But this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cush was Ham's oldest son, and the father of Nimrod. It appears from the Bible, that this Nimrod was not entirely cured, by the flood, of this antediluvian love for and miscegenation with negroes. Nimrod was the first on earth who began to monopolize power and play the despot: its objects we will see presently.Kingly powerhad its origin in love for and association with the negro. Beware! Nimrod's hunting was not only of wild animals, but also ofmen—the negro—to subdue them under his power and dominion; and for the purposes of rebellion against God, and in defiance of his power and judgment in destroying the world, and for thesame sin. This view of Nimrod as amightyhunter, will be sustained, not only by the facts narrated in our Bible, of what he did, but to the mind of every Hebrew scholar, it will appear doubly strong by the sense of the original. We see that God, by his prophets, gives the namehunter to all tyrants, with manifest reference to Nimrod as its originator. In the Latin Vulgate, Ezekiel xxxii: 30, plainly shows it. It was Nimrod that directed and managed—ruled, if you please—the great multitude that assembled on the Plain of Shinar. This multitude, thus assembled by his arbitrary power, and other inducements, we shall see presently, were mostlynegroes; and with them he undertook the building of the tower of Babel—a building vainly intended, by him and them, should reach heaven, and thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently destroyed the earth; and for thesame sin. Else why build such a tower? They knew the sin that had caused the flood, for Noah was yet living; and unless they were again committing thesameoffense, there would be no necessity for such a tower. That the great multitude, gathered thus by Nimrod, were mostly negroes, appears from the facts stated in the Bible. God told Noah, after the flood, to subdue the earth"for all beasts, cattle," etc., "are delivered into thy hands." The negro, as already shown, was put into the ark with the beasts, and came out of it along with them, as one. If they went into the ark by sevens, as is probable they did, from being the head of the beasts, cattle, etc., then their populating power would be in proportion to the whites—as seven is to three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrodmusthave resorted to them to get the multitude that he assembled on the Plain of Shinar; for the Bible plainly tells us where the other descendants of Noah's children went, including those of Nimrod'simmediaterelations; and from the Bible account where theydidgo to, it is evidentthat they did not go with Nimrodto Shinar. This logic of facts, therefore, proves that they were negroes, and explains why Nimrod is called themightyhunter before, oragainstthe Lord, as it should have been translated in this place. David stoodbeforeGoliah; but evidentlyagainst him. The whole tenor of the Bible account shows these views to be correct, whether the negro entered the ark by sevens or only a pair. For, when we read further, that they now were all of one speech and one language, they proposed, besides the tower, to build them a city, where their power could beconcentrated; and if this were accomplished, and they kept together, and acting inconcert, under such a man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it would be impossible for Noah's descendants tosubduethe earth, as God had charged they should do. It was, therefore, to prevent thisconcentrationof power and numbers, that God confounded their language, broke them into bands, overthrew their tower, stopped the building of their city, and scattered or dispersed them over the earth.
Let us now ask: Was not their tower anintendedoffense to, and defiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did God destroy it? Did God ever,beforeorafter, destroy anyothertower of the many built about this time, or in any subsequent age of the world, made by anyotherpeople? No. Why did he not destroy the towers, obelisks and pyramids, built by Mizraim and his descendants, on the banks of the Nile? And why preventthemfrom building a city, but for the purpose of destroying concentrated power, to the injury of Noah's children, and theirrightfrom God to rule the earth? The Bible nowhere tells us where any of the beasts of earth went at any time: hence, the negro being one, it says not one word about where any of them went. But we are at no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro,we know from his habits, when unrestrained, never inhabits mountainous districts or countries; and, therefore, we readily find him in the level Plain of Shinar. The whole facts narrated in the Bible, of what wassaidanddone, go to show that the positions here assumed, warrant the correctness of the conclusion that the main body of these people were negroes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nimrod; that the language used by them, why they would build them a tower, shows they were daily practicing thesame sinthat caused God to destroy the earth by a flood; and that, actuated by the fear of a similar fate, springing from alike cause, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which should reach heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the stopping of the building oftheircity by God—all, all go to show what sort of people they were, and what sin it was that caused God to deal with them sototallydifferent