The Negro: what is His Ethnological Status?

by Buckner H. 'Ariel' Payne.

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 G.o.d's nomenclature? What is his Status as fixed by G.o.d 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 G.o.d intended it to be in his order of creation, are all traceable to, and arise out of two a.s.sumptions. The learned men of the past and present age, the clergy and others have a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sumptions, 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 j.a.pheth, 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 a.s.sumptions, 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 j.a.pheth 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 j.a.pheth'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 const.i.tuent, can not be in the const.i.tuted. We have seen, that the making of Ham a negro, is not _in_ the name, which is one of the const.i.tuents, now let us see, if it is in the other const.i.tuent, 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 a.s.sumption, to show, that such were its _usual_ results, whenever that word was used; for unless such were its common effects, when used by G.o.d himself, by men of G.o.d, by patriarchs and by prophets, then we ask, on what grounds, if any there be, it is, that they a.s.sert, 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, p.r.o.nounced 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. G.o.d 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 G.o.d himself. G.o.d 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 p.r.o.nounced by G.o.d himself and produced no such effects. But we proceed and take up the holy men of G.o.d, 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?

_c.u.m 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 p.r.o.nounced by G.o.d, by patriarch, by prophet, or by any holy man of G.o.d 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 p.r.o.nounced by G.o.d 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 a.s.sertions, based on such a.s.sumptions, 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 j.a.pheth 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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sumption 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 G.o.d, used by patriarch and by prophet, is the _same_ word used by Noah. If the word thus used by G.o.d, 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 a.s.sumptions, 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 j.a.pheth, 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 j.a.pheth. 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 j.a.pheth'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 inc.u.mber 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 surpa.s.sing 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 pa.s.sed 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 h.e.l.lenic 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 G.o.d 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 j.a.pheth's descendants are now white. They first commenced to settle on the Nile in Africa, they then pa.s.sed into Asia; and these two continents were princ.i.p.ally 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 Africa.n.u.s 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 n.o.ble 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 n.o.ble 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 pa.s.sed 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_ G.o.d had long before determined, that the j.a.phethic race should govern the world; and the Roman people were j.a.pheth'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 j.a.pheth. 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 j.a.pheth 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 G.o.d--the Saracenic general, the gallant, the daring, the chivalrous, the n.o.ble 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 G.o.d, 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 j.a.pheth, about whose ident.i.ty with the white race no controversy has ever existed. It was this fact that caused us to say, that the testimony establishing Ham's ident.i.ty, as belonging to the white race, was _stronger_, if possible, than that of either of his brothers. G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d _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 n.o.bler 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sisted in unrolling some, and all had straight, long hair. It was his fortune, as it happened, to a.s.sist 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 a.s.sisted 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 j.a.pheth, have the distinctive marks of the white race _alone_, and as clear as either Shem or j.a.pheth, 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 j.a.pheth? 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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, G.o.d caused these descendants of Ham to embalm their dead, and to _continue_ doing so for many centuries. No other valid reason can be a.s.signed, 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 _G.o.d'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 j.a.pheth are white, and have always been white, none dispute. 4. That, having established, then, that Shem, Ham and j.a.pheth 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's interposing power. Each were permitted by G.o.d 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, G.o.d permitted them to cease, and both ceased about the same time. Is not this embalming, then, in effect, the direct testimony of G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 a.s.sumption 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 _a.s.sumptions_ 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 j.a.pheth, 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 j.a.pheth, 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 G.o.d_; 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 j.a.pheth'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d intended to _save_, for _they_ had _souls_ and _beasts have not_. G.o.d 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 G.o.d's command he entered the Ark with his family. G.o.d promised Noah to _save_ him and his family--but G.o.d 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 j.a.pheth, 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 h.o.m.o_ 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 G.o.d'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 a.s.sumption 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 a.s.serts that either Shem or j.a.pheth 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 s.p.a.ce 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 n.o.ble beast. Again, we take the a.s.s, and we trace through the intervening animals of the same species up to the horse, another n.o.ble 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 n.o.ble animal, the n.o.blest 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's image, _G.o.d could not have said_, now let us make man _in_ our image.

But G.o.d 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. G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 _G.o.d's_ dominion, rule and control, G.o.d 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 G.o.d's direction and authority. But mark: _Adam did not name himself_--for no child ever names himself. But G.o.d 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 G.o.d's dominion, starting _with_ Adam, went upward.

G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's dominion, rule and government_, and was, therefore, _named_ by G.o.d, "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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sumption 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 G.o.d thought of its practice. But while on this point, just here let us remark, that G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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, _G.o.d'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_ s.e.xes, 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 _a.s.sert 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.