Heaven; but _simply because they were the progeny of
amalgamation or miscegenation between Canaan, a son of Adam and Eve_,
and the negro; and were _neither_ man nor _beast_. For this crime God
had destroyed the world, sown confusion broad-cast at Babel, burnt up
the inhabitants of the vale of Siddim, and for it would now exterminate
the Canaanite. It is a crime that God has never forgiven, _never will
forgive_, nor can it be propitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make
or give. God has shown himself, in regard to it, _long-suffering and of_
great forbearance. However much our minds may seek and desire to seek
other reasons for this order of extermination of God, yet we look in
vain, even to the Hebrews themselves, for reasons to be found, in their
superior _moral_ conduct toward God; but we look in vain. The very
people for whom they were exterminated were, in their moral conduct and
obedience to God, no better, save in that sin of amalgamation. The
exterminator and the exterminated were bad, equally alike in every moral
or religious sense--save one _thing_, and _one_ thing only--one had not
brutalized himself by amalgamating with negroes, the other had. This
logic of facts, forces our minds, compels our judgment, and presses all
our reasoning faculties back, in spite of ourselves or our wishes, to
the conclusion that it was this one crime, and _one crime only_, that
was the originating cause of this terrible and inexorable fate of the
Canaanite; being, as they were, the _corrupt_ seed of Canaan, God
destroyed them. For, if these Canaanites had been the full children of
Adam and Eve, they would have been as much entitled to the land, under
the grant by God, of the whole earth, to Adam and his posterity, with
the right of dominion, and their right to it as perfect as that of
Abraham could possibly be; but, being partly _beasts_ and partly
_human_, God not only dispossessed them of it, but also ordered their
_entire_ extermination, _for he had given no part of the earth to such
beings_. This judgment of God on these people has been harped upon by
every deistical and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to
Thomas Paine of the present age, but without understanding it. This
crime must be unspeakably great, when we read, as we do in the Bible,
that it caused God to repent and to be grieved at his heart that he had
made _man_. For, the debasing idolatry of the world, the murder of the
good and noble of earth, the forswearing of the apostle Peter in denying
his Lord and Saviour--all, all the crimsoned crimes of earth, or within
the power of man's infamy and turpitude to commit and blacken his
soul--are as nothing on earth, as compared with this. Death by the
flood, death by the scorching fire of God burning alive the inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds,
remorseless, relentless and exterminating death--is the _just judgment_
of an _all-merciful God, for this offense_. The seed of Adam, which is
the seed of God, must be kept pure; it _shall be kept pure, is the fiat
of the Almighty_. Man perils his existence, nations peril their
existence and destruction, if they support, countenance, or permit it.
Such have been God's dealings with it heretofore, and such will be his
dealings with it hereafter.