from his treatment ofany otherpeople. The very language used by them, on the occasion, goes plainly to prove that those Babel-builders knew that they werebut beasts, and knew what the effect of that sin would be, that was being committed daily. They knew it was the verynatureof beasts to be scattered over the earth, and that they hadno name(from God, as Adam had); therefore they said, "one to another, let us make brick, and let us buildusacity, and atowerwhose top may reach heaven; and let us makeus a name(as God gave us none), lest we bescattered abroad."Name, in the Hebrew scriptures, signified "power, authority, rule," as may be readily seen by consulting the Bible. And God said: "Andthisthey will begin to do, and nothing willbe restrained from themwhich they haveimagined to do; let us, therefore, confound their language, that they might not understand one another." This language isvery peculiar—used as it is by God—and there is more in it than appears on the surface, or to a superficial reader; but we will not pause to consider it now. The confusion of languagewas confined to those there assembled. Why should God object totheirbuilding a city, if they were the descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he did object totheirbuilding one. Did God object to Cain's building a city?—although a fratricidal murderer. Did he object to Mizraim and his descendants building those immense cities which they built on the Nile? No. In short, did God ever object to any of the known descendants of Adam and Eve building a city, or as many as they might choose to build? Never. But, from some cause or other, God did object to those peoplebuildingthatcity andthattower. The objection could not be in regard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it was proposed to build them; for the great City of Babylon and with higher towers, too, was afterward built on the same spot—but by another people—Shem's descendants. Then, what could be the reason that could cause God to come down from heaven to preventthesepeople from building it? It must be some great cause that would bring God down to overthrow and prevent it. He allowed the people of Shem, afterward, to build the City of Babylon at the same place.
Reader, candid or uncandid, carefully read and reflect on the facts described in this whole affair. Then remember that, on one other occasion, God came down from heaven; that he talked with Noah; that he told him he was going to destroy the world; that he told him the reason why he intended to destroy it. Reader, do not the facts here detailed, of the objects and purposes of these people, and thislogic of facts, force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, to the conviction thatthe sinof these people was the identical sin, and consequentcorruptionof the race, as that which caused the destruction of the world by the flood; and that sin, the amalgamation or miscegenation of Nimrod and his kindred with beasts—the daughters ofmen—negroes. But, this view of who it was that attempted the building of the tower and city of Babel, and their reasons for doing so, will be confirmed by what is to follow.
The Bible informs us that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, settled Canaan; and that it was from him the land took its name, as did the land of Mizraim, Ham's second son take its name from him, of what is now called Egypt. It was against this Canaan (not Ham) that the curse of Noah was directed, that a servant of servants should he be to his brethren. There is something of marked curiosity in the Bible account of this Canaan and his family. The language is singular, and differs from the Bible account of every other family in the Bible, where it proposes to give and does give the genealogy of any particular family. Why is this, there must be some reason, and some valid reason too, or there would be no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any other family? The account in the Bible reads thus—"And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth." So far so good. And why not continue on giving the names of his other sons as in all other genealogies? But it does not read so. It reads, "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth,and the Jebusite, and theAmorite, and theGirgasite, and theHivite, and theArkite, and theSinite, and theArvadite, and theZemariteand theHamathite, and who afterward were thefamiliesof theCanaanitespread abroad." With allotherfamilies the Divine Record goes on as this commenced, giving the names of all the sons. But in this family of Canaan, after naming the two sons Sidon and Heth (who settled Sidon, Tyre and Carthage, and werewhiteas is plainly shown) it breaks off abruptly to theseites. Why this suffix ofitetotheirnames? