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.