diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31302-8.txt | 2369 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31302-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 54185 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31302-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 56693 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31302-h/31302-h.htm | 2460 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31302.txt | 2369 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 31302.zip | bin | 0 -> 54166 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
9 files changed, 7214 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/31302-8.txt b/31302-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cdbd38d --- /dev/null +++ b/31302-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2369 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? +2nd Ed., by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed. + +Author: Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +Release Date: February 17, 2010 [EBook #31302] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEGRO: HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? *** + + + + +Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +book was produced from scanned images of public domain +material from the Google Print project.) + + + + + + + +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 the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Negro: what is His Ethnological +Status? 2nd Ed., by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEGRO: HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? *** + +***** This file should be named 31302-8.txt or 31302-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/1/3/0/31302/ + +Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +book was produced from scanned images of public domain +material from the Google Print project.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/31302-8.zip b/31302-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..adce1af --- /dev/null +++ b/31302-8.zip diff --git a/31302-h.zip b/31302-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0bd9230 --- /dev/null +++ b/31302-h.zip diff --git a/31302-h/31302-h.htm b/31302-h/31302-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dfedea6 --- /dev/null +++ b/31302-h/31302-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2460 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Negro:, by ARIEl. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + + + + + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + + + + + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? +2nd Ed., by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed. + +Author: Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +Release Date: February 17, 2010 [EBook #31302] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEGRO: HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? *** + + + + +Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +book was produced from scanned images of public domain +material from the Google Print project.) + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + + + + +<h1>THE NEGRO:</h1> + +<h2>WHAT IS HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS?</h2> + +<h3>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?</h3> + +<h4><span class="smcap">By</span> ARIEL.</h4> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p class='center'> +"Truth, though sometimes slow in its power, is like itself, always<br /> +consistent; and like its AUTHOR, will always be triumphant.<br /> +<br /> +The Bible is true." +</p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p class='center' style="margin-top: 5em;"><small>SECOND EDITION.</small></p> + + +<p class='center'><small> +CINCINNATI:<br /> +<br /> +PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETOR.<br /> +<br /> +1867.</small> +</p> + +<p class='center'><small>(Copyright secured according to law.)</small></p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2><a name="THE_NEGRO" id="THE_NEGRO"></a>THE NEGRO.</h2> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> +<p><i>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?</i></p> + + +<p>The intelligent will see at once, that the question of <i>slavery</i>,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.</p> + +<p>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:</p> + +<p>1. That the negro is a descendant of Ham, the youngest son of Noah. This +is false and untrue.</p> + +<p>2. That the negro is a descendant of, or the progeny of, Adam and Eve. +This is also false and untrue.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>bullet put into the gun, yet we <i>know</i> 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.</p> + +<p>It will be admitted by all, and contradicted by none, that we now have +existing on earth, two races of men, the <i>white</i> and the <i>black</i>. We beg +here to remind our readers, that when they see the word men, or man, +<i>italicised</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>The negro or black race, are woolly or kinky-headed, low foreheads, flat +noses, thick-lipped, and have a black skin.</p> + +<p>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, <i>white</i>, <i>black</i> or <i>negro</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>intended</i> disparagement to any, as it +is the <i>best</i> and <i>highest authority</i>.</p> + +<p>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 <i>this</i> +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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> 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 <i>name</i>, and this <i>curse</i>, +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 <i>black</i>, +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, <i>which</i> 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 <i>his</i> color +to be black, and <i>black</i> it must be, to answer the color of the negro, +then the names of Shem and Japheth should be of equal value, in +determining <i>their</i> 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 <i>name</i> +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 <i>name</i> 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 <i>in</i> the name, which is one of the +constituents, now let us see, if it is in the other constituent, the +<i>curse</i>. Now the <i>curse</i> and <i>name</i> 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 <i>curse</i>, and not +in the words, that a servant of servants should he be, as he and his +descendants could, as readily be servants,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> white as black, and he was +already white, and no necessity to make him black, to be a servant. If +<i>this</i> effect on <i>Ham</i>, is to be found in the word <i>curse</i>, it will then +be necessary, for the advocates of the assumption, to show, that such +were its <i>usual</i> 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 <i>it did produce this</i> effect, in <i>this +instance</i>, by Noah on Ham and his descendants? We do not question or +doubt, that Canaan, was denounced in the curse, pronounced by Noah, that +<i>he</i> should be a servant of servants; but whether Ham or Canaan <i>alone</i> +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? +<i>Cum multis aliis.