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must be some reason, apeculiarreason for this departure from the usual mode or rule, of whichthisis the only exception. What doesit mean? The reason is plain. The progeny of the horse and ass species is neverclassedwith either its father or mother, but is called amuleand represents neither. So the progeny of a son of God, a descendant of Adam and Eve with the negro a beast, is not classed with or called by the name of either its father or mother, but is anite, a "class"—"bonded class,"not race, God intending bythis distinguishmentto show to all future ages what will become ofall such ites, by placing in bold relief before our eyes theterrible end of theseas we shall see presently. Reader, bear in mind the end of theseiteswhen we come to narrate them. Theseites, the progeny of Canaan and the negro, inhabited the land of Canaan; with other places, they occupied what was then the beautiful plain and vale of Siddim, where they built the notorious cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. Like allcounterfeits, they were ambitious of appearing as the genuine descendants of Adam, whose name they knew or had heard meant "red and fair" in Hebrew; they, therefore, called one of their citiesAdmah, to represent this "red and fair" man, and at the same time it should mean in negro "Ethiopic" "beautiful"—that kind of beauty that once seduced the sons of God, and brought the flood upon the earth. About the time we are now referring to, Abraham, a descendant of Shem was sojourning in Canaan. He had a nephew named Lot who had located himself in the vale of Siddim, and at this time was living in Sodom. One day three men were seen by Abraham passing his tent; it was summer time. Abraham ran to them and entreated that they should abide under the tree, while he would have refreshment prepared for them; they did so, and when about to depart one of them said, "shall we keep from Abraham that thing which I do (God come down again), seeing he shallsurely become a great and mighty nation,for I know he will command his children and householdafter him,and they shall keep the way of the Lord;" that is, keeping Adam's race pure—a mission the Jews are to this day fulfilling. And they told Abraham of the impending fate of these cities. Abraham interceded for them, and pleaded that the righteous should not be destroyed with the wicked. God ultimately promised him, that if there were ten righteous in all these cities that he would not destroy them. What strong foundation have we people of the United States in God's mercy andforbearancein this incident? Will we prove worthy? The angels went to Sodom and brought outallthe righteous, being only Lot and his two daughters (and their righteousness was not in their morality), his wife being turned into a pillar of salt. This done, God rained fire upon these cities and literally burnt up their inhabitants alive, and everything they had, and then sunk the very ground upon which their cities stood more than a thousand feet beneath, not the pure waters of the deluge, but beneath the bitter, salt, and slimy waters of Asphaltites, wherein no living thing can exist. An awful judgment! But it was for the most awful crime that man can commit in the sight of God, of which the punishmentis on earth. Exhaust the catalogue of human depravity—name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpetrate, and which has been perpetrated on earth since the fall of Adam, and no such judgment of God on any people has ever before fallen, on their commission. But one crime, oneothercrime, and that crime the same for which he had destroyed every living thing on earth, save what was in the ark. But now he destroys by fire, not by water, but by fire, men, women and children, old and young, for the crime of miscegenating ofAdam's race with the negroes. Noah was a preacher of righteousness to the antediluvians, yet he got drunk after the flood. Lot too was a preacher of righteousness to the cities of the plain, and he too not only got drunk but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of incest besides. Then we ask, whatrighteousness, whatkindof righteousness was it that was thus preached by such men? We speak with entire reverence when we say that the logic of facts shows but little of morality—but it does show, as itwas intended to be shown by God, that, though frail and sinful in amoral senseas they were, yet, beingperfectin their genealogies from Adam and Eve,theycould still behispreachers of righteousness, they themselves beingrightin keeping from beastly alliances.
But the Bible evidence to the truth of these views does not stop here. God appeared unto Abraham at another time, while sojourning in the land of Canaan, and told him that allthatland he would give to him and to his seed after him forever. But the land was already inhabited and owned by theseites. If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve, would they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy it as Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If theseiteswere God's children by Adam and Eve, it is impossible to suppose that God would turn one child out of house and land and give them to another, without right and without justice; and which he would be doing, were he to act so. Nay! but the Lord of the whole earth will do right. But God did make such a promise to Abraham, and he made it in righteousness, truth and justice. When the time came for Abraham's seed to enter upon it and to possess it, God sent Moses and Aaron to bring them up out of Egypt, where they had long been in bondage, and they did so. But now mark what follows: God explicitly enjoins upon them, (1.) that theyshall nottake, of the daughters of the land, wives for their sons; nor give their daughters in marriage to them. Strange conflict of God with himself, if indeed these Canaanites werehischildren! To multiply and replenish the earth, is God'scommandto Adam; but his command to Moses is, that Israel, known to be the children of Adam, shall not take wives of these Canaanites for their sons—nor shall they give their daughters to them. Why this