But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Canaan, the
youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we will now explain. Had
Noah named Ham instead of Canaan, when he declared that he should be a
servant of servants to his brethren, the learned world are of the
opinion that it would have forever, and _satisfactorily_ settled the
question, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, _that
Ham was the father_ of the present negro race--that if _this curse_ had
been _specifically_ and personally directed against Ham, instead of his
youngest son Canaan, then, no doubt could exist on earth, but that Ham
was, and is the father of the negro. This is the opinion of the learned.
But, why so? Could not the curse affect Canaan as readily? If it could
affect Ham in changing his color, kinking his hair, crushing his
forehead down and flattening his nose, why would it not be equally
potent in producing those effects on Canaan? Surely its effects would be
as great on one person as another? It was to relieve our learned men
from this dilemma, among others, that we took up Canaan, to show, that
although this _curse_ was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan,
by Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried _no
such effects_ with it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not
make the black negro of Canaan, how could it have produced _that effect_
on Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had two _white_ sons, with long,
straight hair, etc., peculiar alone to the white race, and not belonging
to the negro race at all, which is proof that the curse did not affect
his hair or the color of his skin, nor that of his posterity. Canaan had
two white sons by his first wife, Sidon and Heth. They settled
Phoenicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name
from the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white race
_alone_, we have before proven, unquestionably. But we will do so again,
for the purpose of showing what that curse was, and what it did effect,
and why this order of extermination. Canaan was the father of all these
_ites_. Nine are first specifically named, and then it is added, "and
who afterward, were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad." Was
not Canaan as much and no more the father of these _ites_, than he was
of Sidon and Heth? Certainly. Then why doom them and their flocks and
herds to extermination, and except the families of Sidon and Heth, his
two other sons? Were they morally any better, except as to their not
being the progeny of amalgamation with negroes? They were not. Then why
save one and doom the other? If these _ites_ were no worse _morally_
than the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek
the reason for their destruction, in something _besides moral
delinquency_? Let us see if we can find _that_ something? The Bible
tells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him
that all that land (including all those _ites_) should be his and his
seed's after him--"that his seed shall be strangers in a land not
theirs, and be afflicted four hundred years, and thou shalt go to thy
fathers in peace; _but in the fourth generation_ they shall come hither
again, _for the iniquity of the Amorites_" (these representing all the
ites), "is _not yet full_."

In the fourth generation their cup of iniquity would _then_ be full--in
the fourth generation God gave this order to exterminate these ites, and
to leave nothing alive that breathes. If this filling of their cup,
referred to _moral_ crimes to be committed, or to moral obliquity as
such, then it is _very strange_. If this be its reference, then these
people were, at _that_ time (four generations previous to this order for
their extermination), _worse_ than the very devil himself, as it was not
long before they did fill _their cup_, and the devil's cup is not full
yet. If this filling up of iniquity, referred to their _moral conduct_
in the sight of God, how was Moses or Joshua to _see_ that it was full,
or _when_ it was full? Yet, they must _know_ it, or they would not know
when to commence exterminating, as God intended. How were they to know
it? As in the case of Sodom they had a few Lots among them, and the
_color_ would soon tell when their iniquity was full, and neither Moses
nor Joshua would be at any loss when to begin, or who to exterminate.
Consummated amalgamation would tell _when_ their cup of iniquity was
full. The iniquity of the Amorites (these representing all) is not _yet_
full, is the language of God--in the fourth generation it will be full,
and _then_ Abraham's seed should possess the land, and these _ites_ be
exterminated. Let us inquire? Does not each generation, morally stand
before God, on their own responsibility in regard to sin? Certainly they
do. How then, could the cumulative sins of one generation be passed to
the next succeeding one, to their _moral_ injury or detriment?
Impossible! But _the iniquity_ here spoken of, _could be so
transmitted_; and at the time when God said it, he tells us that it
required _four generations_ to make the iniquity full. What crime but
the amalgamation of Adam's sons, the children of God, with the
negro--beasts--called by Adam _men_, could require four generations to
fill up their iniquity, but this crime of amalgamation? None. Then we
_know the iniquity_, and what God then thought and yet thinks of it.

Nor is this all the evidence the Bible furnishes, of God's utter
abhorrence of this crime, and his decided _disapprobation of the negro_,
in those various attempts to _elevate_ him to _social_, _political_ and
_religious equality_ with the white race. In the laws delivered by God,
to Moses, for the children of Israel, he expressly enacts and charges,
"that no _man_ having a _flat nose_, shall approach unto his altar."
This includes the _whole negro race_; and expressly _excludes_ them from
coming to his altar, for _any act of worship_. God would not have their
worship then, nor accept their sacrifices or oblations--_they_ should
not approach his altar; but all of Adam's race could. For Adam's
children God set up his altar, and for their benefit ordained the
sacrifices; but not for the race of _flat-nosed men_, and such the
_negro race is_. And who shall gainsay, or _who dare_ gainsay, that what
God does is not right? The first attempt at the social equality of the
negro, with Adam's race, brought the flood upon the world--the second,
brought confusion and dispersion--the third, the fire of God's wrath,
upon the cities of the plain--the fourth, the order from God, to
exterminate the _nations_ of the Canaanites--the fifth, the inhibition
and exclusion, by _express law of_ God, of the _flat-nosed_ negro from
his altar. Will the people of the United States, now furnish the sixth?
_Nous verrons_.