</i> 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 <i>such</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> it is, +that it can so mean in this case of Noah? There are no words in the +curse, that express, or even <i>imply</i> 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 <i>no sense</i>, 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 <i>must</i> 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 <i>existed</i> 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 +<i>as such</i>, entered the ark, though having the <i>form</i> of man, and <i>man</i> +he is, being so <i>named</i> 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 <i>made so</i> by his <i>name</i>, or by the <i>curse</i> +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! <i>too</i> 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 <i>improbabilities</i> +into the <i>best</i> grounds of their <i>faith</i>. The word used by God, used by +patriarch and by prophet, is the <i>same</i> 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 <i>same</i> word, when used by Noah, do it? +And yet, on these assumptions, the faith of more than half the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> world +seems to be now based. To expose these cobweb fabrics, called by <i>some</i> +reason, on this subject, and <i>Christian</i> 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 <i>learned</i> ignorance, blindness or +weakness. But the meaning of Ham's name in Hebrew is not <i>primarily</i> +black. Its primary meaning is: 1. Sunburnt; 2. swarthy; 3. dark; 4. +black—and its most <i>unusual</i> meaning.</p> + +<p>Having now disposed of these <i>fancies</i>, 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 <i>this</i> +purpose <i>only</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>men</i>.</p> + +<p>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 <i>genealogy</i>. 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 <i>this</i> +question, that whatever the color of <i>one might</i> be, the others would be +the same color—if one were<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> 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?</p> + +<p>We will begin with Shem, so as to find his race <i>now</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>seriatim</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>We now take up the youngest brother, Ham. The evidence establishing the +fact, that he too, and <i>his descendants</i> belong to the white race, with +long, straight hair, high forehead, high noses and thin lips, is if +<i>possible still stronger</i>, than that of either of his brothers; if +indeed anything can, in human conception, be <i>stronger</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> 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 <i>present time</i>; 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 +<i>now</i> 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 <i>intentionally</i> and +for a purpose that will be seen hereafter. Canaan <i>was</i> denounced by +Noah, that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, and if it +turns out, in this investigation, as we <i>know</i> it will, that they belong +to the <i>white race</i>, it will satisfactorily settle this question, that +the <i>curse</i> of Noah did not make <i>him</i> 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 <i>Theba</i>. 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 +<i>Canaan</i>, in the persons of his sons Sidon and Heth, settled<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> 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.</p> + +<p>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, <i>to this day</i>, 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 <i>plainly</i> and so +<i>positively</i> 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 <i>Chimi</i>, 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 <i>posterity of Pharaoh</i>, by the Turks of the <i>present day</i>. +The ancient <i>Hyksos</i>, or shepherd kings (patriarchs) of the Hebrews, are +sometimes confounded in ancient history, with the descendants of Ham, +being of the same original stock.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> Egypt has not had a ruler of <i>its +own</i> 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 <i>foreign</i> rule. It now is, and has been governed by the Turks +since 1517.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>retain yet</i>. 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 +<i>this day</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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, <i>their long</i> and <i>beautiful +tresses</i>, to make<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> the much needed ropes, which was accepted, and a +supply of provisions obtained. Now <i>how many</i>, and what <i>sort</i> 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 <i>continued to live</i>, and where +<i>they yet live</i>, and not one of them is a negro. They all have long, +straight hair, etc., peculiar <i>only</i> to the white race. Not one negro +belongs to <i>their race</i>. That this is their history, none will deny.</p> + +<p>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 <i>unquestioned</i> history—<i>governed</i> and <i>ruled the world</i> +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 consum<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span>mate abilities, but <i>because</i> +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 <i>stolen</i>, and to +be stolen, not by the negro, for he has neither genius or capacity for +<i>such</i> 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 <i>history</i>, the <i>page</i>, or even +<i>paragraph</i> 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 <i>anything</i> on earth, in <i>any age</i> 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 <i>unequivocally, when</i> and <i>where he did it</i>, 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, <i>his history</i> 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 <i>all Turks are</i>: 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.</p> + +<p>It will be seen now, how we have taken up one of Ham's<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> sons; that we +have traced him and his descendants from the flood to Egypt, <i>where they +are still</i>; 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 <i>are yet</i>; that +we have taken up another son, and traced him and his descendants to +Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, and Spain, and shown that they, too, <i>without +exception</i>, 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 <i>Tyrian Purple</i>—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 <i>wherever</i> we +found them, and <i>whenever</i> found, in any day, of any century from Noah +down to this day, we have found them white, and of the <i>white race +only</i>. And we now challenge the production of a single history, or a +single paragraph of history, showing <i>one</i> nation—<i>one single nation</i> +or <i>kingdom</i>—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.</p> + +<p>It seems as if God, foreseeing the slander that would, in after ages, be +put, or attempted to be put, on <i>his son Ham</i>, 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 <i>now</i> look into the faces of the +children of Mizraim, male and female, even at this day, in succeeding +generations, and from<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> the flood; and which <i>can not be done</i> 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 <i>stronger</i>, 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 +<i>forever</i> 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 <i>through each successive +generation from the flood</i>, 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 <i>slander most foul</i>—a slander most <i>infamous</i>. 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 <i>intended</i>, by this overruling or +inspiring of Mizraim, so to embalm his dead, to teach <i>us</i> a lesson, +that there was an <i>importance</i>, in being of the white race, <i>to be +attached to it</i>, 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 +<i>not one</i> 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 <i>his testimony to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> worth</i> of the <i>white race</i>? 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 <i>fine linen cambric</i>. 