conflict of the one great lawgiver, if these Canaanites were God's children through Adam? It could not be to identify the Messiah, for that required only the lineage of one family. But mark, (2.) "But of thecitiesandpeopleof the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alivenothing that breathes, but thou shaltutterly destroythem, namely the Hittites, Canaanites," etc., naming all theites—this is their end. Why this terrible order of extermination given? and given by God himself? Will not the Lord of the whole earth do right? Yes, verily. Then, we ask, what is that great and terrible reason for God ordering this entire extermination of theseites, if indeed they were his children and the pure descendants of Adam and Eve? What crimes had they committed, that had not been before committed by the pure descendants ofNoah? What iniquity had the little children and nursing infants been guilty of, that such a terrible fate should overwhelm them? There must have been some good cause for such entire destruction; for the Lord of the whole earth does right, and only right. Let us see how God deals withAdam'schildren,how bad soever they may be, in a moral sense, in contrast with this order to exterminate. The Bible tells us, that when the Hebrews approached the border of Sier (which is in Canaan), God told them not to touchthatland nor its people, for he had given it to Esau for a possession. Yet this Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and he and his people were idolaters, and treated the children of Israel with acts of hostility which some of theseiteshad not. Again, they were not to touch the land of Ammon, nor that of Moab, althoughtheywere the offspring of incestuous intercourse, and were, with the people of Sier, as much given to idolatry and all other moral crimes, and as much so as any of these Canaanites whom God directed Moses to exterminate. Why except those, and doom these to extermination? Was not Canaan, the father of theseites, a grandson of Noah, and as much related to the Hebrews as were the children of Esau, Moab and Ammon? Certainly. Then, their destruction was not for want of kinship; nor was it because they were idolaters more than these, or were greatermoralcriminals in the sight of Heaven; butsimply because they were the progeny of amalgamation or miscegenation between Canaan, a son of Adam and Eve, and the negro; and wereneitherman norbeast. For this crime God had destroyed the world, sown confusion broad-cast at Babel, burnt up the inhabitants of the vale of Siddim, and for it would now exterminate the Canaanite. It is a crime that God has never forgiven,never will forgive, nor can it be propitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make or give. God has shown himself, in regard to it,long-suffering and ofgreat forbearance. However much our minds may seek and desire to seek other reasons for this order of extermination of God, yet we look in vain, even to the Hebrews themselves, for reasons to be found, in their superiormoralconduct toward God; but we look in vain. The very people for whom they were exterminated were, in their moral conduct and obedience to God, no better, save in that sin of amalgamation. The exterminator and the exterminated were bad, equally alike in every moral or religious sense—save onething, andonething only—one had not brutalized himselfby amalgamating with negroes, the other had. This logic of facts, forces our minds, compels our judgment, and presses all our reasoning faculties back, in spite of ourselves or our wishes, to the conclusion that it was this one crime, andone crime only, that was the originating cause of this terrible and inexorable fate of the Canaanite; being, as they were, thecorruptseed of Canaan, God destroyed them. For, if these Canaanites had been the full children of Adam and Eve, they would have been as much entitled to the land, under the grant by God, of the whole earth, to Adam and his posterity, with the right of dominion, and their right to it as perfect as that of Abraham could possibly be; but, being partlybeastsand partlyhuman, God not only dispossessed them of it, but also ordered theirentireextermination,for he had given no part of the earth to such beings. This judgment of God on these people has been harped upon by every deistical and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to Thomas Paine of the present age, but without understanding it. This crime must be unspeakably great, when we read, as we do in the Bible, that it caused God to repent and to be grieved at his heart that he had mademan. For, the debasing idolatry of the world, the murder of the good and noble of earth, the forswearing of the apostle Peter in denying his Lord and Saviour—all, all the crimsoned crimes of earth, or within the power of man's infamy and turpitude to commit and blacken his soul—are as nothing on earth, as compared with this. Death by the flood, death by the scorching fire of God burning alive the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds, remorseless, relentless and exterminating death—is thejust judgmentof anall-merciful God, for this offense. The seed of Adam, which is the seed of God, must be kept pure; itshall be kept pure, is the fiat of the Almighty. Man perils his existence, nations peril their existence and destruction, if they support, countenance, or permit it. Such have been God's dealings with it heretofore, and such will be his dealings with it hereafter.