There remains now but one other point to prove, and that is--That the
negro has no soul. This can only be done by the express word of God. Any
authority short of this, will not do. But if God says so, then all the
men, and all the reasonings of men on earth, can not change it; for it
is not in man's power to _give_ a soul to any being on earth, where God
has given none.

It will be borne in mind that we have shown, beyond the power of
contradiction, that the descendants of Shem and Japheth, from the
present day back to the days of our Saviour, and from our Saviour's time
back to Noah, their father, that they were all long, straight-haired,
high foreheads, high noses, and belong to the white race of Adam. In the
case of Ham, the other brother, there is, or has been, a dispute. It is
contended, generally, by the learned world, that Ham is the progenitor
of the negro race of this our day, and that, such being the case, the
negro is our social, political and religious equal--_brother_; and which
he would be, certainly, if this were true. The learned world, however,
sees the difficulty of how Ham could be the progenitor of a race so
distinct from that of Ham's family; and proceed upon their own
assumptions, but without one particle of Bible authority for doing so,
to account why Ham's descendants should now have kinky heads, low
foreheads, flat noses, thick lips, and black skin (not to mention the
exceptions to his leg and foot), which they charge to the _curse_
denounced by Noah, not against Ham, but against Ham's youngest
son--Canaan. But, to sustain their theory, they further assume that this
curse was _intended_ for Ham, and not Canaan; and they do this right in
the teeth of the Bible and its express assertions to the contrary.
Forgetting or overlooking the fact that, confining its application to
Canaan, as the Bible expressly says, yet they ignore the fact that
Canaan had two white sons--Sidon and Heth--and that it was impossible
for the _curse_ to have made a negro such as we now have, or to have
exerted any influence upon either color, hair, etc.; as these two sons
of Canaan, and their posterity, are shown, unequivocally, to have been,
and yet are, in their descendants, white. The learned world, seeing the
difficulties of the position, and the weakness of their foundation for
such a tremendous superstructure as they were rearing on this supposed
curse of Ham, by his father, undertake to prop it up by saying that
Ham's name means black in Hebrew; and, as the negro is _black_,
therefore it is that the _name_ and the _curse_ together made the negro,
such as we now have on earth. And, although the Bible nowhere _says_,
and nowhere charges, or even intimates, that Ham is or was the
progenitor of the negro; and in defiance of the fact that _no such_
curse was ever denounced against Ham, as they allege--nor can it be
found in the Bible; yet they boldly, on these _assumptions_ and
contradictions, go on to say that Ham _is_ the father of the negro of
the present day. Contradicting the Bible; contradicting the _whole order
of nature_ as ordained by God himself--that like will produce its like;
contradicting the effect of every curse narrated in the Bible, whether
pronounced by God, or by patriarch, or by prophet; and assuming that it
did that, in this case of Noah, which it had never done before nor
since--that it did change Ham from a white man to a black negro.
Forgetting or setting aside the declaration of the Bible, that Ham and
his brothers were the children of one father and one mother, who were
perfect in their genealogies from Adam, and that they were white, they
assume again, that the Bible forgot to tell us that Ham was turned into
a negro for accidentally seeing his father naked in his tent. Tremendous
judgment, for so slight an offense! We do not ask if this is probable;
but we do ask, if it is within the bounds _of possibility_ to believe
it? Did not the daughters of Lot see the nakedness of their father in a
much more unseemly manner? Ham seeing his father so, seems altogether
accidental; theirs deliberately sought. And on this flimsy,
self-stultifying theory, the learned of the world build their
faith--that Ham _is_ the progenitor of the negro! While, on the other
hand, by simply taking Ham's descendants--those _known to be his
descendants now_, and known as much so and as _positively_ as that we
know the descendants, at the present day, of Shem and Japheth--that by
thus taking up Ham's descendants of this day, we find them like his
brothers' children--with long, straight hair, high foreheads, high
noses, thin lips, and, indeed, every lineament that marks the white race
of his brothers, Shem and Japheth; that we can trace him, with history
in hand, from this day back, step by step, to the Bible record, with as
much positive certainty as we can the descendants of his brothers; that,
with the Bible record after, we can trace him back to his father, Noah,
with equal absolute certainty, no one will deny, nor _dare_ deny, who
regards outside concurrent history, of admitted authenticity and the
Bible, as competent witnesses in the case; that the testimony in regard
to Ham and his descendants being of the white race, is more overwhelming
and convincing than that of Japheth--and none doubt Japheth's being of
the white race; that God himself, foreseeing the slander that after ages
would attempt to throw on Ham, as being the father of the kinky-headed,
flat-nosed and black-skinned negro, caused a whole nation to do one
thing, and that _one_ thing had never been done before, nor by any other
nation since, and that he caused them to continue doing that one thing
for centuries, and for no other purpose in God's providence, that we can
see, but for the _alone_ purpose of proving the identity of Ham's
children, from the flood downward, for more than twenty-three centuries,
and that they, thus identified, were of the white race; and that this
embalmment of Ham's children was so intended, as evidence by God; that
like, as the Jewish genealogical tables served to identify Jesus of
Nazareth as the Messiah, so this embalming of the children of Mizraim,
the second son of Ham, serves to identify his descendants as belonging
to the white race; and that, like the Jewish tables of genealogy, when
they had accomplished the end designed by God, they both ceased, and at
one and the same time.

