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.