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 <i>apparent</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>yet living nations</i>, comprised <i>unquestionably</i> of his +descendants, and who, like the descendants of Shem and Japheth, have the +distinctive marks of the white race <i>alone</i>, and as clear as either Shem +or Japheth, and that, too, as they <i>exist now on earth</i>, and running +back as such from this our day to Noah; and as <i>distinct</i> 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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> and not of the negro, race. Why did God +require that <i>only</i> the children of Ham should be embalmed, of all then +on earth? No other nation, as such, then or <i>since</i>, 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 <i>immortal</i> being, and not of the beasts that +perish, God caused these descendants of Ham to embalm their dead, and to +<i>continue</i> doing so for many centuries. No other valid reason can be +assigned, why these people of Mizraim, <i>alone</i> 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 <i>this</i> was <i>God's reason</i>, and he chose these +personal considerations of the people, as <i>his</i> means of accomplishing +it.</p> + +<p>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, <i>this day</i>, long, straight hair, high foreheads, +high noses and thin lips—that they have ever <i>been</i> 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 <i>always</i> been so, and +the negro of this day attests that he is so yet; and that, consequently, +he is in <i>no way</i> related to Ham, even by a <i>curse</i>, 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 <i>impossible</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> contrary, +the <i>exact word</i> 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 <i>fancy</i>, 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, <i>true</i>, every word, <i>indubitably</i> true! Then, +what? One word more, before we proceed further. The embalming of Ham's +dead and the Jewish genealogical tables <i>ceased</i> at about the same time, +and by God's interposing power. Each were permitted by God to continue +as <i>national records</i>—the one to show the genealogy of Jesus of +Nazareth to be the Messiah, the other to show that Ham was <i>white</i>, and +<i>not</i> 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 <i>importance in being of the white race</i>, 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, <i>ipso facto</i>, 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 <i>them</i> now?</p> + +<p>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 <i>such a negro</i> as we now find on earth—admitted; but then he +would have been the <i>only</i> 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 <i>mulatto</i>, and not the negro, such +as we now have. To propagate the negro that we now have on earth, the +<i>man</i> and the <i>woman</i> 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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> even admitting it, destroys itself the moment +that we bring it to the test of facts. Under <i>no</i> view of their +<i>assumptions</i> can the negro we now have on earth be accounted for.</p> + +<p>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 <i>each</i> of the white race, +and that they have continued so to the <i>present day</i> in their +posterity—this is incontestible, and being true, it settles <i>the +question, that Ham is not the progenitor of the negro</i>, 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 <i>know, that he came out of the ark</i>, 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 +<i>command of God</i>; and as he was neither Noah, nor one of his sons, all +of whom were white, then, by the logic of facts, <i>he could only enter it +as a beast, and along with the beasts</i>. This logic of <i>facts</i> 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 <i>only as a beast</i>. All candid or uncandid +men will admit that the negro of the <i>present day</i>, have kinky heads, +flat nose, thick lip and black skin, and which we have shown is <i>not</i> +true of either Shem, Ham or Japheth's progeny of <i>this day</i>, and +consequently <i>it is impossible</i> 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 <i>save</i>, for <i>they</i> had <i>souls</i> and <i>beasts have not</i>. God +told him he must prepare an ark, into which besides his family, he must +also take of <i>every beast</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> their +support. Thus did Noah, and thus by God's command he entered the Ark +with his family. God promised Noah to <i>save</i> him and his family—but God +did not promise to <i>save</i> the <i>beasts</i>, etc., although he preserved them +in the ark; but, <i>besides this preservation</i>, Noah and his family were +to be <i>saved</i>—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 <i>as one</i>, for he was <i>not one of Noah's family</i> 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 <i>again</i> it follows, indubitably, that the negro is +not a <i>human</i> being—not being of Adam's race. This point we will now +examine and settle, and then account for the negro being here.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>again</i> 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 <i>beast</i>, and <i>only</i> as a +beast. Now, it is very plain, from this statement, that as he came out +of the Ark, the negro, <i>as we now know him</i>, existed anterior to the +flood, and <i>just such a negro as we have now</i>, 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 <i>mesalliance</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> 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 <i>separate</i> and +<i>distinct</i> species of the <i>genus homo</i> from Adam and Eve, and being +distinct from them, that it <i>unquestionably</i> follows that <i>the negro was +created before Adam and Eve</i>. 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 <i>the last</i>, 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, <i>they</i> could not be the +progenitors of the negro; and as neither the <i>name</i> or <i>curse</i> 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 <i>mesalliance</i> 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 <i>before</i> 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 <i>before</i> Adam, and with the other beasts or cattle, and +being created <i>before</i> 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 <i>creation</i> through various grades—cougar, panther, +leopard, tiger, up to the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>part</i> 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 <i>immortality</i>. 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 <i>as a man</i> (for he was so <i>named</i> by Adam), we now +proceed to show.</p> + +<p>We read in the Bible, and God said, let us make man <i>in</i> our own image +and after <i>our</i> likeness; which is equivalent to saying, we have <i>man</i> +already, but <i>not in our</i> image; for if the negro was already in God's +image, <i>God could not have said</i>, now let us make man <i>in</i> our image. +But God did say, after he had created every thing else on earth <i>but +Adam</i>, that he <i>then</i> said, let us make man <i>in our</i> image, and after +<i>our likeness</i>, and let him, so created now, have dominion. God so<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> +formed <i>this</i> 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 <i>this</i> 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 <i>dominion</i> over all the earth. +There must, of <i>necessity</i>, 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 <i>God's</i> 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: <i>Adam did not +name himself</i>—for no child ever names himself. But God named <i>him and +his race</i>, but he did not call or name him <i>man</i> after he created him. +Adam's dominion, starting <i>from</i> himself, went <i>downward</i> in the scale +of creation; while God's dominion, starting <i>with</i> Adam, went upward. +God, foreseeing that Adam would call the negro by the name <i>man</i>, when +he said, let us make man, therefore so used the term; for by such <i>name</i> +"man," the negro, was known by to the flood, but not <i>the</i> man.