Mizraim settled what is now called Egypt. He embalmed his dead. Where
did he get the idea from? No nation or people had ever done it before;
none have done it since. It was a very difficult thing to accomplish, to
preserve human bodies after death; and to preserve them to last for
thousands of years, was still more difficult. How did Mizraim come to a
knowledge of the ingredients to be used, and how to use them? Yet he did
it, and did it at once. The only satisfactory answer to these questions,
is, that God _inspired him_. Then, it is God's testimony, vindicating
_his son Ham_ from the aspersions of men--that he was a negro, or the
father of negroes.

Ye learned men of this age--you who have contributed, by your learned
efforts, and by your noble but mistaken philanthropy, innocently,
honestly and sincerely as they were made, but wrongfully done--to fix
and fasten on Ham this gross slander, that he is the father of the
present race of negroes, must reexamine your grounds for so believing
heretofore, and now set yourselves right. God's Bible is against your
views; concurrent history is against them: the existing race of Ham is
against them: _God's living testimony_ is against them, in the _dead_
children of Mizraim, embalmed ever since the flood, but now brought
forth into the light of day, and testifying for Ham, that he and his
descendants were and yet are of the white race. You must now come forth
and abandon your fortress of _assumptions_, for _here that citadel
falls; for, if Ham is not the father of the negro_ (which is shown _to
be an impossibility_) then the negro came out of the ark, _and as we now
find him_; and if he came out of the ark, _then he must have been in the
ark_; and if he was in the ark, which, by the logic of facts, _we know_
he was--now let us read the Bible, the divine record and see whether or
not the negro has a soul. It reads thus: "When the long-suffering of God
waited, in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few,
that is _eight souls_, were saved;" the negro being in the ark, was not
one of those eight souls, and consequently he has _no soul to be
saved_--the Bible and God's inspiration being judge. Carping is vain,
against God. His order _will stand_, whether pleasing or displeasing to
any on earth. But God only promised to _save eight_--Noah and his wife,
and his three sons and their wives. These _had souls_, as the apostle
(Peter) testifies, and _all that were in the ark that did have souls.
The negro was in the ark; and God thus testifies that he has no soul_.