But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we will now explain. Had Noah named Ham instead of Canaan, when he declared that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, the learned world are of the opinion that it would have forever, andsatisfactorilysettled the question, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew,that Hamwas the fatherof the present negro race—that ifthis cursehad beenspecificallyand 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 thiscursewas hurled specifically and personally at Canaan, by Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carriedno such effectswith it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not make the black negro of Canaan, how could it have producedthat effecton Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had twowhitesons, with long, straight hair, etc., peculiar alone to the white race, and not belonging to the negro race at all, which is proof that the curse did not affect his hair or the color of his skin, nor that of his posterity. Canaan had two white sons by his first wife, Sidon and Heth. They settled Phœnicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name from the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white racealone, 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 theseites. 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 theseites, 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 theseiteswere no worsemorallythan the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek the reason for their destruction, in somethingbesides moral delinquency? Let us see if we can findthatsomething? The Bible tells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him that all that land (including all thoseites) 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 generationthey shall come hither again,for the iniquity of the Amorites" (these representing all the ites), "isnot yet full."
In the fourth generation their cup of iniquity wouldthenbe 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 tomoralcrimes to be committed, or to moral obliquity as such, then it isvery strange. If this be its reference, then these people were, atthattime (four generations previous to this order for their extermination),worsethan the very devil himself, as it was not long before they did filltheir cup, and the devil's cup is not full yet. If this filling up of iniquity, referred to theirmoral conductin the sight of God, how was Moses or Joshua toseethat it was full, orwhenit was full? Yet, they mustknowit, 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 thecolorwould 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 tellwhentheir cup of iniquity was full. The iniquity of the Amorites (these representing all) is notyetfull, is the language of God—in the fourth generation it will be full, andthenAbraham's seed should possess the land, and theseitesbe 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 theirmoralinjury or detriment? Impossible! Butthe iniquityhere spoken of,could be so transmitted; and at the time when God said it, he tells us that it requiredfour generationsto make the iniquity full. What crime but the amalgamation of Adam's sons, the children of God, with the negro—beasts—called by Adammen, could require four generations to fill up their iniquity, but this crime of amalgamation? None. Then weknow 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 decideddisapprobation of the negro, in those various attempts toelevatehim tosocial,politicalandreligious equalitywith the white race. In the laws delivered by God, to Moses, for the children of Israel, he expressly enacts and charges, "that nomanhaving aflat nose, shall approach unto his altar." This includes thewhole negro race; and expresslyexcludesthem from coming to his altar, forany act of worship. God would not have their worship then, nor accept their sacrifices or oblations—theyshould 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 offlat-nosed men, and such thenegro race is. And who shall gainsay, orwho daregainsay, 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 thenationsof the Canaanites—the fifth, the inhibition and exclusion, byexpress law ofGod, of theflat-nosednegro 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 togivea 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 thecursedenounced by Noah, not against Ham, but against Ham's youngest son—Canaan. But, to sustain their theory, they further assume that this curse wasintendedfor 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 thecurseto 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 isblack, therefore it is that thenameand thecursetogether made the negro, such as we now have on earth. And, although the Bible nowheresays, and nowhere charges, or even intimates, that Ham is or was the progenitor of the negro; and in defiance of the fact thatno suchcurse was ever denounced against Ham, as they allege—nor can it be found in the Bible; yet they boldly, on theseassumptionsand contradictions, go on to say that Hamisthe father of the negro of the present day. Contradicting the Bible; contradicting thewhole order of natureas 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 usthat 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 boundsof possibilityto 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 Hamisthe progenitor of the negro! While, on the other hand, by simply taking Ham's descendants—thoseknown to be his descendants now, and known as much so and aspositivelyas 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, nordaredeny, 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 thatonething 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 thealonepurpose 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 Godinspired him. Then, it is God's testimony, vindicatinghis son Hamfrom 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 believingheretofore, 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 testimonyis against them, in thedeadchildren 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 ofassumptions, forhere that citadel falls; for, if Ham is not the father of the negro(which is shownto 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 knowhe 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 iseight souls, were saved;" the negro being in the ark, was not one of those eight souls, and consequently he hasno soul to be saved—the Bible and God's inspiration being judge. Carping is vain, against God. His orderwill stand, whether pleasing or displeasing to any on earth. But God only promised tosave eight—Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives. Thesehad souls, as the apostle (Peter) testifies, andall 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 soplain, 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 Godwith souls, that asense of immortalityever 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 isonly 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—onlyfor presentnecessity, and which goes down,down, as everything merely animal must forever do. Such are the actions of the two races, when left to themselves, as all their works attest. Subdue the negro as we do the other animals, and like them, teach them all we can; then turn them loose, free them entirely from the restraints and control of the white race, and, just like all other animals or beasts so treated, back to his native nature and wildness and barbarism and the worship of dæmons, hewill 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 andendurance; 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 ofthis 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?