</p> + +<p>Whenever Adam is personally spoken of in the Hebrew scriptures, +invariably his name has the prefix, <i>the</i> man, to contradistinguish him +from the negro, who is called <i>man</i> simply, and was so <i>named</i> 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 <i>under God's dominion, rule and +government,</i> and was, therefore, <i>named</i> by God, "and he called <i>their</i> +name Adam," in reference to his <i>race</i>, and <i>the man</i>, to +contradistinguish <i>him</i> from the negro, whom Adam named "<i>man</i>." <i>But +God did not call Adam man after he created him</i>—he called their name +Adam—while Adam named the negro <i>man</i>. 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 de<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>struction, the <i>certain</i> 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 <i>mulatto</i>, 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 <i>kinky heads</i> nor <i>black skins</i> 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 <i>unity</i> of immortality <i>in his race alone</i>, and hence he +called <i>their</i> name Adam, not <i>man</i>. The black <i>man</i> was the <i>back +ground</i> of the picture, to show the white man to the world, in his +dominion over the earth, as the <i>darkness</i> was the back ground of the +picture of creation, before and over which light, <i>God's light</i>, should +forever be seen.</p> + +<p>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 <i>rights</i> of the <i>two</i> sexes, in +all things pertaining to human affairs and government. But both end in +destruction, <i>entire</i> 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 <i>before</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>know</i> 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 <i>now</i>, and know that he must have been +created, and Adam being the last created, that, consequently, by this +logic of facts, we <i>know</i> that the horse was made before<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> 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 <i>such animals</i> 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 <i>any</i> 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 <i>order</i> 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 <i>assert that he did make or change a +white man</i> into a black <i>negro</i>, and say not <i>one word</i> about it? Such a +position is untenable, it is preposterous.</p> + +<p>But, to go on with our subject: We read in the Bible that it came to +pass when <i>men</i> began to multiply, etc., that the sons of God saw the +daughters of <i>men</i>, 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 <i>men</i> 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 <i>the</i> men, Adam and his race being +so distinguished by God himself, when Adam was created. Again, the +<i>daughters</i> of <i>men</i> were <i>fair</i>. The word <i>fair</i> is not a correct +rendering of the original, except as it covers simply the <i>idea</i>, +captivating, enticing, seductive.</p> + +<p>With this explanation we proceed, and in proceeding we will show these +criticisms to be just and proper.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>drowned</i>. And angels can not be drowned. Angels belong to heaven, and +if they do anything wrong there,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> they are sent, not to earth, but +to—tophet. They are not the sons of men from <i>below</i>, 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 <i>pre-eminence</i>; and as they +truly were, the sons of God, to show the horrible <i>crime</i> of their +criminal association with <i>beasts</i>. Immortal beings allying themselves +with the beasts of the earth. These daughters of <i>men</i> were <i>negroes</i>, +and these sons of God, were the children of Adam and Eve, as we shall +see presently, and beyond a shade of doubt.</p> + +<p>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 <i>did</i> object to their +taking wives of <i>these daughters of men</i>. Then it is plain that these +daughters of <i>men</i>, whatever else they may have been, <i>could not be the +daughters</i> 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, <i>Our +Father</i>, 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, <i>they were the sons of God</i>; +and as God did object to the "sons of God" taking them wives of these +daughters of <i>men</i>, that it is <i>ipso facto</i> God's testimony that these +daughters of <i>men</i> were negroes, and <i>not his children</i>. This settles +the question that it was Adam's pure descendants who are here called the +<i>sons of God</i>, and that these daughters of men were negroes.</p> + +<p>By this logic of facts we see, then, who these sons of God were, and who +these daughters of <i>men</i> were; and that the crime they were committing, +could not be, or ever will be, <i>propitiated</i>; for God neither <i>could</i> or +<i>would forgive it</i>, as we shall see. He determined to destroy them, and +with them the world, by a flood, and for the crime of <i>amalgamation</i> or +<i>miscegenation</i> of <i>the white race</i> with that of <i>the black—mere beasts +of the earth</i>. We can now form an opinion of the awful nature of this +crime, in the <i>eyes of God</i>, when we know that he destroyed the world by +a flood, on account of its perpetra<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>tion. 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 <i>particular</i> 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, <i>et al.</i>—of the Jewish or +Hebrew scriptures, in which <i>that sin</i> is plainly set forth; our +translators believing it <i>impossible</i> that brute beasts could corrupt +themselves with mankind, and then, not thinking, or regarding, that the +<i>negro</i> was the <i>very beast</i> referred to. But even after this rejection, +such were the number and authenticity of manuscripts in which that +<i>idea</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>particular +time</i>, immediately after the birth of Enos, as the period when a certain +important matter <i>then first</i> took place; that important event was: that +"<i>Then</i> men <i>began</i> to call on the name of the Lord," as translated in +our Bible. Who are <i>these men</i> that <i>then began</i> 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 <i>men</i> were they, then on earth, that <i>then +began</i> 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 <i>men</i> +who <i>then began</i> (A.M. 235) to call upon the name of the Lord, were +negroes—the <i>men</i> so named by Adam when he named the other beasts and +cattle. This can not be questioned. Any other view would<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> 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 <i>idea</i> that all who are, in the Bible, called +<i>men</i> were <i>Adam's</i> progeny; or had they recognized the simple fact, +that the term <i>man</i> was the <i>name</i> bestowed on the <i>negro</i> by Adam, and +that this <i>name</i> 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 <i>before</i> +and at the time the sacred historian said that "Then <i>men</i> 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 <i>Adam's race</i>, then called +<i>men</i>, they stumbled on a translation that <i>not one</i> of them has been +satisfied with since they made it. The propriety of this assertion in +regard to antecedents <i>controlling</i> the proper rendering, will be +readily admitted by all scholars. The rendering, therefore, of the exact +<i>idea</i> of the sacred historian, would be this: "Then <i>men</i> began to +profane the Lord by calling on his name." This is required by the +<i>Hebrew</i>, 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 +<i>began</i> 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 <i>named man</i>, for there were no other <i>men</i> 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, <i>et al.