One point more. God has set a line of demarcation so ineffaceable, so
indelible besides color, and so _plain_, between the children of Adam
and Eve whom he endowed with immortality, and the negro who is of this
earth only, that none can efface, and none so blind as not to see it.
And this line of demarcation is, that Adam and his race being endowed by
God _with souls_, that a _sense of immortality_ ever inspires them and
sets them to work; and the one race builds what he hopes is to last for
ages, his houses, his palaces, his temples, his towers, his monuments,
and from the earliest ages after the flood. Not so the other, the negro;
as left to himself, as Mizraim was, he builds nothing for ages to come;
but like any other beast or animal of earth, his building is _only for
the day_. The one starts his building on earth, and builds for
immortality, reaching toward Heaven, the abode of his God; the other
also starting his building on earth, builds nothing durable, nothing
permanent--_only_ for present _necessity_, and which goes down, _down_,
as everything merely animal must forever do. Such are the actions of the
two races, when left to themselves, as all their works attest. Subdue
the negro as we do the other animals, and like them, teach them all we
can; then turn them loose, free them entirely from the restraints and
control of the white race, and, just like all other animals or beasts so
treated, back to his native nature and wildness and barbarism and the
worship of dæmons, he _will go_. Not so with Adam's children: Starting
from the flood, they began to build for Eternity. Ham, the slandered
Ham, settled on the Nile, in the person of his son Mizraim, and built
cities, monuments, temples and towers of surpassing magnificence and
_endurance_; and here, too, with them, he started all the arts and
sciences that have since covered Europe and America with grandeur and
glory. Even Solomon, whose name is a synonym for wisdom, when about to
build the Temple, instructed as he was by his father David, as to how
God had told him the Temple was to be built; yet he, notwithstanding his
wisdom, was warned of God, and he sent to Hiram, King of Tyre, for a
workman skilled in all the science of architecture and cunning in all
its devices and ornaments, to raise and build that structure designed
for the visible glory of God on earth. And Hiram, King of Tyre, sent
him a widow's son, named Hiram Abiff; and who was Grand Master of the
workmen. He built the Temple and adorned it, and was killed a few months
before Solomon consecrated it. This Hiram, King of Tyre, and this Hiram
Abiff, although the mother of the latter was a Jewess, were descendants
of _this slandered Ham_. Now, we ask, is it reasonable to suppose that
God would call, or would suffer to be called, a descendant of Ham to
superintend and build his Temple, and erect therein his altar, if Hiram
Abiff had been a negro?--a _flat-nosed negro_, whom he had expressly
forbidden to approach his altar? The idea is entirely inconsistent with
God's dealings with men. God thus, then, testifying in calling this son
of Ham to build his Temple, his appreciation of Ham and his race.