—aflat-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 isimpossiblethat 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 thereforeimpossiblethattheycould 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 weknowthat he was created before Adam, ascertainlyand aspositivelyas weknowthat 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 abeastin 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 aclass(not race), but aclassof beings that were neitherhumannorbeasts. (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 aflat 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 abeast, atalkingbeast—a beast that talkednaturally—if it required amiracleto make it talk (as ourlearnedmensuppose, and as no one could then perform a miracle but God only and if he performedthismiracle 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 authoror causeof sin: an idea that can not be admitted for one moment, byanybeliever 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 theinnocentbeasts, 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 thesamesin with Adam, is positively plain, fromone 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 afflictthemfor 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 usesverydifferent 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 ofyouand thedreadof youshallbe upon every beast of the earth, etc., and all that moveth upon the earth, etc.; intothyhands are they delivered". If these had continued in their "primevalgoodness," wholly unconnected with Adam's sin, is it reasonable to suppose that God would have used the language towardthem, that he did in hisinstructionsto 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 thefirstaltar on earth;theyhad seen Adam, Cain, Abel, and Seth, erect altars and call on the name of the Lord. They, too, couldimitatethem; theydidthenimitate; they then builttheiraltars; theythencalled an the name of the Lord; they are yetimitating; they areyet profaningthe name of the Lord, by calling on his name. Andyou, the people of the United States, are upholdingthis profanity. Who was it that caused God to repent and to be grieved at his heart, that he had mademan? Willyouplace yourselves alongside of that being, and against God? All analogy saysyou will! But remember, that the righteous will escape—the hardened alone will perish.
The ways of God arealways consistent, when understood, and always just and reasonable. It is a curious fact, but a fact, nevertheless, and fully sustained by the Bible; and that fact is this; That Godnever conferred, and neverdesignedtoconfer, any greatblessingon the human family, but what healwaysselects or selected a whiteslaveholderorone of a whiteslaveholding nation, as themedium, by or through whichthat blessingshould reach them. Why he has done so, is not material to discuss now; but thefact, that healwaysdid so, the Bible abundantly proves. Abraham, the father of the faithful, and in whom and his seed all the families of the earth were to be blessed, is a notable instance of this truth. For Abraham owned three hundred and eighteenslaves. And the Saviour of the world was of a whiteslaveholding nation; and they held slaves by God's own laws, and not by theirs. And how has it been in respect of our own nation and government, the United States? A government now declared by thousands of lips, latterly, to be the best, the very best, that has ever been in the world. Who made this government? Who established it and itsnoble principles? Let us appeal to history. The first attack on British power, and the aggressions of its parliament, ever made on this continent, was made by a slaveholder, from a slave state, Patrick Henry, May 30, 1765. The first president of the first congress, that ever assembled on this continent, to consider of the affairs of the thirteen colonies, and which met in Philadelphia, September 5, 1774, was a slave owner from a slave state, Peyton Randolph. The only secretary that congress ever had, was a slave owner from a slave state, Charles Thompson. The gentleman who was chairman of the committee of the whole, on Saturday, the 8th of June, 1776, and who, on the morning of the 10th reported the resolutions, that the thirteen colonies, of right ought to be free and independentstates, was a slaveholder from a slave state, Benjamin Harrison. The same gentlemen again, as chairman of the committee of the whole, reported the Declaration of Independence in form; and to which he affixed his signature, on Thursday, July 4, 1776. The gentleman who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a slave owner, from a slave state, Thomas Jefferson. The gentleman who was selected to lead their armies, as commander-in-chief, and who did lead them successfully, to victory and the independence of the country, was a slave owner, from a slave state, George Washington. The gentleman who was president of the convention, to form the constitution of the United States, was a slave holder, from a slave state, George Washington. The gentleman who wrote the constitution of the United States (making it the best government ever formed on earth), was a slave owner, from a slave state, James Madison. The first president of the United States, under that constitution, and who, under God gave it strength, consistency and power before the world, was a slave owner, from a slave state, George Washington; and these were all white men and slave owners; and whatever of peace, prosperity, happiness and glory, the people of the United States have enjoyed under it, have been from the administration of the government, by presidents elected by the people, ofslave holders, fromslave states. Whenever the people have elected a president from a non-slaveholding state, commencing with the elder Adams, and down to Mr. Lincoln, confusion, wrangling and strife have been the order of the day, until it culminated in the greatest civil war the world has ever beheld, under the last named gentleman. Why this has been so is not in the line of our subject. We mention it as a matter of history, to confirm the Bible fact,that God alwaysselectsslaveholders, or from aslaveholdingnation, the media through which he confers his blessings on mankind. Would it not be wisdom to heed it now?