</i> The Jews translate it thus: "Then men began to profane +the name of the Lord."</p> + +<p>But we have this singular expression in the Bible, occurring about the +flood: That it repented the Lord that he had made <i>man</i> on the earth, +and that it <i>grieved him at his heart</i>. 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, <i>ex consequentia</i>, 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> extent; and therefore the <i>man</i> here referred to could not have +been Adam's posterity; and must have been, from the same logic of facts, +the <i>man</i>, negro, the beast, called by God, <i>man before he created +Adam</i>. 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 <i>human</i> turpitude, and take +them up separately, and then compound them together, until the whole +catalogue of <i>human</i> iniquity and infamy is exhausted, and then suppose +them all to be perpetrated every day by <i>Adam's race</i>, and as they have +been <i>before</i> and <i>since</i> the flood, still we would have but one answer, +and that answer would be, It <i>is none of these, nor all of them +combined</i>, that thus caused God to repent and be grieved at his heart, +that he had made <i>man</i>; but add one more—nay not <i>add</i>, but take one +crime alone and by itself—one <i>only</i>, and that crime Adam's children, +the sons of God, amalgamating, miscegenating, with the +<i>negro—man—beast, without soul—without the endowment of immortality</i>, +and you have the reason, <i>why</i> God repented and drowned the world, +because of its commission. It is a crime, <i>in the sight of God</i>, that +can not be <i>propitiated</i> by any sacrifice, or by any oblation, and can +not be forgiven by God—<i>never</i> has been forgiven on earth, and never +will be. Death—death inexorable, is declared by God's judgments on the +<i>world</i> and <i>on nations</i>; 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 <i>any</i> sacrifice to expiate.</p> + +<p>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 <i>named by him</i> was included in his right to rule them. His +wife was the <i>last thing</i> named by him, and consequently under his +rule,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> government and dominion. But a being called man existed before +Adam was created, and was <i>named man</i> by Adam, and was to be under his +rule and dominion, as all other beasts and animals. But did God call +Adam <i>man</i>, after he had created him? Most certainly he did not. This +fact relieves us of all doubt as to <i>who</i> was meant as the <i>men</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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. <i>Kingly power</i> had its origin in love for and association +with the negro. Beware! Nimrod's hunting was not only of wild animals, +but also of <i>men</i>—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 <i>same +sin</i>. This view of Nimrod as a <i>mighty</i> 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 <i>hunter +to all tyrants</i>, 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 <i>negroes</i>; 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 <i>same sin</i>. 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 <i>same</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> "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 +<i>must</i> 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 +<i>immediate</i> relations; and from the Bible account where they <i>did</i> go +to, it is evident <i>that they did not go with Nimrod</i> to Shinar. This +logic of facts, therefore, proves that they were negroes, and explains +why Nimrod is called the <i>mighty</i> hunter before, or <i>against</i> the Lord, +as it should have been translated in this place. David stood <i>before</i> +Goliah; but evidently <i>against him</i>. 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 <i>concentrated</i>; +and if this were accomplished, and they kept together, and acting in +<i>concert</i>, under such a man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it +would be impossible for Noah's descendants to <i>subdue</i> the earth, as God +had charged they should do. It was, therefore, to prevent this +<i>concentration</i> 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.</p> + +<p>Let us now ask: Was not their tower an <i>intended</i> offense to, and +defiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did God destroy it? Did +God ever, <i>before</i> or <i>after</i>, destroy any <i>other</i> tower of the many +built about this time, or in any subsequent age of the world, made by +any <i>other</i> 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 <i>them</i> from building a city, but for the purpose +of destroying concentrated power, to the injury of Noah's children, and +their <i>right</i> 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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> 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 <i>said</i> and +<i>done</i>, 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 <i>same sin</i> that caused God to destroy the +earth by a flood; and that, actuated by the fear of a similar fate, +springing from a <i>like cause</i>, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which +should reach heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the +stopping of the building of <i>their</i> 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 <i>totally</i> different from his treatment of <i>any other</i> +people. The very language used by them, on the occasion, goes plainly to +prove that those Babel-builders knew that they were <i>but beasts</i>, and +knew what the effect of that sin would be, that was being committed +daily. They knew it was the very <i>nature</i> of beasts to be scattered over +the earth, and that they had <i>no name</i> (from God, as Adam had); +therefore they said, "one to another, let us make brick, and let us +build <i>us</i> a <i>city</i>, and a <i>tower</i> whose top may reach heaven; and let +us make <i>us a name</i> (as God gave us none), lest we be <i>scattered +abroad</i>." <i>Name</i>, in the Hebrew scriptures, signified "power, authority, +rule," as may be readily seen by consulting the Bible. And God said: +"And <i>this</i> they will begin to do, and nothing will <i>be restrained from +them</i> which they have <i>imagined to do</i>; let us, therefore, confound +their language, that they might not understand one another." This +language is <i>very peculiar</i>—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 <i>was confined to +those there assembled</i>. Why should God object to <i>their</i> building a +city, if they were the descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he +did object to <i>their</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +building <i>that</i> city and <i>that</i> 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—<i>but by another people</i>—Shem's +descendants. Then, what could be the reason that could cause God to come +down from heaven to prevent <i>these</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>logic of facts</i>, +force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, to +the conviction that <i>the sin</i> of these people was the identical sin, and +consequent <i>corruption</i> 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 +<i>men</i>—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.