Now, let us sum up what is written in this paper: We have shown, (1.)
That Ham was not made a negro, neither by his name, nor the curse (or
the supposed curse) of his father Noah. (2.) We have shown that the
people of India, China, Turkey, Egypt (Copts), now have long, straight
hair, high foreheads, high noses and every lineament of the white race;
and that these are the descendants of Ham. (3.) That, therefore, it is
_impossible_ that Ham could be the father of the present race of
Negroes. (4.) That this is sustained by God himself causing Mizraim to
embalm his dead, from directly after the flood and to continue it for
twenty-three centuries; and that these mummies now show Ham's children
to have long, straight hair, etc., and the lineaments alone of the white
race. (5.) That Shem, Ham and Japheth being white, proves that their
father and mother were white. (6.) That Noah and his wife being white
and perfect in their genealogy, proves that Adam and Eve were white, and
therefore _impossible_ that _they_ could be the progenitors of the
kinky-headed, black-skinned negroes of this day. (7.) That, therefore,
as neither Adam nor Ham was the progenitor of the negro, and the negro
being now on earth, consequently we _know_ that he was created before
Adam, as _certainly_ and as _positively_ as we _know_ that the horse and
every other animal were created before him; as Adam and Eve were the
last beings created by God. (8.) That the negro being created before
Adam, consequently he is a _beast_ in God's nomenclature; and being a
beast, was under Adam's rule and dominion, and, like all other beasts or
animals, has no soul. (9.) That God destroyed the world by a flood, for
the crime of the amalgamation, or miscegenation of the white race (whom
he had endowed with souls and immortality), with negroes, mere beasts
without souls and without immortality, and producing thereby a _class_
(not race), but a _class_ of beings that were neither _human_ nor
_beasts_. (10.) That this was a crime against God that could not be
expiated, and consequently could not be forgiven by God, and never would
be; and that its punishment in the progeny is on earth, and by death.
(11.) That this was shown at Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
extermination of the nations of the Canaanites, and by God's law to
Moses. (12.) That God will not accept religious worship from the negro,
as he has expressly ordered that no man having a _flat nose_, shall
approach his altar; and the negroes have flat noses. (13.) That the
negro has no soul, is shown by express authority of God, speaking
through the Apostle Peter by divine inspiration.

The intelligent can not fail to discover who was the tempter in the
garden of Eden. It was a _beast_, a _talking_ beast--a beast that talked
_naturally_--if it required a _miracle_ to make it talk (as our
_learned_ men suppose, and as no one could then perform a miracle but
God only and if he performed _this_ miracle to make a snake, a serpent,
talk, and to talk only with Eve, and that as soon as the serpent (?)
seduced Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, God then performed another
miracle to stop his speaking afterward, that if this be true), then it
follows beyond contradiction, _that God is the immediate and direct
author_ or cause _of sin_: an idea that can not be admitted for one
moment, by _any_ believer in the Bible. _God called it a beast--"more
subtile than all the beasts the Lord God had made."_ As Adam was the
federal head of all his posterity, as well as the real head, so was this
beast, the negro, the federal head of all beasts and cattle, etc., down
to creeping things--to things that go upon the belly and eat dust all
the days of their life. If all the beasts, cattle, etc., were not
involved in the sin of their federal head, why did God destroy them at
the flood? If the crime that brought destruction on the world was the
sin of Adam's race alone, why destroy the _innocent_ beasts, cattle,
etc.? When all things were created, God not only pronounced them good,
but "very good;" then why destroy these innocent (?) beasts, cattle,
etc., for Adam's sin or wrong-doing? But, that these beasts, etc., were
involved in the _same_ sin with Adam, is positively plain, from _one
fact alone_, among others, and that fact is: That before the fall of
Adam in the garden, all was peace and harmony among and between all
created beings and things. After the fall, strife, contention and war
ensued, as much among the beasts, cattle, etc., as with the posterity of
Adam; and continues so to the present time. Why should God thus afflict
_them_ for another's crime, if they were free and innocent of that
crime? God told Adam, on the day of his creation, "to have dominion over
everything living that moveth upon the earth:" but to Noah, after the
flood, he uses _very_ different language; for, while he told Noah to be
fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, the same as he said to
Adam, yet he adds, "and the fear of _you_ and the _dread_ of you _shall_
be upon every beast of the earth, etc., and all that moveth upon the
earth, etc.; into _thy_ hands are they delivered". If these had
continued in their "_primeval_ goodness," wholly unconnected with Adam's
sin, is it reasonable to suppose that God would have used the language
toward _them_, that he did in his _instructions_ to Noah? It is
impossible! The intelligent can also see the judgments of God on this
"_unforgivable_" sin, at the flood, at Babel, at Sodom and Gomorrah, and
on the Canaanites, and in his law; and they may profit by the example.
They can see the exact time (A.M. 235), _when men_--the negro--erected
the _first_ altar on earth; _they_ had seen Adam, Cain, Abel, and Seth,
erect altars and call on the name of the Lord. They, too, could
_imitate_ them; they _did_ then _imitate_; they then built _their_
altars; they _then_ called an the name of the Lord; they are yet
_imitating_; they are _yet profaning_ the name of the Lord, by calling
on his name. And _you_, the people of the United States, are upholding
_this profanity_. Who was it that caused God to repent and to be grieved
at his heart, that he had made _man_? Will _you_ place yourselves
alongside of that being, and against God? All analogy says _you will_!
But remember, that the righteous will escape--the hardened alone will
perish.