One reflection and then we are done. The people of the United States have now thrust upon them, the question of negro equality, social, political and religious. How will they decide it? If they decideit one way, then they will make thesixthcause of invoking God's wrath, once again on the earth. They will begin to discover this approaching wrath: (1.) By God bringing confusion. (2.) By his breaking the government into pieces, or fragments, in which the negro will go and settle with those that favor this equality. (3.) In God pouring out the fire of his wrath, on this portion of them; but in what way, or in what form, none can tell until it comes, only that in severity it will equal in intensity and torture, the destruction of fire burning them up. (4.) The states or people that favor this equality and amalgamation of the white and black races,God will exterminate. To make the negro, the political, social and religious equal of the white race bylaw, bystatuteand byconstitutions, can easily be effected inwords; but so to elevate the negrojure divino, is simplyimpossible. You can not elevate abeastto the level of a son of God—a son of Adam and Eve—but you may depress the sons of Adam and Eve, with theirimpressof the Almighty,down to the level of a beast. God has made one for immortality, and the other to perish with the animals of the earth. The antediluvians once made this depression. Will the people of the United States make another,and the last? Yes, they will, for a large majority of the North are unbelievers in the Bible; and this paper will make a large number of their clergy deists and atheists. A man can not commit so great an offense against his race, against his country, against his God, in any other way, as to give his daughter in marriage to a negro—abeast—or to take one of their females for his wife. As well might he in the sight of God, wed his child to any other beast of forest or of field. This crimecan notbe expiated—it never has been expiated on earth—and from its nature never can be, and, consequently,never was forgiven by God, and never will be. The negro is now free. There are but two things on earth, that may be done with him now, and the people and government of this country escape destruction. One or the otherGod will make you do, ormake you accept his punishment, as he made Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, before you. Youmust send him back to Africaorre-enslave him. The former is the best,far the best. Now, which will my countrymen do? I do not sayfellow-citizens, as I regard myself but as a sojourner in the land, whose every political duty is now performed by obeyingyourlaws, be they good or bad—not voting, nor assisting others in makingyourlaws. Will my countrymen, in deciding for themselves these questions,remember—will they remember, that the first law of liberty is obedience to God. Without this obedience to the great and noble principles of God, truth, righteousness and justice, there can be no liberty, no peace, no prosperity, no happiness in any earthly government—if these are sacrificed or ignored, God will overturn and keep overturning, until mankind learn his truth, justice and mercy, and conform to them.
To the people of the South, we say,obedienceto God is better than all sacrifices. You have sacrificed all your negroes. It wasyour ancestors, that God made use of to form this noblest of all human governments—no others could do it. Do not be cast down at what has happened, and what isyet to happen—God will yet use you to reinstate and remodel this government, on its just and noble principles and at theproper time. The Northcan never do it. These are perilous times—theimpending decisions will be against you, and against God. But keep yourselves free fromthis sin—do not by your acts, nor by your votes, invite the negro equality—if it is forced upon you, as it will be—obey the laws—rememberingthat God will protect the righteous; and that his truth, like itself, will always be consistent, and like its Author, will be always andforever triumphant. The finger of God is in this. Trust him.The Bible is true.
July, 1840.
December, 1866.ARIEL.
Note1. Any candid scholar, wishing to address the writer, is informed, that any letter addressed to "Ariel," care of Messrs. Payne, James & Co., Nashville, Tennessee, during this summer and fall (1867), will reach him and command his attention.
Note2. Some few kinky-headed negroes, have been found embalmed on the Nile, but the inscriptions on their sarcophagii, fully explain who they were, and how they came to be there. They were generallynegro tradersfrom the interior of the country, and of much later dates.