</p> + +<p>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,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> <i>and the Jebusite</i>, and the <i>Amorite</i>, and the <i>Girgasite</i>, and +the <i>Hivite</i>, and the <i>Arkite</i>, and the <i>Sinite</i>, and the <i>Arvadite</i>, +and the <i>Zemarite</i> and the <i>Hamathite</i>, and who afterward were the +<i>families</i> of the <i>Canaanite</i> spread abroad." With all <i>other</i> 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 <i>white</i> as is +plainly shown) it breaks off abruptly to these <i>ites</i>. Why this suffix +of <i>ite</i> to <i>their</i> names? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must +be some reason, a <i>peculiar</i> reason for this departure from the usual +mode or rule, of which <i>this</i> is the only exception. What does <i>it +mean</i>? The reason is plain. The progeny of the horse and ass species is +never <i>classed</i> with either its father or mother, but is called a <i>mule</i> +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 <i>ite</i>, a +"<i>class</i>"—"<i>bonded class</i>," <i>not race</i>, God intending by <i>this +distinguishment</i> to show to all future ages what will become of <i>all +such ites</i>, by placing in bold relief before our eyes the <i>terrible end +of these</i> as we shall see presently. Reader, bear in mind the end of +these <i>ites</i> when we come to narrate them. These <i>ites</i>, 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 <i>counterfeits</i>, 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 +<i>Admah</i>, 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> surely become a great +and mighty nation, <i>for I know he will command his children and +household</i> after him, <i>and they shall keep the way of the Lord</i>;" 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 <i>forbearance</i> in this incident? Will we prove worthy? The +angels went to Sodom and brought out <i>all</i> 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 <i>is on earth</i>. 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 <i>other</i> 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 +<i>Adam's race with the negroes</i>. 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 <i>righteousness</i>, what <i>kind</i> 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 <i>was intended to be shown by God</i>, +that, though frail and sinful in a <i>moral sense</i> as they were, yet, +being <i>perfect</i> in their genealogies from Adam and Eve, <i>they</i> could +still be <i>his</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> preachers of righteousness, they themselves being +<i>right</i> in keeping from beastly alliances.</p> + +<p>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 <i>that</i> land he would give to him and to +his seed after him forever. But the land was already inhabited and owned +by these <i>ites</i>. 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 <i>ites</i> 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 <i>shall not</i> +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 <i>his</i> children! To multiply and replenish +the earth, is God's <i>command</i> 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 <i>cities</i> and <i>people</i> of the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee +for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive <i>nothing that breathes</i>, but +thou shalt <i>utterly destroy</i> them, namely the Hittites, Canaanites," +etc., naming all the <i>ites</i>—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 +<i>ites</i>, 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> 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 <i>Adam's</i> children, <i>how bad soever +they may be, in a moral sense</i>, 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 <i>that</i> +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 <i>ites</i> had not. Again, they were not to +touch the land of Ammon, nor that of Moab, although <i>they</i> 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 <i>ites</i>, 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 <i>moral</i> criminals in the +sight of Heaven; but <i>simply because they were the progeny of +amalgamation or miscegenation between Canaan, a son of Adam and Eve</i>, +and the negro; and were <i>neither</i> man nor <i>beast</i>. 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, <i>never will +forgive</i>, nor can it be propitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make +or give. God has shown himself, in regard to it, <i>long-suffering and of</i> +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 <i>moral</i> 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 <i>thing</i>, and <i>one</i> thing only—one had not +brutalized himself<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> 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 <i>one crime only</i>, that +was the originating cause of this terrible and inexorable fate of the +Canaanite; being, as they were, the <i>corrupt</i> 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 <i>beasts</i> and partly +<i>human</i>, God not only dispossessed them of it, but also ordered their +<i>entire</i> extermination, <i>for he had given no part of the earth to such +beings</i>. 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 <i>man</i>. 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 <i>just judgment</i> +of an <i>all-merciful God, for this offense</i>. The seed of Adam, which is +the seed of God, must be kept pure; it <i>shall be kept pure, is the fiat +of the Almighty</i>. 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>satisfactorily</i> settled the +question, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, <i>that +Ham<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> was the father</i> of the present negro race—that if <i>this curse</i> had +been <i>specifically</i> 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 <i>curse</i> was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan, +by Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried <i>no +such effects</i> with it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not +make the black negro of Canaan, how could it have produced <i>that effect</i> +on Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had two <i>white</i> 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 +Phœnicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name +from the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white race +<i>alone</i>, 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 +<i>ites</i>. 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 <i>ites</i>, 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 <i>ites</i> were no worse <i>morally</i> +than the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek +the reason for their destruction, in something <i>besides moral +delinquency</i>? Let us see if we can find <i>that</i> something? The Bible +tells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him +that all that land (including all those <i>ites</i>) should be his and his +seed's after him<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span>—"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; <i>but in the fourth generation</i> they shall come hither +again, <i>for the iniquity of the Amorites</i>" (these representing all the +ites), "is <i>not yet full</i>."