The ways of God are _always consistent, when understood_, and always
just and reasonable. It is a curious fact, but a fact, nevertheless, and
fully sustained by the Bible; and that fact is this; That God _never
conferred_, and never _designed_ to _confer_, any great _blessing_ on
the human family, but what he _always_ selects or selected a white
_slaveholder_ or one of a white _slaveholding nation_, as the _medium_,
by or through which _that blessing_ should reach them. Why he has done
so, is not material to discuss now; but the _fact_, that he _always_ did
so, the Bible abundantly proves. Abraham, the father of the faithful,
and in whom and his seed all the families of the earth were to be
blessed, is a notable instance of this truth. For Abraham owned three
hundred and eighteen _slaves_. And the Saviour of the world was of a
white _slaveholding nation_; and they held slaves by God's own laws, and
not by theirs. And how has it been in respect of our own nation and
government, the United States? A government now declared by thousands of
lips, latterly, to be the best, the very best, that has ever been in the
world. Who made this government? Who established it and its _noble
principles_? Let us appeal to history. The first attack on British
power, and the aggressions of its parliament, ever made on this
continent, was made by a slaveholder, from a slave state, Patrick Henry,
May 30, 1765. The first president of the first congress, that ever
assembled on this continent, to consider of the affairs of the thirteen
colonies, and which met in Philadelphia, September 5, 1774, was a slave
owner from a slave state, Peyton Randolph. The only secretary that
congress ever had, was a slave owner from a slave state, Charles
Thompson. The gentleman who was chairman of the committee of the whole,
on Saturday, the 8th of June, 1776, and who, on the morning of the 10th
reported the resolutions, that the thirteen colonies, of right ought to
be free and independent _states_, was a slaveholder from a slave state,
Benjamin Harrison. The same gentlemen again, as chairman of the
committee of the whole, reported the Declaration of Independence in
form; and to which he affixed his signature, on Thursday, July 4, 1776.
The gentleman who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a slave
owner, from a slave state, Thomas Jefferson. The gentleman who was
selected to lead their armies, as commander-in-chief, and who did lead
them successfully, to victory and the independence of the country, was a
slave owner, from a slave state, George Washington. The gentleman who
was president of the convention, to form the constitution of the United
States, was a slave holder, from a slave state, George Washington. The
gentleman who wrote the constitution of the United States (making it the
best government ever formed on earth), was a slave owner, from a slave
state, James Madison. The first president of the United States, under
that constitution, and who, under God gave it strength, consistency and
power before the world, was a slave owner, from a slave state, George
Washington; and these were all white men and slave owners; and whatever
of peace, prosperity, happiness and glory, the people of the United
States have enjoyed under it, have been from the administration of the
government, by presidents elected by the people, of _slave holders_,
from _slave states_. Whenever the people have elected a president from a
non-slaveholding state, commencing with the elder Adams, and down to Mr.
Lincoln, confusion, wrangling and strife have been the order of the day,
until it culminated in the greatest civil war the world has ever beheld,
under the last named gentleman. Why this has been so is not in the line
of our subject. We mention it as a matter of history, to confirm the
Bible fact, _that God always_ selects _slaveholders_, or from a
_slaveholding_ nation, the media through which he confers his blessings
on mankind. Would it not be wisdom to heed it now?