</p> + +<p>In the fourth generation their cup of iniquity would <i>then</i> 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 <i>moral</i> crimes to be committed, or to moral obliquity as +such, then it is <i>very strange</i>. If this be its reference, then these +people were, at <i>that</i> time (four generations previous to this order for +their extermination), <i>worse</i> than the very devil himself, as it was not +long before they did fill <i>their cup</i>, and the devil's cup is not full +yet. If this filling up of iniquity, referred to their <i>moral conduct</i> +in the sight of God, how was Moses or Joshua to <i>see</i> that it was full, +or <i>when</i> it was full? Yet, they must <i>know</i> 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 +<i>color</i> 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 <i>when</i> their cup of iniquity was +full. The iniquity of the Amorites (these representing all) is not <i>yet</i> +full, is the language of God—in the fourth generation it will be full, +and <i>then</i> Abraham's seed should possess the land, and these <i>ites</i> 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 <i>moral</i> injury or detriment? +Impossible! But <i>the iniquity</i> here spoken of, <i>could be so +transmitted</i>; and at the time when God said it, he tells us that it +required <i>four generations</i> 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 <i>men</i>, could require four generations to +fill up their iniquity, but this crime of amalgamation? None. Then we +<i>know the iniquity</i>, and what God then thought and yet thinks of it.</p> + +<p>Nor is this all the evidence the Bible furnishes, of God's utter +abhorrence of this crime, and his decided <i>disapprobation of the negro</i>, +in those various attempts to <i>elevate</i> him to <i>social</i>, <i>political</i> and +<i>religious equality</i> with the white race. In the laws delivered by God, +to Moses, for the children of Israel, he expressly enacts and charges, +"that no <i>man</i> having a <i>flat nose</i>, shall approach unto his altar." +This includes the <i>whole negro race</i>; and expressly <i>excludes</i> them from +coming to his altar, for <i>any act of worship</i>. God would not have their +worship then, nor accept their sacrifices or oblations—<i>they</i> 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 <i>flat-nosed men</i>, and such the +<i>negro race is</i>. And who shall gainsay, or <i>who dare</i> 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 <i>nations</i> of the Canaanites—the fifth, the inhibition +and exclusion, by <i>express law of</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> God, of the <i>flat-nosed</i> negro from +his altar. Will the people of the United States, now furnish the sixth? +<i>Nous verrons</i>.</p> + +<p>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 <i>give</i> a soul to any being on earth, where God +has given none.</p> + +<p>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—<i>brother</i>; 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 <i>curse</i> +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 <i>intended</i> 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 <i>curse</i> 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 <i>black</i>, +therefore it is that the <i>name</i> and the <i>curse</i> together made the negro, +such as we now have on earth. And, although the Bible nowhere <i>says</i>, +and nowhere charges, or even intimates, that Ham is or was the +progenitor of the negro; and in defiance of the fact that <i>no such</i> +curse was ever denounced against Ham, as they allege—nor can it be +found in the Bible; yet they boldly, on these <i>assumptions</i> and +contradictions, go on to say that Ham <i>is</i> the father of the negro of +the present day. Contradicting the Bible; contradicting the <i>whole order +of nature</i> 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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> 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 <i>of possibility</i> 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 <i>is</i> the progenitor of the negro! While, on the other +hand, by simply taking Ham's descendants—those <i>known to be his +descendants now</i>, and known as much so and as <i>positively</i> 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 <i>dare</i> 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 <i>one</i> 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 <i>alone</i> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>inspired him</i>. Then, it is God's testimony, vindicating +<i>his son Ham</i> from the aspersions of men—that he was a negro, or the +father of negroes.</p> + +<p>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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>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: <i>God's living testimony</i> is against them, in the <i>dead</i> +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 <i>assumptions</i>, for <i>here that citadel +falls; for, if Ham is not the father of the negro</i> (which is shown <i>to +be an impossibility</i>) then the negro came out of the ark, <i>and as we now +find him</i>; and if he came out of the ark, <i>then he must have been in the +ark</i>; and if he was in the ark, which, by the logic of facts, <i>we know</i> +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 <i>eight souls</i>, were saved;" the negro being in the ark, was not +one of those eight souls, and consequently he has <i>no soul to be +saved</i>—the Bible and God's inspiration being judge. Carping is vain, +against God. His order <i>will stand</i>, whether pleasing or displeasing to +any on earth. But God only promised to <i>save eight</i>—Noah and his wife, +and his three sons and their wives. These <i>had souls</i>, as the apostle +(Peter) testifies, and <i>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</i>.</p> + +<p>One point more. God has set a line of demarcation so ineffaceable, so +indelible besides color, and so <i>plain</i>, 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 <i>with souls</i>, that a <i>sense of immortality</i> 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 <i>only for +the day</i>. 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—<i>only</i> for present <i>necessity</i>, and which goes down, <i>down</i>, +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 <i>will go</i>. 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 +<i>endurance</i>; 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.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> 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 <i>this slandered Ham</i>. 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 <i>flat-nosed negro</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>impossible</i> 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 <i>impossible</i> that <i>they</i> 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 <i>know</i> that he was created before +Adam, as <i>certainly</i> and as <i>positively</i> as we <i>know</i> 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 <i>beast</i> 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 <i>class</i> +(not race), but a <i>class</i> of beings that were neither <i>human</i> nor +<i>beasts</i>. (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 <i>flat nose</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>The intelligent can not fail to discover who was the tempter in the +garden of Eden. It was a <i>beast</i>, a <i>talking</i> beast—a beast that talked +<i>naturally</i>—if it required a <i>miracle</i> to make it talk (as our +<i>learned</i> men<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> suppose, and as no one could then perform a miracle but +God only and if he performed <i>this</i> 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, <i>that God is the immediate and direct +author</i> or cause <i>of sin</i>: an idea that can not be admitted for one +moment, by <i>any</i> believer in the Bible. <i>God called it a beast—"more +subtile than all the beasts the Lord God had made."