One reflection and then we are done. The people of the United States
have now thrust upon them, the question of negro equality, social,
political and religious. How will they decide it? If they decide it one
way, then they will make the _sixth_ cause of invoking God's wrath, once
again on the earth. They will begin to discover this approaching wrath:
(1.) By God bringing confusion. (2.) By his breaking the government into
pieces, or fragments, in which the negro will go and settle with those
that favor this equality. (3.) In God pouring out the fire of his wrath,
on this portion of them; but in what way, or in what form, none can tell
until it comes, only that in severity it will equal in intensity and
torture, the destruction of fire burning them up. (4.) The states or
people that favor this equality and amalgamation of the white and black
races, _God will exterminate_. To make the negro, the political, social
and religious equal of the white race by _law_, by _statute_ and by
_constitutions_, can easily be effected in _words_; but so to elevate
the negro _jure divino_, is simply _impossible_. You can not elevate a
_beast_ to the level of a son of God--a son of Adam and Eve--but you may
depress the sons of Adam and Eve, with their _impress_ of the Almighty,
_down to the level of a beast_. God has made one for immortality, and
the other to perish with the animals of the earth. The antediluvians
once made this depression. Will the people of the United States make
another, _and the last_? Yes, they will, for a large majority of the
North are unbelievers in the Bible; and this paper will make a large
number of their clergy deists and atheists. A man can not commit so
great an offense against his race, against his country, against his God,
in any other way, as to give his daughter in marriage to a negro--a
_beast_--or to take one of their females for his wife. As well might he
in the sight of God, wed his child to any other beast of forest or of
field. This crime _can not_ be expiated--it never has been expiated on
earth--and from its nature never can be, and, consequently, _never was
forgiven by God, and never will be_. The negro is now free. There are
but two things on earth, that may be done with him now, and the people
and government of this country escape destruction. One or the other _God
will make you do_, or _make you accept his punishment_, as he made
Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, before you. You _must
send him back to Africa_ or _re-enslave him_. The former is the best,
_far the best_. Now, which will my countrymen do? I do not say
_fellow-citizens_, as I regard myself but as a sojourner in the land,
whose every political duty is now performed by obeying _your_ laws, be
they good or bad--not voting, nor assisting others in making _your_
laws. Will my countrymen, in deciding for themselves these questions,
_remember--will they remember_, that the first law of liberty is
obedience to God. Without this obedience to the great and noble
principles of God, truth, righteousness and justice, there can be no
liberty, no peace, no prosperity, no happiness in any earthly
government--if these are sacrificed or ignored, God will overturn and
keep overturning, until mankind learn his truth, justice and mercy, and
conform to them.

To the people of the South, we say, _obedience_ to God is better than
all sacrifices. You have sacrificed all your negroes. It was _your
ancestors_, that God made use of to form this noblest of all human
governments--no others could do it. Do not be cast down at what has
happened, and what is _yet to happen_--God will yet use you to reinstate
and remodel this government, on its just and noble principles and at the
_proper time_. The North _can never do it_. These are perilous
times--the _impending decisions will be against you, and against God_.
But keep yourselves free from _this sin--do not by your acts, nor by
your votes, invite the negro equality--if it is forced upon you_, as it
will be--obey the laws--remembering _that God will protect the
righteous_; and that his truth, like itself, will always be consistent,
and like its Author, will be always and _forever triumphant. The finger
of God is in this. Trust him._ The Bible is true.

_July_, 1840.

_December_, 1866.      ARIEL.

NOTE 1. Any candid scholar, wishing to address the writer, is informed,
that any letter addressed to "Ariel," care of Messrs. Payne, James &
Co., Nashville, Tennessee, during this summer and fall (1867), will
reach him and command his attention.

NOTE 2. Some few kinky-headed negroes, have been found embalmed on the
Nile, but the inscriptions on their sarcophagii, fully explain who they
were, and how they came to be there. They were generally _negro traders_
from the interior of the country, and of much later dates.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed." ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.