</i> 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 <i>innocent</i> 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 <i>same</i> sin with Adam, is positively plain, from <i>one +fact alone</i>, 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 +<i>them</i> 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 <i>very</i> 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 <i>you</i> and the <i>dread</i> of you <i>shall</i> +be upon every beast of the earth, etc., and all that moveth upon the +earth, etc.; into <i>thy</i> hands are they delivered". If these had +continued in their "<i>primeval</i> goodness," wholly unconnected with Adam's +sin, is it reasonable to suppose that God would have used the language +toward <i>them</i>, that he did in his <i>instructions</i> to Noah? It is +impossible! The intelligent can also see the judgments of God on this +"<i>unforgivable</i>" 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), <i>when men</i>—the negro—erected +the <i>first</i> altar on earth; <i>they</i> had seen Adam, Cain, Abel, and Seth, +erect altars and call on the name of the Lord. They, too, could +<i>imitate</i> them; they <i>did</i> then <i>imitate</i>; they then built <i>their</i> +altars; they <i>then</i> called an the name of the Lord; they are yet +<i>imitating</i>; they are <i>yet profaning</i> the name of the Lord, by calling +on his name. And <i>you</i>, the people of the United States, are upholding +<i>this profanity</i>. Who was it that caused God to repent and to be grieved +at his heart, that he had made <i>man</i>? Will <i>you</i> place yourselves +alongside of that being, and against God? All analogy says <i>you will</i>! +But remember, that the righteous will escape—the hardened alone will +perish.</p> + +<p>The ways of God are <i>always consistent, when understood</i>, 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 <i>never +conferred</i>, and never <i>designed</i> to <i>confer</i>, any great <i>blessing</i> on +the human family, but what he <i>always</i> selects or selected a white +<i>slaveholder</i> or<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> one of a white <i>slaveholding nation</i>, as the <i>medium</i>, +by or through which <i>that blessing</i> should reach them. Why he has done +so, is not material to discuss now; but the <i>fact</i>, that he <i>always</i> 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 <i>slaves</i>. And the Saviour of the world was of a +white <i>slaveholding nation</i>; 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 <i>noble +principles</i>? 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 <i>states</i>, 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 <i>slave holders</i>, +from <i>slave states</i>. 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, <i>that God always</i> selects <i>slaveholders</i>, or from a +<i>slaveholding</i> nation, the media through which he confers his blessings +on mankind. Would it not be wisdom to heed it now?</p> + +<p>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<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> it one +way, then they will make the <i>sixth</i> 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, <i>God will exterminate</i>. To make the negro, the political, social +and religious equal of the white race by <i>law</i>, by <i>statute</i> and by +<i>constitutions</i>, can easily be effected in <i>words</i>; but so to elevate +the negro <i>jure divino</i>, is simply <i>impossible</i>. You can not elevate a +<i>beast</i> 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 <i>impress</i> of the Almighty, +<i>down to the level of a beast</i>. 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, <i>and the last</i>? 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 +<i>beast</i>—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 <i>can not</i> be expiated—it never has been expiated on +earth—and from its nature never can be, and, consequently, <i>never was +forgiven by God, and never will be</i>. 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 <i>God +will make you do</i>, or <i>make you accept his punishment</i>, as he made +Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, before you. You <i>must +send him back to Africa</i> or <i>re-enslave him</i>. The former is the best, +<i>far the best</i>. Now, which will my countrymen do? I do not say +<i>fellow-citizens</i>, as I regard myself but as a sojourner in the land, +whose every political duty is now performed by obeying <i>your</i> laws, be +they good or bad—not voting, nor assisting others in making <i>your</i> +laws. Will my countrymen, in deciding for themselves these questions, +<i>remember—will they remember</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>To the people of the South, we say, <i>obedience</i> to God is better than +all sacrifices. You have sacrificed all your negroes. It was <i>your +ancestors</i>, 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 <i>yet to happen</i>—God will yet use you to reinstate +and remodel this government, on its just and noble principles and at the +<i>proper time</i>. The North <i>can never do it</i>. These are perilous +times—the <i>impending decisions will be against you, and against God</i>. +But keep yourselves free from <i>this sin—do not by your acts, nor by +your votes, invite the negro equality—if it is forced upon you</i>, as it +will be—obey the laws—remembering <i>that God will protect the +righteous</i>; and that his truth, like itself, will always be consistent, +and like its Author, will be always and <i>forever triumphant. The finger +of God is in this. Trust him.</i> The Bible is true.</p> + +<p><i>July</i>, 1840.</p> + +<p> +<i>December</i>, 1866. <span style="margin-left: 25em;"> ARIEL.</span> +</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Note</span> 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.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Note</span> 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 <i>negro +traders</i> from the interior of the country, and of much later dates.</p> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Negro: what is His Ethnological +Status? 2nd Ed., by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEGRO: HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? *** + +***** This file should be named 31302-h.htm or 31302-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/1/3/0/31302/ + +Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +book was produced from scanned images of public domain +material from the Google Print project.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/31302.txt b/31302.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6a66edb --- /dev/null +++ b/31302.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2369 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? +2nd Ed., by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status? 2nd Ed. + +Author: Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +Release Date: February 17, 2010 [EBook #31302] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEGRO: HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? *** + + + + +Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +book was produced from scanned images of public domain +material from the Google Print project.) + + + + + + + +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, AEgyptus. 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 daemons, 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 the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Negro: what is His Ethnological +Status? 2nd Ed., by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEGRO: HIS ETHNOLOGICAL STATUS? *** + +***** This file should be named 31302.txt or 31302.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/1/3/0/31302/ + +Produced by Bryan Ness, Graeme Mackreth and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +book was produced from scanned images of public domain +material from the Google Print project.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/31302.zip b/31302.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0264a12 --- /dev/null +++ b/31302.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3e002bf --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #31302 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31302) |